Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20160622 AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING June 22, 2016 4:30 PM City Council Meeting Room 130 S Galena Street, Aspen I. SITE VISITS A. Please visit the project sites on your own. II. 4:30 INTRODUCTION A. Roll call B. Approval of minutes May 25, 2016 minutes C. Public Comments D. Commissioner member comments E. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent) F. Project Monitoring G. Staff comments H. Certificate of No Negative Effect issued I. Submit public notice for agenda items J. Call-up reports K. HPC typical proceedings III. 4:45 OLD BUSINESS A. 627 W. Main- Substantial Amendment to Major Development Approval, PUBLIC HEARING B. 834 W. Hallam- Conceptual Historic Major Development, Growth Management, Residential Design Standard Review, Special Review, Variances, Establishment of Affordable Housing Credits, PUBLIC HEARING IV. NEW BUSINESS V. 7:15 ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: 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 MAY 25, 2016 1 Chairperson, Willis Pember called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance were Nora Berko, Gretchen Greenwood, Patrick Sagal, Jim DeFrancia, John Whipple and Michael Brown. Bob Blaich was absent. Staff present: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Amy Simon, Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 980 Gibson Avenue – Final Major Development, Public Hearing Zone 4 – Bill Pollock and Eric Westerman Haas Planning, Mitch Haas Debbie said the affidavits have been properly provided and HPC can proceed. Amy said this site contains two historic structures. One has recently been subdivided and not part of the discussion. There are two miner’s cottages adjacent to each other that are currently hooked together with a garage. The garage will be demolished and the miner’s cottage that remains will be restored and a new house will be built next to it. It will be a single family house with a carriage. The applicant was asked to do two things since conceptual, move the miner’s cottage further away from Matchless Drive and to move the new house back so that the historic resource is the most prominent building. They were also asked to look at the roof overhang on the new structure as it is exaggerated. Both of those things have been accomplished. Landscape lighting, fenestration and materials will be addressed tonight. The historic structure is positioned backward and the house will be rotated around so that the front door will face Gibson Ave. Most of the restoration will be based on evidence of other miner’s cottages in town. There aren’t a lot of original materials left on the building and we don’t have photographs. Conditions of approval. Windows and doors need completely constructed new because they don’t exist now and they are a little too wide and squatty P1 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 25, 2016 2 which can be addressed during the building permit process. The roof fascia seems a little thick and we need to make sure those proportions are correct. Also the roofing material needs discussed. Shingles would be ideal but maybe a membrane could be discussed. New house. The overhang on the porch has been restudied and meets HPC’s direction. The design of the windows are somewhat contemporary and others have a tripartite organization where the header on the central window is taller than the flanking windows and we suggest there be a staff and monitor review on that window to unify it more. We need to make sure there is compatibility with the historic structure. Staff recommends approval. Patrick said the historic house seems close to Matchless and could it be moved back a little. Amy said they propose to move it two feet further away from Matchless. Gretchen asked about the lower level basement plan as it looks like the concrete walls are connected. Amy said at conceptual it was approved to have the two basement walls touch each other but they are required to fill in the common cavern with gravel or something to deter connecting them. A variance was given. Applicant presentation: Mitch said the window on the front has been brought down to the header height. The historic building will be re-oriented. Eric said we will try to save as many trees as we can. Mitch said there is a large separation between the two structures. The buildings are about 20 feet apart. The new house roof plan is a low one- story at the closest element. There will be a lot of staff and monitor work on this building to determine what windows etc. were original. Eric said the front door of the historic house is 7 feet tall and the windows key off of that height. We can look at making the door taller and then align the windows with the top of the door. The window proportion in the kitchen will drop at the counter height and we can make that narrower. P2 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 25, 2016 3 New house: Mitch said on the new house they prefer that the large window be different than the rest for the views. We picked up the fenestration from the other windows. We feel the windows shouldn’t match precisely. The landscape plan is basically grass and very simple. The front of the property is lawn and there are simple walkways. Eric said some of the lilacs will be moved during construction and transplanted back to give a buffer between the historic resource and the street. Most of the lighting is simple and recessed cans. Willis said staff indicated that the porch roof of the historic house might be too chunky. Bill said we are happy to work through how the fascia should be designed and also the roofing. Bill said the window mullions on the west elevation center can be lowered to respond to staff’s concern. Eric said asphalt shingles will be used on the historic cottage and cedar lap siding that will match the existing profile. Gretchen commented that she would like to see wood shingles on the historic roof. Eric said there will be a metal roof on the new house, standing seam profile with charcoal gray tones. The client is looking at a fiber cement material or a Prodema panel which is a wood like material that provides a 30 year warranty and has zero maintenance. The concept is that it is a wood like siding. The wood like material would be in the gables. The roof is a standing seam metal. Chairperson, Willis Pember opened the public hearing. Alan Becker, 950 Gibson Alan asked if the carriage house will have below grade space and what is the square footage above grade for the historic house and new house. There was also mentioned re-grading. P3 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 25, 2016 4 Mitch said the re-grading is at Matchless/ Herron Street. Engineering is requiring that the road surface be regraded and a drainage swell be installed to handle drainage. There is no sidewalk plan but room for one should that occur. On Gibson it doesn’t make sense to put a sidewalk in due to the grade differential and the fact that it doesn’t tie in with anything. Eric said the square footage for the cottage is about 500 to 600 square feet above grade and the main house with the garage is 2800 square feet above grade. Alan Becker said his concern is that the new house is being built across a roadway that was controlled by the City. My view plane will not be impacted but the people that live at 1050 will have some visual impacts. It’s always a sad day when your view is compromised. Chris Greenwood said she lives at 1050. When they did the quiet title I was also told that they couldn’t build on the property. How far is the house from the rear property line? Mitch said 38.9 from the rear property line. There will be a small retaining wall and the area will be flat. Chris said drainage has been a problem in that area. Mitch said there will be a functional improvement for the neighborhood. Chris asked if the historic house will be moved when the project starts. Eric said the historic house will be moved and either relocated to another site or moved to a corner of the property where the construction isn’t taking place at the time. The foundations will be built and then the historic house set on the foundation. Chris asked about the start date. Mitch said the hope is to start in the spring of 2017. Chairperson, Willis Pember closed the public hearing. Willis identified the issues: P4 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 25, 2016 5 Proportions of the historic windows when excavation occurs Porch roof on the historic resource Willis said there are no conditions on the new home. Patrick suggested giving the applicant direction once the walls are open. The perceived front of the new structure because of the 12 foot porch which will have some kind of a railing is going to make it look like the front of the house is the front deck and the deck goes a foot further out than the historic structure. Maybe it would be better to make the deck instead of 12 by 20 wide, make it ten or 8 feet so that it doesn’t stick out as far. Willis said that would recess the deck above as well because it is all tied together. Patrick said the upstairs deck is what is going to be seen because that is where the railing is. Michael said the window pattern on the garage side feels like they are haphazardly thrown in. The header on the front façade has been changed and should it be done on the other two on the north side. Gretchen said she is concerned about the Victorian simple massing and next door there is no relationship visually or sensitivity to the historic resource. It looks like there are three different styles of architecture. I am having a problem with the concept. Regarding the details the width of the trim and all the different kind of windows seems very weak to me. I prefer simplicity next to the cabins. There are deep overhangs and then a modern addition in the center and the forms of a gabled roof that somewhat articulate the historic resource but the combination doesn’t work for me. I would prefer the wood shingled roof rather than asphalt on the historic cabin. That would elevate the status of the building on the corner. The concept and site planning is excellent. Willis said in general the new building is very busy. John said our guidelines can be very subjective. There is a lot of good with the new building being detached 22 feet away from the historic cabin. There is a little more rhythm if the windows all align up but it’s not a deal breaker. There should be some flexibility. P5 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 25, 2016 6 Willis said the gray center reduce the scale on the front façade and it is clearly different. It is a modern insertion on the façade. Michael said the linear windows on the gray portion don’t feel like they have any continuity or place on the façade. Patrick said the gray area seems like it sticks out rather than making it less visible from the house and detracts from the historic house next door. Gretchen said maybe the concept is a progression of change in one building that reflects the historical history. John said when they dissect the house you will be able to see how the double hung windows work and what fits there. Raising the mullion to line up with the header line is a good suggestion. I’m more in trying to stay objective. Having the new building detached is good and I’m more flexible with the window. Nora said see feels the windows are a little chaotic. The cement wall seems like it competes with the historic resource. There is a lot of good but do you compromise with a lot of good and not make it a great project. The condition is that the windows need restudied with the monitor. Gretchen said the breakup of the mass in the center piece works. I would stand behind staff’s recommendations. Willis said the bigger problems are on the fabric of the new construction, the wood siding and the tripartite divisions of the windows. The flanking windows should be more consistent. Maybe reduce the number of new materials on the new building. There are so many materials and so many window shapes. The condition says restudy the proposed windows of the new house to become more similar in shape and size and proportion to the historic resource. Willis said we could add an additional condition to restudy the new construction and eliminating one of the exterior materials. All agreed. Patrick asked the board that the roof of the historic building be wood shingles rather than asphalt. Gretchen agreed. P6 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 25, 2016 7 Jim pointed out that wood shingles have implications on fire ratings and the technology for asphalt shingles has advanced dramatically. Willis said it is refreshing not to see wood shingles because it represents more modesty. Amy pointed out that asphalt was used in the community and asphalt roofs are signed off routinely with a thickened shingle. MOTION: Willis moved to approve resolution #16 with the following changes. #2 insert the work proportion. #3 restudy of the new construction the possibility of eliminating one of the exterior materials. Motion second by Jim. Gretchen said it seems like we are approving a building that is not resolved or worked out. Michael agreed and he would like to see more effort from the applicant and the project could be better. The site plan is good and has good attributes. Patrick and Michael said there are a lot of conditions to put on the monitor. John said you always have the flexibility to kickback a decision you are mulling on back to the board and it happens quite frequently. I’m comfortable with the scope and the elimination of a material to be approved by staff and monitor. Roll call vote: Patrick, no; Gretchen, yes; John, yes; Jim, yes; Nora, yes; Michael, no; Willis, yes. Motion carried 5-2. Patrick is the monitor. 135 E. Cooper Ave. – Minor Development, Public hearing Debbie recused herself. Kathy commented that the affidavit of posting has been properly provided, Exhibit I Amy said the proposal is the modify an existing connector piece which links the piece of the Victorian Era house on the site to a new addition that was P7 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 25, 2016 8 approved by HPC several years ago. This is the 5th time the group as discussed the project and staff as recommended denial. The connector that is there now is consistent with other connectors that have been allowed for other projects, a one story minimal element that is creating basically a passageway between the new and old. The owner has concerns how the house flows which we are sympathetic to but we did not design the interior layout. The proposed connector is taller than the historic resource and it is of a very contrasting material which is OK but not so when it becomes a two story winding staircase element that has presence on the site. One historic window would need moved. At the last meeting Gretchen suggested if the plan is amended and the connector tucked under the eave of the historic resource then that would be acceptable. As it turns out that isn’t physically possible. We find that the design guidelines aren’t met and this is not something that HPC should allow. Amy said the color of the addition which we don’t regulate makes it too unified and it is harder to distinguish new from old. Michael said the addition looks like the same style as the resource. It is precisely what we are trying to avoid today. Willis commented that the applicant is saying a one story connector is preferred but it is not required. Dillon Johns, Zone 4 architecture Mitch Haas, Haas Planning Mitch said the existing link while it is a one story is unsuccessful. It is not in proportion with the historic resource or the addition. This is a large Victorian and large addition. People can’t tell where the old ends and the new begins. Improving the function of the house with a two story link that is clearly modern and clearly of its own time helps to separate the new from the old. The majority of the commission agreed since the connector is set so far back from the front property line. The purpose of the HPC was to draw a reasonable balance between private property rights and the public interest in preserving these resources. Our feeling the reasonable balance is letting the thing function properly and that in doing so we can better differentiate the old from the new. The commission agreed to work with us granting an approval with the condition that the link into the historic resource stay below the eave line. It is physically impossible to do that and results in a ceiling P8 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 25, 2016 9 height on the first floor of 7’6”, quite low and a condition that you have to walk down steps and land on a landing and go back up steps to get under the eave line. We have re-designed the link again where the bulk of it is pushed up against the new construction and as far off of the historic house can you can get while providing minimum widths for the stairs and keeping the height low. Dillon said we had several meetings trying to locate the most optimal place for the connection. We don’t have a lot of room to work with regarding the stair. We turned the roof into glass and the top of the connection is where the hatching ends. In the spirit of trying to delineating the two structures we feel the new design is helping to do that. The stairs are an open tread design to maximumize the visual trend through the space so it tries to remain as open as possible. We have a minimum ceiling height of 7’6” and we are at 7’2” and the code does not allow for that to happen. We have an odd condition of trying to slip underneath. We have tried to minimumize the width of the cut into the eave line so that you have historic eave lines on both sides where you cut into it. Mitch said the existing link is not differentiating the two and we feel this one will and will solve the functional issue of the home. Gretchen asked if this is approved which staircase on the inside gets eliminated. There is a staircase that goes up in the addition to the bedroom. Are you gutting the building and taking the staircases out? We aren’t seeing what the future plans of the building are. Dillon said we have not be asked to look at that. We need to cross this threshold first. Gretchen said it is clear that one staircase services the master bedroom in the new addition and the other serves the lower level. Mitch said the new proposed stair case will serve all levels and neither needs to remain. Gretchen said you will be taking out the historic staircase. Mitch said we will have a no net gain. There is a loft area, the attic that will go away. P9 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 25, 2016 10 Gretchen said maybe it is time to remodel the building and have an interior solution. Mitch said they looked at a lot of interior solutions but none of them get the two second floors together without having to go down and across and back up other than this one. Gretchen said you have two staircases getting to two levels. Two bedrooms in the upper level of the historic building and one bedroom and a big master bath at the other level and each has their own staircase. Mitch said every time they have a sick kid in a bedroom they have to go down the stairs across the house and back up the stairs. This has been an ongoing problem in this house. The owner won’t let us go any further. Without getting the link approved she is not going to pay anyone to design anything else in the house. Michael asked if the connector pushes forward toward Cooper and how far? Dillon said yes it has been shifted toward Cooper about 5 feet to minimize the impact of the existing fabric. Michael said the problems were created when they did the addition and they are now trying to solve. The connector is so squat that it doesn’t jive with 10.7 guideline today. Amy said when the project came in it had a two story connector and HPC discussed it then and HPC felt that the one story connector was a win. This has been going on for quite some time. Michael asked if the applicant could tear down the addition and redo the entire thing. Amy said yes they could. Gretchen asked if they considered a straight run of the stairs next to the addition and then build the stairs on the new part of the addition. Dillon said what happens is we still have to pierce the roof and disturb the same amount of fabric on the historic resource and the other concern is that we were getting too close to Cooper Ave. P10 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 25, 2016 11 Nora said there is one window being moved to an area where there never was a window. Willis said he did a project in which the 7 foot ceiling height was OK. Amy said this is new construction and she doesn’t feel the Bldg. Dept. has that kind of exception. Gretchen said 7 feet is in the code. Dillon said he scrutinized the code to make sure they were complying with it. Nora pointed out that this is a National Historic Registered building. Amy said it is honorary and they could still tear the building down if we didn’t have our own local ordinances that prevent changes. We should be extra sensitive to what is happening. Willis pointed out that there is a new code, IEBC for existing structures. John said maybe a two story connector would work if it was transparent and there was some effort to distinguish the two homes. Maybe change the fenestration on the modern addition and have a different material to separate the two. Is the applicant amenable to changing anything? Mitch said they might be able to approach the applicant for some subtle changes. Dillon said he also feels there could be some consideration. Chair-person, Willis Pember opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Jim said he supports staff’s recommendations. As proposed it doesn’t meet the guidelines. John said he would continue this one more time and have the applicant take the ideas back to the owner. P11 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 25, 2016 12 Gretchen said the code said ceiling heights of not less than 7 feet. You haven’t pushed it far enough and in looking at the drawing you could accommodate that. Do a clear shot low and the stairs go up. Willis said they were approved at a previous hearing if that condition was met that the eaves weren’t violated. The middle section does work by code and they wouldn’t need to be here tonight. Gretchen said a two story connector would be OK and you could minimize it and keep it away from the historic resource. Patrick said this application should be denied. The second story connector has been a bad idea since the first meeting. A one story connector has been preferred on every HPC decision made. Michael said if you go to the design guidelines this project doesn’t meet any of them as it sits. Nora said our charge is to protect the historic structure. How are we protecting the historic resource. I totally get the flow but that is not what we should be looking at. The condition is that it should go under the eave and that hasn’t happened. Jim recused himself. Michael pointed out that right now it looks like one house. There are many things they can do to try and distinguish the historic resource from the addition. This an opportunity to right the wrong’s. We are all steadfast that this proposal doesn’t work. Gretchen said she feels there is a solution under the eave. Willis said he feels the board should revert to the previous approval and they can decide whether they want to come back or not. It is way too prominent and it is visible on two streets. They could work from the old resolution. Michael asked if it was continued could they “right” some of the design guidelines and work on the connection piece to satisfy everyone to make the P12 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 25, 2016 13 addition a product of its own time and not make it look like it is part of the historic house. Willis said the glass connection does separate the two constructions more than the existing one story connector which is painted blue. Patrick pointed out that draperies will be put on the clear connector on both floors and it won’t look separate at all. We can’t tell them what to do on the inside. Michael said they have an approval but if they go forward I don’t think it would be great for the community. Continuation giving them the message that they should try to achieve design excellence and do something that will meet the design guidelines we will potentially see something better. John said materiality and fenestration could separate the two drastically. I’m up for leaving the conversation open one more time. Michael said to me the optics of this entire thing is that the owner with their paint colors etc. is trying to create one massive compound. Patrick agreed. Michael said if we continue this and they want to meet the design guidelines and distinguish the addition from the historical resource it could be a great project. John said materiality and fenestration could achieve what is needed. Willis said they don’t have to come back at all because they have an approval. Gretchen said their approval is transparent and to be under the fascia. Amy said it might end up having a different shape to it and different materiality. Gretchen said she would be happy to work with the applicant on the previous approval. That is what we are looking for. P13 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 25, 2016 14 MOTION: Patrick moved to deny the application for resolution #17; second by Gretchen. Roll call vote: Michael, no; John no; Nora, yes; Willis, yes; Patrick, yes; Gretchen, yes. Motion carried 4-2. MOTION: Willis moved to adjourn; second by Gretchen. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk P14 II.B. C:\Program Files (x86)\Neevia.Com\Document Converter\temp\9221.doc 6/16/2016 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 209 E. Bleeker ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Jim DeFrancia 435 W. Main, AJCC 420 E. Cooper 420 E. Hyman 407 E. Hyman ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Gretchen Greenwood 28 Smuggler Grove 135 E. Cooper 1280 Ute 211 E. Hallam ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Willis Pember Aspen Core 101 E. Hallam 229 W. Smuggler 407 E. Hyman Patrick Sagal 701 N. Third 612 W. Main 212 Lake Holden Marolt derrick 333 W. Bleeker 980 Gibson John Whipple Aspen Core 201 E. Hyman 549 Race 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 P15 II.F. TYPICAL PROCEEDING Provide proof of legal notice (affidavit of notice for PH) Staff presentation (5 minutes) Board questions and clarifications (5 minutes) Applicant presentation (20 minutes) Board questions and clarifications (5 minutes) Public comments (close public comment portion of hearing) (5 minutes) Applicant rebuttal (5 minutes) Chairperson identifies the issues to be discussed (5 minutes) HPC discussion (15 minutes) Motion (5 minutes) *Make sure the motion includes what criteria are met or not met. No meeting of the HPC shall be called to order without a quorum consisting of at least four (4) members being present. No meeting at which less than a quorum shall be present shall conduct any business other than to continue the agenda items to a date certain. All actions shall require the concurring vote of a simple majority, but in no event less than three (3) concurring votes of the members of the commission then present and voting. Procedure for amending motions: A “friendly amendment” to a Motion is a request by a commissioner to the commissioner who made the Motion and to the commissioner who seconded it, to amend their Motion. If either of these two do not accept the “friendly” amendment request, the requesting commissioner may make a formal motion to amend the Motion along the lines he/she previously requested. If there is no second to the motion to amend the Motion, there is no further discussion on the motion to amend, it dies for a lack of a second; discussion and voting on the Motion may then proceed. If there is a second to the motion to amend the Motion, it can be discussed and must be voted upon before any further discussion and voting on the Motion for which the amendment was requested. If the vote is in favor of amending the Motion, discussion and voting then proceeds on the Amended Motion. If the vote on the motion to amend fails, discussion and voting on the Motion as originally proposed may then proceed. P16 II.K. 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 627 W. Main Street- Substantial Amendment to Major Development, Public Hearing DATE: June 22, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY: 627 W. Main is a one and a half story brick home, constructed in 1892. The property is landmark designated and located in the Main Street Historic District. In 2008, HPC granted approval for a new addition behind this home, along with a 500 square foot floor area bonus as incentive to remove the paint that had been applied to the historic brick. The owner undertook construction of the project, including the paint removal, but did not build the second floor of the addition. The building permit remains valid due to continued construction progress and periodic inspections. The owner’s priorities for the design of the upper floor have changed and a Substantial Amendment approval is requested. APPLICANT: Douglas Kelso, represented Forum Phi. PARCEL ID: 2735-1224-48-010 . ADDRESS: 627 W. Main Street, Lot B, Block 25, City and Townsite of Aspen. ZONING: MU, Mixed Use. MAJOR DEVELOPMENT- SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT Land Use Code Section 26.415.070.E.2: Substantial Amendment: All changes to approved plans that materially modify the location, size, shape, materials, design, detailing or appearance of the building elements as originally depicted must be approved by the HPC as a substantial amendment. P17 III.A. 2 The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project’s conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. Staff Response: The attached drawings provide a comparison of the approved vs. proposed conditions. The project involves only a small change to building footprint, in the form of a proposed new mechanical room on the east side of the garage. This addition does not touch historic fabric. It does however sit in the required sideyard setback. The mechanical room was not part of the previously approved plan and no variance was requested or noticed as part of this review. The architect must propose a reconfiguration of the space that does not require a setback variance. HPC’s primary focus is review of three possible options to reconfigure the second floor to be built at the back of the historic structure. One significant difference from the approved project is that, in the approved version, a second floor closet/hallway was allowed to attach to the south facing gable end of the Victorian so that one could walk through to the new second floor master bedroom. The applicant is proposing to remove that space. There is no enclosed connection between the new second floor master and the rest of the home. Substantial Amendment review combines Conceptual and Final design into one discussion, so HPC is considering height, scale, massing, proportions, lighting, fenestration and materials. The scope of work is however, relatively small. The three alternatives to the existing approval are: Option 1; a shed roof rising towards the alley. Staff finds that this creates a more broad vertical wall behind the historic resource than occurs in the approved addition. The orientation of this shed roof is uncharacteristic of the historic architecture. Staff does not support Option 1, finding that guidelines 10.3, 10.9 and 10.14 are not met. Option 1 also includes stucco as the surface for the ground floor of the new construction. This is not a material that is found on the historic resource, nor does it relate to the qualities of the materials on the historic resource, per guideline 7.2. Option 2; a gable roof with the ridge rising towards alley. In this design, the plate height behind the historic structure is approximately 8’, and rises to approximately 10’ at the alley. A 10’ upper floor plate height is uncharacteristic of the historic resource. This option could be acceptable if the ridgeline was parallel to the ground, although the 4:12 roof pitch is very shallow compared to the steep pitch of the Victorian. Option 3; a shed roof with the high side facing east. This option does create more vertical wall behind house than the existing approval, however the shed is pitching the same direction as the west facing roof on the historic structure, which is more appropriate than the orientation in Option 1. Designed with a 2:12 pitch, this Option also does not reflect the Victorian roof form. P18 III.A. 3 Staff does find that these new options improve the project by creating physical separation between new and old on the second floor level. Option 1 or 3 could be restudied to meet the guidelines. This home is in a historic district, with another Victorian home located to the west, as seen below. Staff recommends continuation of the project for additional study of Options 2 and 3, or another solution. Continuation is also necessary because there are either errors in the floor area calculations provided, or the proposal exceeds the allowed floor area. This property was allowed 2,400 square feet of floor area, until the owner created and sold one TDR. The maximum floor area is 2,150 square feet. The proposal may not comply with the reduction that resulted from the TDR. In addition, the maximum deck area is 15% x 2,150 square feet, not 15% x 2,400 square feet, therefore the proposed calculations indicate that the project is over the deck exemption by 43 square feet. 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 continue this Substantial Amendment to July 27th. P19 III.A. 4 Exhibits: A. Relevant HPC Guidelines B. Application Exhibit A: Relevant HPC Design Guidelines, Substantial Amendment 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. 10.5 When planning an addition to a building in a historic district, preserve historic alignments that may exist on the street. Some roof lines and porch eaves on historic buildings in the area may align at approximately the same height. An addition should not be placed in a location where these relationships would be altered or obscured. 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. P20 III.A. 5 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. 10.11 On a new addition, use exterior materials that are compatible with the historic materials of the primary building. The new materials should be either similar or subordinate to the original materials. 10.14 The roof form and slope of a new addition should be in character with the historic building. If the roof of the historic building is symmetrically proportioned, the roof of the addition should be similar. Eave lines on the addition should be similar to those of the historic building or structure. 7.16 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those of the Victorian era residences seen traditionally on Main Street. T h e s e i n c l u d e w i n d o w s , d o o r s a n d porches. Overall, details should be modest in character. 7.17 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged. This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings. Highly complex and ornately detailed revival styles that were not a part of Aspen’s history are especially discouraged. 7.20 Use building materials that are similar to those used historically. When selecting materials, reflect the simple and modest character of historic materials and their placement. 7.21 Use roofing materials that are similar in appearance to those seen historically. 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. 14.7 Minimize the visual impacts of site and architectural lighting. Unshielded, high intensity light sources and those which direct light upward will not be permitted. Shield lighting associated with service areas, parking lots and parking structures. P21 III.A. 6 Timers or activity switches may be required to prevent unnecessary sources of light by controlling the length of time that exterior lights are in use late at night. Do not wash an entire building facade in light. Avoid placing exposed light fixtures in highly visible locations, such as on the upper walls of buildings. Avoid duplicating fixtures. For example, do not use two fixtures that light the same area. P22 III.A. P23 III.A. P24 III.A. P25 III.A. P26 III.A. P27 III.A. P28 III.A. P29 III.A. P30 III.A. P31 III.A. P32 III.A. 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM HPC COVER CVR 001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019 020 021 022 023 024 025 026 027 028 029 030 031 032 033 034 035 036 037 038 SITE PLAN FAR CALCS EXISTING MAIN LEVEL EXISTING UPPER LEVEL EXISTING ROOF PLAN MAIN LEVEL OPT 1 UPPER LEVEL OPT 1 ROOF PLAN OPT 1 ELEVATIONS OPT 1 ELEVATIONS OPT 1 ELEVATIONS OPT 1 SECTIONS OPT 1 3D VIEW OPT 1 3D VIEW OPT 1 3D VIEW OPT 1 3D VIEW OPT 1 MAIN LEVEL OPT 2 UPPER LEVEL OPT 2 ROOF PLAN OPT 2 ELEVATIONS OPT 2 ELEVATIONS OPT 2 ELEVATIONS OPT 2 SECTIONS OPT 2 3D VIEW OPT 2 3D VIEW OPT 2 3D VIEW OPT 2 3D VIEW OPT 2 MAIN LEVEL OPT 3 UPPER LEVEL OPT 3 ROOF PLAN OPT 3 ELEVATIONS OPT 3 ELEVATIONS OPT 3 ELEVATIONS OPT 3 SECTIONS OPT 3 3D VIEW OPT 3 3D VIEW OPT 3 3D VIEW OPT 3 3D VIEW OPT 3 LAND USE APPROVALS LAND USE APPROVALS SURVEY 627 W MAIN ST ASPEN CO 81611 USA 627 W MAIN ST. SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT TO RESOLUTION #9, SERIES 2008 FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM: NFPA 13D (EXISTING TO BE REVISED PER PLANS) CODE EDITIONS: 2009 IRC, 2009 IMC, 2009 IECC, 2009 IPC, 2009 IFGC, 2011 NEC, CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 8 MASTER BUILDING PERMIT NUMBER 0085.2008.ARBK SCOPE OF WORK INCLUDES: RECONFIGURATION OF UPPER LEVEL BEDROOM/BATH ADDITION, DECKS AND ROOF LAYOUTS HPC PRESENTATION SHEET INDEX P 3 3 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM LAND USE APPROVALS ORDINANCE N0 2 SERIES OF 2008 AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ESTABLISHING ONE 1 250 SQUARE FEET OF FLOOR AREA HISTORIC TRANSERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHT CERTIFICATE FOR THE SENDING SITE OF 627 W MAIN STREET LOT B BLOCK 25 CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN PITKIN COUNTY COLORADO PARCEL NO 273512448010 WHEREAS the Community Development Department received an application from Douglas Kelso owner hereinafter the Applicant represented by Steev Wilson Forum Phi requesting the establishment of one 1 Historic Transferable Development Right Certificate for the property located at 627 W Main Street Lot B Block 25 City And Townsite Of Aspen Pitkin County Colorado and WHEREAS the subject property is zoned MU Mixed Use and contains asingle family home and WHEREAS 627 W Main Street Lot B Block 25 City And Townsite Of Aspen Pitkin County Colorado is listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures and WHEREAS in order to establish a Historic Transferable Development Right Certificate the applicant shall meet the following requirements of Aspen Municipal Code Section 26535070which is as follows 26535070 Review Criteria for the Establishment of Historic Transferable Development Right A Historic TDR Certificate for 250 square feet of Floor Area may be established by the Mayor of the City of Aspen if the City Council pursuant to adoption of an ordinance finding all the following standards met A The Sending Site is a Historic Landmark on which the development of a single family or duplex residence is a permitted use pursuant to Chapter 26710 Properties on which such development is a conditional use shall not be eligible B It is demonstrated that the Sending Site has permitted unbuilt development rights for either a singlefamily or duplex home equaling or exceeding two hundred and fifty 250 square feet of Floor Area multiplied by the number ofHistoric TDR Certificates requested C It is demonstrated that the establishment of TDR Certificates will not create a nonconformity In cases where nonconformity already exists the action shall not increase the specific nonconformity D The analysis of unbuilt development right shall not only include the actual built development any approved development order the allowable development right prescribed by zoning and shall not include the potential of the Sending Site to gain Floor Area bonuses exemptions or similar potential development incentives E Any development order to develop Floor Area beyond that remaining legally connected to the property after establishment of TDR Certificates shall be considered null and void F The proposed deed restriction permanently restricts the development of the property the Sending Site to an allowable Floor Area not exceeding the allowance for a singlefamily or duplex residence minus two hundred and fifty 250 square feet of Floor Area multiplied by the number of Historic TDR Certificates established The deed restriction shall not stipulate an absolute Floor Area but shall stipulate a square footage reduction from the allowable Floor Area as may be amended from time to time The Sending Site shall remain eligible far certain Floor Area incentives andor exemptions as may be authorized by the Ciry of Aspen Land Use Code as maybe amendedfrom time to time Theform of the deed restriction shall be acceptable to the City Attorney G A real estate closing has been scheduled at which upon satisfaction of all relevant requirements the Ciry shall execute and deliver the applicable number ofHistoric TDR Certificates to the Sending Siteproperty owner and that property owner shall execute and deliver a deed restriction lessening the available development right of the subject property together with the appropriate fee for recording the deed restriction with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorders Office H It shall be the responsibility of the Sending Site property owner to provide building plans and a zoning analysis of the Sending Site to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director Certain review fees may be requiredfor the confirmation of bullt Floor Area and WHEREAS upon review of the application and the applicable code standards the Community Development Deparhnent recommended approval with conditions of the proposed establishment of one 1 Historic Transferable Development Right and WHEREAS the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing and WHEREAS the City Council finds that the request to establish one 1 Historic Transferable Development Rights meets the intent of the Aspen Historic Preservation Program and is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan and WHEREAS the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health safety and welfare NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN AS FOLLOWS Section 1 The City Council finds that the application meets all required standards and eligibility as stated in Section 26535030 and Section 26535070 and applicants submission is complete and sufficient to afford review and evaluation for approval and Section 2 The City Council does hereby establish one 1 Historic Transferable Development Right of 250 square feet of Floor Area to the sending site located at 627 W Main Street Lot B Block 25 City And Townsite Of Aspen Pitkin County Colorado with the following conditions 1 Upon satisfaction of all requirements the city and the applicant shall establish a date on which the Historic TDR Certificate shall be validated and issued by the City and a deed restriction on the property shall be accepted by the City and Filed with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder 2 On the mutually agreed upon date the Mayor of the City of Aspen shall execute and deliver the Historic TDR Certificate to the property owner and the property owner shall execute and deliver a deed restriction lessening the available development rights of the Sending Site 627 W Main Street Lot B Block 25 City And Townsite Of Aspen Pitkin County Colorado by 250 square feet together with the appropriate fee for recording the deed restriction with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorders Office Section 3 This Ordinance 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 construed and concluded under such prior ordinances Section 4 If any section subsection sentence clause phrase or portion of this Ordinance 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 ofthe remaining portions thereof Section 5 A public hearing on the ordinance will be held on the 10h day of March 2008 in the City Council Chambers Aspen City Hall Aspen Colorado Section 7 This ordinance shall become effective thirty 30 days following final passage INTRODUCED READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by the City Council of the City ofAspen on the 11 February 2008 Michael C Ireland Mayor Attes C thryn S K City Jerk FINALLY adopted passed and approved this 10hday ofMarch 2008 Michael C Ireland Mayor Approved as to form 3z n orcester City Attorney cc.ord.002-08 cc.ord.002-08 cc.ord.002-08 cc.ord.002-08 P 3 4 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM LAND USE APPROVALS A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION HPC APPROVING MAJOR DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTUAL AND AN FAR BONUS FOR 627 W MAIN STREET LOT B BLOCK 25 CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN PITKIN COUNTY COLORADO RESOLUTION N09SERIES OF 2008 PARCEL ID 273707330010 WHEREAS the applicant Doug Kelso represented by Steev Wilson Forum Phi has requested approval for Major Development Conceptual and an FAR bonus in order to make an addition to his residence at 627 W Main Street Lot B Block 25 City and Townsite of Aspen Pitkin County Colorado and WHEREAS Section 26415070of the Municipal Code states that no building or structure shall be erected constructed enlazged altered repaired relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review and WHEREAS for Conceptual Major Development Review the HPC must review the application a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the projects conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26415070D3b2and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections The HPC may approve disapprove approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny and WHEREAS for approval of an FAR bonus the HPC must review the application a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at ahearing to determine per Section 264151100of the Municipal Code that a The design of the project meets all applicable design guidelines and b The historic building is the key element ofthe property and the addition is incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic building andor c The work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appeazance andor d The new construction is reflective of the proportional patterns found in the historic buildings form materials or openings andor e The construction materials are of the highest quality andor An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions ofthe building andor g The project retains a historic outbuilding andor h Notable historic site and landscape features aze retained and WHEREAS Amy Guthrie in her staff report dated May 14 2008 performed an analysis of the application based on the review standazds and the City of Asnen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines and recommended HPC approve the project an RECEPTION 550529 061262008 at 092529AM 1 OF 2 R 1100Doc Code RESOLUTION Janice K Vos Caudill Pitkin County CO WHEREAS at their regulaz meeting on May 14 2008 the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application found that it was consistent with the review standards and City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines and granted approval by a vote of 4 to 2 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED That HPC grants Major Development Conceptual and a 500 squaze foot FAR bonus for the property located at 627 W Main Street Lot B Block 25 City and Townsite of Aspen Colorado as proposed APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION on the 14th day ofMay 2008 Approved as to Form Jim True Assistty AtAttorney Approved as to content HISTORIC PRESERVA ION COMMISSION Michael Hoffman Chair ATTEST Kathy Strickland Chief Deputy Clerk A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION HPC APPROVING MAJOR DEVELOPMENT FINAL FOR 627 W MAIN STREET LOT B BLOCK 25 CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN PITKIN COUNTY COLORADO RESOLUTION NO 16 SERIES OF 2008 PARCEL ID 273707330010 WHEREAS the applicant Doug Kelso represented by Steev Wilson Forum Phi has requested approval for Major Development Final in order to make an addition to his residence at 627 W Main Street Lot B Block 25 City and Townsite of Aspen Pitkin County Colorado and WHEREAS Section 26415070of 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 projects conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26415070D3b2 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 Guthrie in her staff report dated July 9 2008 performed an analysis of the application based on the review standards and the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines and recommended HPC approve the project and WHEREAS at their regular meeting on July 9 2008 the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application found that it was consistent with the review standards and City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines and granted approval by a vote of 4 to 1 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED That HPC grants Major Development Final for the property located at 627 W Main Street Lot B Block 25 City and Townsite of Aspen Colorado with the following conditions 1 HPC granted a 500 square foot FAR bonus as part of the Conceptual review of the project 2 Staff will review and approve test patches of the brick restoration to ensure proper preservation ofthe masonry 3 HPC staff and monitor must approve any changes with regard to the type and location of exterior lighting fixtures by reviewing a plan prior to wiring purchasing or installing the fixtures 4 Information on all venting locations and meter locations not described in the approved drawings shall be provided for review and annroval by staff and monitor when the information is available RECEPTION 553881 10302008at 091841AM t OF 3 R 1600Doc Code RESOLUTION Janice K Vos Caudill Pitkin County CO 5 There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor or the full board 6 The conditions of approval will be required to be printed on the cover sheet of the building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction 7 The applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of the HPC resolution applicable to this project The contractor must submit a letter addressed to HPC staff as part of the building permit application indicating that all conditions of approval are known and understood and must meet with the Historic Preservation Officer prior to applying for the building permit 8 The development approvals granted herein shall constitute asitespecific 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 26104050 Void permits Zoning that is not part of the approved sitespecific 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 adevelopment order as set forth in this Ordinance the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title Such notice shall be substantially in the following form Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and the creation of a vested property right valid for a period of three 3 yeazs 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 604 West Main 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 26304070AThe rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION on the 9th day ofJuly 2008 Approved as to Form ATTEST im True Assistant City Attorney Kathy Stric and Chief Deputy Clerk Approved as to content HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Michael Hoffman air 5 There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor or the full board 6 The conditions of approval will be required to be printed on the cover sheet of the building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction 7 The applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of the HPC resolution applicable to this project The contractor must submit a letter addressed to HPC staff as part of the building permit application indicating that all conditions of approval are known and understood and must meet with the Historic Preservation Officer prior to applying for the building permit 8 The development approvals granted herein shall constitute asitespecific 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 26104050 Void permits Zoning that is not part of the approved sitespecific 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 adevelopment order as set forth in this Ordinance the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title Such notice shall be substantially in the following form Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and the creation of a vested property right valid for a period of three 3 yeazs 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 604 West Main 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 26304070AThe rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter coa.hpc.res.009-08 coa.hpc.res.016-08 coa.hpc.res.016-08 ASPEN HISTORICAL DISTRICT - VICINITY PLAN SITE: 627 WEST MAIN STREET P 3 5 I I I . A . P 3 6 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM SITE PLAN 001 8" ASPEN 10" ASPEN PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE EXISTING STRUCTURE 1 2 3 A1.1 SHEET TITLE STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS MECHANICAL SURVEYOR GEOTECH COPYRIGHT FORUM PHI PROJECT NO:0608 DRAWN BY:SMW CIVIL CONTRACTOR DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL HPC 5/1/08 CD 6/13/08 CONSULTANTS HPC 7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL 10/23/08 REVISIONS 5/7/09 REVISIONS 08/18/10 REVISIONS SITE PLAN 627 W. MAIN ST ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 FORUM PHI 174 Midland Ave, Suite 201 P.O. Box 1606 Basalt, Colorado 81621 PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585 DOUGLAS KELSO #### KELSO ADDITION Rocky Mountain Surveying 4133 Crystal Springs Rd. Carbondale, CO 81623 Phone: (970) 379-1919 Fax: (970) 963-5873 Yeh and Associates, Inc. 170 Mel Ray Road Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: (970) 384-1500 Fax: (970) 384-1501 Efficiency In Mind, LLC P.O. Box 1481 Carbondale, CO 81623 Phone: (970) 274-6336 Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd. P.O. Box 978 Avon, CO 81620 Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221 Fax: (970) 949-9339 Mozer-Renn Structural Service 8573 E. Napa Place Denver, CO 80237 Phone: (720) 212-0727 Fax: (303) 484-8958 DATE OF PUBLICATION8/31/2010 SD SD 1 9 R @ 7 " = 1 1 ' - 1 " 1 8 T @ 1 1 3 / 8 " = 1 7 ' - 0 5 / 8 " U P 12345678910111213141516171819 3 5 ' - 3 1 / 8 " 5 ' - 6 1 / 1 6 " 1 1 5 / 1 6 " 10' 5' 5' 5' 3' - 2 " RADON MITIGATION VENT LOCATION FINAL LOCATION T.B.D. AREA TO BE DEMOLISHED EXTERIOR WALLS TO BE COMPLETELY REMOVED STONE WALK 28.08'13.82' x x x x 952.29' N09°03'13"E P . O . B . D 8 " D L 1 1 ' D 5 " D L 5 ' D 1 0 " D L 7 ' D 8 " D L 1 3 ' D 7 " D L 8 ' L O T B 0 . 0 6 8 A C ± 3 0 . 0 0 ' N 7 5 ° 0 9 ' 1 1 " W 100.00'S14°50'49"W 3 0 . 0 0 ' S 7 5 ° 0 9 ' 1 1 " E 100.00'N14°50'49"E WM S T O N E W A L L C O N C . . P A T I O CONC.. WALK P A T I O S T O N E S H E D W O O D CONC.. WALK O.H. T Y P . CONC.. WALK C U R B D I T C H REBAR AN D Y P C LS# 1 6 1 2 9 ELEV=79 2 4 . 5 8 R E B A R A N D R P C L S # 2 5 9 4 7 REBA R A N D RPC L S # 2 5 9 4 7 9 1 8 4 E L E V = 7 9 2 6 . 8 4 S I N G L E F A M I L Y R E S I D E N C E 2 2 . 3 25.0 1 . 4 1.61 . 4 31.5 2 2 . 3 58.1 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x xxxxxxxxxxxxxx x xxx x x x x x x x x x x EM G M 792 5 7925 7 9 2 6 SETBACK SE T B A C K SETBACK SE T B A C K KITCHEN 02 BEDROOM 05 CLOSET 07 GARAGE 08 PDR 19 BATHROOM 06 ENTRY 04 LIVING ROOM 01 EXISTING - 1,276 SF 256.30 sq ft EXISTING - 640.5 SF DECK - 270.98 sq ft DECK - 85.36 sq ft 476.5 SF 2 3 3 A SITE PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0" 0 BASEMENT FAR 1" = 10'1 MAIN FLOOR FAR 1" = 10'2 UPPER FLOOR FAR 1" = 10' 0 SF 0 SF TOTAL FAR TOTAL UPPER FLOOR FAR F.A.R. CALCULATION - TOTAL MAIN FLOOR AREA - EXISTING BASEMENT FLOOR AREA - EXISTING TOTAL MAIN FLOOR FAR 0 SF UPPER FLOOR AREA - EXISTING TOTAL EXISTING FAR UPPER FLOOR AREA - EXISTING MAIN FLOOR AREA - EXISTING ALLOWABLE DECKS (15%)360 SF 2,150 SF F.A.R. CALCULATION - EXISTING ALLOWABLE FAR (2,400 - 250 = 2,150) 0 SF % EXPOSED (0%) 0 SF 0 SF 0% 3.15 SF 3.15 SF 3.15 SF F.A.R. CALCULATION - APPROVED MAIN FLOOR AREA - APPROVED GARAGE AREA - APPROVED (256.30 - 250 = 6.30/2 = 3.15) TOTAL MAIN FLOOR FAR - APPROVED UPPER FLOOR AREA - APPROVED TOTAL UPPER FLOOR FAR - APPROVED BASEMENT FLOOR AREA - APPROVED TOTAL BASEMENT FAR - APPROVED MAIN FLOOR AREA - APPROVED UPPER FLOOR AREA - APPROVED BASEMENT FLOOR AREA - APPROVED TOTAL BASEMENT FAR - APPROVED 1,276 SF 640.5 SF 1,916.5 SF 1916.5 DECK AREA - APPROVED (271+85.5 - 360) 493.45 1,276 SF 1279.15 SF 640.5 SF TOTAL FAR AFTER DEMO ( 1916.5 - 370 = 1546.5)1,546.5 SF 1117 SF 2,396.15 SF 2,396.15 476.5 SF 476.5 SF 476.5 SF 0 SF N PROPOSED SITE PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0" CHANGE ORDER 3 APPROVED SITE PLAN P 3 7 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM FAR CALCS 002 1 2 3 A1.1 SHEET TITLE STRUCTURALCONSULTANTSMECHANICALSURVEYORGEOTECH COPYRIGHT FORUM PHI PROJECT NO:0608 DRAWN BY:SMW CIVIL CONTRACTOR DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL HPC 5/1/08 CD 6/13/08 CONSULTANTS HPC 7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL 10/23/08 REVISIONS 5/7/09 REVISIONS 08/18/10 REVISIONS SITE PLAN 627 W. MAIN STASPEN, COLORADO 81611FORUM PHI174 Midland Ave, Suite 201P.O. Box 1606Basalt, Colorado 81621PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585DOUGLAS KELSO #### KELSO ADDITIONRocky Mountain Surveying4133 Crystal Springs Rd.Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 379-1919Fax: (970) 963-5873Yeh and Associates, Inc.170 Mel Ray RoadGlenwood Springs, CO 81601Phone: (970) 384-1500Fax: (970) 384-1501Efficiency In Mind, LLCP.O. Box 1481Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 274-6336 Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd. P.O. Box 978 Avon, CO 81620 Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221 Fax: (970) 949-9339 Mozer-Renn Structural Service8573 E. Napa PlaceDenver, CO 80237Phone: (720) 212-0727Fax: (303) 484-8958 DATE OF PUBLICATION8/31/2010 SD SD 19 R @ 7" = 1 1'-1"18 T @ 1 1 3/8" = 17'-0 5/8"UP12345678910111213141516171819 35'-3 1/8"5'-6 1/16"11 5/16"10'5'5'5'3'-2"RADON MITIGATION VENT LOCATIONFINAL LOCATION T.B.D.AREA TO BE DEMOLISHEDEXTERIOR WALLS TO BE COMPLETELY REMOVEDSTONE WALK 28.08'13.82'xxxx952.29'N09°03'13"E P.O.B.D8"DL11'D5"DL5'D10"DL7'D8"DL13'D7"DL8'LOT B0.068 AC±30.00'N75°09'11"W100.00'S14°50'49"W30.00'S75°09'11"E 100.00'N14°50'49"E WM STONE WALLCONC.. PATIOCONC.. WALKPATIOSTONE S H E D W O O D CONC.. WALKO.H. TYP.CONC.. WALKCURBDITCH REBAR AND YPCLS# 16129ELEV=7924.58REBAR A N D RPC LS# 2 5 9 4 7 REBAR ANDRPC LS# 25947 9 1 8 4 ELEV= 7 9 2 6 . 8 4 SINGLE FAMILYRESIDENCE 22.325.01.41.61.431.522.3 58.1 x x x x x x x x xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxEMGM792579257926SETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKKITCHEN02BEDROOM05CLOSET07GARAGE08PDR19BATHROOM06ENTRY04LIVING ROOM01 EXISTING - 1,276 SF 256.30 sq ft EXISTING - 640.5 SF DECK - 270.98 sq ft DECK - 85.36 sq ft 476.5 SF 2 3 3 A SITE PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0" 0 BASEMENT FAR 1" = 10'1 MAIN FLOOR FAR 1" = 10'2 UPPER FLOOR FAR 1" = 10' 0 SF 0 SF TOTAL FAR TOTAL UPPER FLOOR FAR F.A.R. CALCULATION - TOTAL MAIN FLOOR AREA - EXISTING BASEMENT FLOOR AREA - EXISTING TOTAL MAIN FLOOR FAR 0 SF UPPER FLOOR AREA - EXISTING TOTAL EXISTING FAR UPPER FLOOR AREA - EXISTING MAIN FLOOR AREA - EXISTING ALLOWABLE DECKS (15%)360 SF 2,150 SF F.A.R. CALCULATION - EXISTING ALLOWABLE FAR (2,400 - 250 = 2,150) 0 SF % EXPOSED (0%) 0 SF 0 SF 0% 3.15 SF 3.15 SF 3.15 SF F.A.R. CALCULATION - APPROVED MAIN FLOOR AREA - APPROVED GARAGE AREA - APPROVED (256.30 - 250 = 6.30/2 = 3.15) TOTAL MAIN FLOOR FAR - APPROVED UPPER FLOOR AREA - APPROVED TOTAL UPPER FLOOR FAR - APPROVED BASEMENT FLOOR AREA - APPROVED TOTAL BASEMENT FAR - APPROVED MAIN FLOOR AREA - APPROVED UPPER FLOOR AREA - APPROVED BASEMENT FLOOR AREA - APPROVED TOTAL BASEMENT FAR - APPROVED 1,276 SF 640.5 SF 1,916.5 SF 1916.5 DECK AREA - APPROVED (271+85.5 - 360) 493.45 1,276 SF 1279.15 SF 640.5 SF TOTAL FAR AFTER DEMO ( 1916.5 - 370 = 1546.5)1,546.5 SF 1117 SF 2,396.15 SF 2,396.15 476.5 SF 476.5 SF 476.5 SF 0 SF 126.75 sq ft 1,307.00 sq ft 41.75 sq ft 2.00 sq ft @ 50% = 1 SF 250.00 sq ft PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE 148.25 sq ft 112.00 sq ft 104.50 sq ft CDW 445.00 sq ft 33'-0"9'-73/4"28'-43/4" 4 '-1 1 1 /2 " 1 '-5 " 1 4 '-1 1 1 /2 " 24'-111/2"5'-8"9'-11"9'-6" 2 '-1 1 1 /2 " 8 '-2 1 /4 " 8 '-0 3 /8 " 3 '-1 3 /8 " 1 2 '-3 " 15'-33/4" 640.00 sq ft PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE SETBACK LINE 18.00 sq ft 18.00 sq ft 18.00 sq ft 18.00 sq ft COUNTABLE FAR FILLS GARAGE DECK EXEMPT Lower Level Floor Area Calculations 627 W Main St. Proposed Lower Level Floor Area Calculations Lower Level Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft)126.75 Lower Level Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)0.00 Total Lower Level Countable Area (Sq Ft)0.00 Total Proposed Floor Area Calculations Lower Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)0.00 Main Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)1308.00 Upper Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)1085.00 Deck/Porch Floor Area (Sq Ft)4.75 Total Proposed Floor Area (Sq Ft)2,397.75 Main Level Floor Area Calculations 627 W Main St. Proposed Main Level Floor Area Calculations Main Level Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft)1307.00 Garage Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft)252.00 Main Level Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)1307.00 Garage Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)1.00 Exemption (0-250 @ 0% 250-500 @ 50% Total Main Level Countable Area (Sq Ft)1308.00 Proposed Deck/Porch Floor Area Calculations Front Porch Floor Area (Sq Ft)41.75 Deck Floor Area (Sq Ft)0.00 Exempt Deck Floor Area (Sq Ft)0.00 Deck/Porch Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)0.00 Total Proposed Floor Area Calculations Lower Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)0.00 Main Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)1308.00 Upper Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)1085.00 Deck/Porch Floor Area (Sq Ft)4.75 Total Proposed Floor Area (Sq Ft)2,397.75 Upper Level Floor Area Calculations 627 W Main St. Proposed Upper Level Floor Area Calculations Upper Level Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft)1085.00 Upper Level Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)1085.00 Total Upper Level Countable Area (Sq Ft)1085.00 Proposed Deck/Porch Floor Area Calculations Deck Floor Area (Sq Ft)364.75 148.25 + 104.50 + 112 Exempt Deck Floor Area (Sq Ft)360.00 360 Sq Ft Exempt (15% of 2,400) Deck/Porch Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)4.75 Total Proposed Floor Area Calculations Lower Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)0.00 Main Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)1308.00 Upper Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)1085.00 Deck/Porch Floor Area (Sq Ft)4.75 Total Proposed Floor Area (Sq Ft)2,397.75 CHANGE ORDER 3 FAR CALCULATIONS 1' = 1'-0" PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL FAR 1" = 10'PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL FAR 1" = 10'PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL FAR 1" = 10' P 3 8 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM EXISTING MAIN LEVEL 003 1 2 3 A2.2 SHEET TITLE STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS MECHANICAL SURVEYOR GEOTECH COPYRIGHT FORUM PHI PROJECT NO:0608 DRAWN BY:SMW CIVIL CONTRACTOR DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL HPC 5/1/08 CD 6/13/08 CONSULTANTS HPC 7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL 10/23/08 REVISIONS 5/7/09 REVISIONS 08/18/10 REVISIONS MAIN FLOOR PLAN 627 W. MAIN ST ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 FORUM PHI 174 Midland Ave, Suite 201 P.O. Box 1606 Basalt, Colorado 81621 PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585 DOUGLAS KELSO #### KELSO ADDITION Rocky Mountain Surveying 4133 Crystal Springs Rd. Carbondale, CO 81623 Phone: (970) 379-1919 Fax: (970) 963-5873 Yeh and Associates, Inc. 170 Mel Ray Road Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: (970) 384-1500 Fax: (970) 384-1501 Efficiency In Mind, LLC P.O. Box 1481 Carbondale, CO 81623 Phone: (970) 274-6336 Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd. P.O. Box 978 Avon, CO 81620 Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221 Fax: (970) 949-9339 Mozer-Renn Structural Service 8573 E. Napa Place Denver, CO 80237 Phone: (720) 212-0727 Fax: (303) 484-8958 DATE OF PUBLICATION1/5/2016 01 D106 W101 W102 W105W104W103 D101 D104 D105 D102 SD SD 1 9 R @ 7 " = 1 1 ' - 1 " 1 8 T @ 1 1 3 / 8 " = 1 7 ' - 0 5 / 8 " U P 12345678910111213141516171819 3 3 3 22 ' - 3 1/ 2 " ORIGINAL 1888 ADDITION 2000 PROPOSED ADDITION 33'-1 1/2"24'-11 1/2"22'-6 1/2" 1' - 9 " 80'-7 1/2" 80'-7 1/2" 10 ' 22'-1" 33'-1 1/2"24'-11 1/2"22'-6 1/2" 33'-1 1/2"24'-11 1/2"1'-11"20'-7 1/2" 6'-7"5 1/2" 7'-1/2" 6' - 1 " 5 1/ 2 " 6' - 6 1/ 2 " 33'-1 1/2"1'-7 1/2"1'-3 1/2"2'-10 1/2"2'-10 1/2"2'-10"3'-6"3'-6"3'-6"2'-11 1/2"1'-11"20'-7 1/2" 33'-1 1/2"24'-11 1/2"22'-6 1/2" 10 ' - 1 1 " 6' - 5 1/ 2 " 5' - 5 1/ 2 " 5' - 5 1/ 2 " 6' - 5 1/ 2 " 1 A3.1 4 A3.2 2 A3.2 RADON MITIGATION VENT LOCATION FINAL LOCATION T.B.D. EXISTING CLOSET TO REMAIN EXISTING WINDOW TO BE REMOVED FILL TO MATCH EXISTING KITCHEN 02 BEDROOM 05 CLOSET 07 GARAGE 08 PDR 19 BATHROOM 06 ENTRY 04 LIVING ROOM 01 3 A3.1 SD 3 1) 3) 2) SURFACE MOUNTED SCONCE LIGHTING AS REQUIRED AT EXITS. FINAL LOCATIONS T.B.D. 4) SMOKE DETECTOR EXTERIOR CAN LIGHT HANDRAILS AND GUARDRAILS PER CODE. 5) BUILDING REFERENCE ELEVATION : 100'-0" = 7,926.38' SURVEYED ELEV. V.I.F. TO CONFIRM EXISTING BASEMENT OMITTED SLAB ON GRADE 6) 1 MAIN FLOOR PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0" GENERAL NOTES NCHANGE ORDER 3 MAIN LEVEL PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0" P 3 9 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM EXISTING UPPER LEVEL 004 1 2 3 A2.3 SHEET TITLE STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS MECHANICAL SURVEYOR GEOTECH COPYRIGHT FORUM PHI PROJECT NO:0608 DRAWN BY:SMW CIVIL CONTRACTOR DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL HPC 5/1/08 CD 6/13/08 CONSULTANTS HPC 7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL 10/23/08 REVISIONS 5/7/09 REVISIONS 08/18/10 REVISIONS UPPER FLOOR PLAN 627 W. MAIN ST ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 FORUM PHI 174 Midland Ave, Suite 201 P.O. Box 1606 Basalt, Colorado 81621 PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585 DOUGLAS KELSO #### KELSO ADDITION Rocky Mountain Surveying 4133 Crystal Springs Rd. Carbondale, CO 81623 Phone: (970) 379-1919 Fax: (970) 963-5873 Yeh and Associates, Inc. 170 Mel Ray Road Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: (970) 384-1500 Fax: (970) 384-1501 Efficiency In Mind, LLC P.O. Box 1481 Carbondale, CO 81623 Phone: (970) 274-6336 Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd. P.O. Box 978 Avon, CO 81620 Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221 Fax: (970) 949-9339 Mozer-Renn Structural Service 8573 E. Napa Place Denver, CO 80237 Phone: (720) 212-0727 Fax: (303) 484-8958 DATE OF PUBLICATION1/5/2016 D207 D208 D206 D204 D205 D201 D202 1 9 R @ 7 " = 1 1 ' - 1 " 1 8 T @ 1 1 3 / 8 " = 1 7 ' - 0 5 / 8 " U P 12345678910111213141516171819 SD SD SD SD SD SD 1 2 1 A3.1 4 A3.2 2 A3.2 6' - 4 13 / 1 6 " 22 ' - 3 5/ 8 " ORIGINAL 1888 PROPOSED ADDITION OVER 2000 ADDITION PROPOSED ADDITION 1' - 6 " 10 ' 5'-8 3/8"5'-3 5/8"5 1/2"11'-10" 5'-8 3/8"5'-3 5/8"5 1/2"11'-10" 2' - 3 1/ 2 " 1' - 9 " 2' - 3 " 2' - 3 1/ 2 " 1'-8"3'-4" 8' 3' 1' - 5 " 1' - 3 " 2' - 4 " 1' 1' - 5 1/ 2 " 2' - 6 " 1' - 8 1/ 2 " 33'-1 1/2"15'-10 1/16"3'-5/16"4'-6 1/8"2'-8 1/2"3'-2 1/2"3"3'-8 3/8"3'-5/16"13'-2 9/16" 5' 4' - 8 13 / 1 6 " 6' - 2 1/ 2 " 10 ' - 1 1/ 1 6 " 11'-6 1/2" 5' - 9 " 5' - 9 " 33'-1 1/2"11'13'-11 11/16"15'-10 13/16"8'-7 1/4" 3' - 1 1 5/ 1 6 " 1' 12 ' - 5 " 3' - 1 0 9/ 1 6 " 33'-1 1/2"11'12'-1 1/2"17'-9"8'-7 1/4" 33'-1 1/2"11'4'-10 3/8"3'7'-2 3/8"7'-2 7/16"3'4'-7 1/4"8'-7 1/4" RADON MITIGATION VENT LOCATION FINAL LOCATION T.B.D. BEDROOM 10 BATHROOM 12 BEDROOM 16 CLOSET 11 CLOSET 20 DEN 14 BATH 17 SITTING ROOM 18 D212 3 A3.1 W211 W202 W204W203 W212W213W214 W201 W207W205W206 W210 W208W209 SD 3 1) 3) 2) SURFACE MOUNTED SCONCE LIGHTING AS REQUIRED AT EXITS. FINAL LOCATIONS T.B.D. 4) SMOKE DETECTOR EXTERIOR CAN LIGHT HANDRAILS AND GUARDRAILS PER CODE. 5) BUILDING REFERENCE ELEVATION : 100'-0" = 7,926.38' SURVEYED ELEV. V.I.F. TO CONFIRM EXISTING BASEMENT OMITTED SLAB ON GRADE 6) 2 UPPER FLOOR PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0" GENERAL NOTES NCHANGE ORDER 3 UPPER LEVEL PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0" P 4 0 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM EXISTING ROOF PLAN 005 1 2 3 A2.4 SHEET TITLE STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS MECHANICAL SURVEYOR GEOTECH COPYRIGHT FORUM PHI PROJECT NO:0608 DRAWN BY:SMW CIVIL CONTRACTOR DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL HPC 5/1/08 CD 6/13/08 CONSULTANTS HPC 7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL 10/23/08 REVISIONS 5/7/09 REVISIONS 08/18/10 REVISIONS ROOF PLAN 627 W. MAIN ST ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 FORUM PHI 174 Midland Ave, Suite 201 P.O. Box 1606 Basalt, Colorado 81621 PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585 DOUGLAS KELSO #### KELSO ADDITION Rocky Mountain Surveying 4133 Crystal Springs Rd. Carbondale, CO 81623 Phone: (970) 379-1919 Fax: (970) 963-5873 Yeh and Associates, Inc. 170 Mel Ray Road Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: (970) 384-1500 Fax: (970) 384-1501 Efficiency In Mind, LLC P.O. Box 1481 Carbondale, CO 81623 Phone: (970) 274-6336 Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd. P.O. Box 978 Avon, CO 81620 Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221 Fax: (970) 949-9339 Mozer-Renn Structural Service 8573 E. Napa Place Denver, CO 80237 Phone: (720) 212-0727 Fax: (303) 484-8958 DATE OF PUBLICATION1/5/2016 1 A3.1 4 A3.2 2 A3.2 ORIGINAL 1888 PROPOSED ADDITION OVER 2000 ADDITION PROPOSED ADDITION DECK DECK 3 A3.1 6:12 8:12 6:12 16:12 2:12 6:12 12:12 12:12 8:12 3:12 12:12 16:12 2:12 6:12 12:12 12:12 12:12 12:12 12:12 12:12 12:12 RADON MITIGATION VENT LOCATION FINAL LOCATION T.B.D. 6:126:12 6:126:12 SD 3 1) 3) 2) SURFACE MOUNTED SCONCE LIGHTING AS REQUIRED AT EXITS. FINAL LOCATIONS T.B.D. 4) SMOKE DETECTOR EXTERIOR CAN LIGHT HANDRAILS AND GUARDRAILS PER CODE. 5) BUILDING REFERENCE ELEVATION : 100'-0" = 7,926.38' SURVEYED ELEV. V.I.F. TO CONFIRM EXISTING BASEMENT OMITTED SLAB ON GRADE 6) 3 ROOF PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0" GENERAL NOTES NCHANGE ORDER 3 ROOF PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0" P 4 1 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM MAIN LEVEL OPT 1 006 1 1 A A B B C C 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 9 9 2 2 '-3 1 /2 " 33'-0"24'-111/2"22'-7" 1 0 '-0 1 /2 " 1 2 '-3 " 6'-0"3'-71/2"1'-11"3'-61/2"3'-61/2"3'-61/2" 4 '-1 1 1 /2 " 1 1 '-2 " 6 '-2 " 5'-5" 2 '-0 1 /2 " 1'-81/2" 33'-0"24'-111/2"22'-7" 2 2 '-3 1 /2 " 1 '-1 " 9 '-0 " 1 '-1 " 1 '-2 " 8 '-1 0 1 /2 " 6 " 5 1 /2 " 6 '-1 0 " 5 1 /2 " 2 '-1 0 " 1 '-2 " 1'-81/2" 14'-8"9'-8"8'-8"9'-71/2"15'-4"11'-31/2"11'-31/2" 4 '-1 1 1 /2 " 5 '-1 " 6 '-1 " 6 '-2 " 5'-0"51/2" 5 '-0 " 5 1 /2 " 1 012 1 012 2 012 2 012 4 012 4 012 3 012 3 012 3 011 2 010 1 009 4 010 PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE MECH ROOM 001 6 6 EXISTING WALLS TO REMAIN PROPOSED REMODEL ADDITION WALL TYPE LEGEND NPROPOSED MAIN LEVEL 1/4" = 1'-0" P 4 2 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM UPPER LEVEL OPT 1 007 1 1 A A B B C C 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 9 9 CDW 1 012 1 012 2 012 2 012 4 012 4 012 3 012 3 012 3 011 2 010 1 009 4 010 9'-73/4"15'-33/4"15'-7" 33'-0" 4 '-4 1 /2 " 7 " 1 2 '-3 " 2 '-1 1 /2 " 2 '-1 1 1 /2 " 14'-8"9'-8"8'-8"24'-111/2"5'-8"9'-11"9'-6" 33'-0"47'-61/2"2'-6" 51/2"14'-21/2"51/2"3'-21/2"51/2"13'-9"51/2" 2 2 '-3 1 /2 " 1 0 '-0 1 /2 " 1 2 '-3 " 7'-103/8"7'-53/8" 2 '-1 1 1 /2 " 4'-81/2"5'-103/4"4'-81/2"7'-1"3'-0"3'-0"2'-6" 51/2"14'-43/4"51/2" 2 '-1 1 /2 " 80'-61/2"2'-6" 9'-73/4"7'-103/8"7'-53/8"2'-10"2'-10"4'-111/2"4'-111/2" 6 '-1 1 /2 " 6 '-1 1 /2 " 1 0 1 /2 " 9 1 /2 " 5 1 /2 " 2 '-1 1 1 /2 " 4'-81/2"3'-17/8"7'-53/8" 2 '-1 1 /4 " 2'-21/2" 6 1 /2 " PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE EXIST. BEDROOM EXIST. BEDROOM DECK BATH 110 DRESSING RM 111 BEDROOM 112 DECK EXT. STAIR STAIR BATH 5 '-0 1 /8 " 5 1 /2 " 6 6 EXISTING WALLS TO REMAIN PROPOSED REMODEL ADDITION WALL TYPE LEGEND NPROPOSED UPPER LEVEL 1/4" = 1'-0" P 4 3 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM ROOF PLAN OPT 1 008 1 1 A A B B C C 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 9 9 1 012 1 012 2 012 2 012 4 012 4 012 3 012 3 012 3 011 2 010 1 009 4 010 1:12 1:12 12:1212:12 12:12 12:12 12:12 12:12 12:12 12:12 DECK BELOW DECK BELOW PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE 6 6 NPROPOSED ROOF PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0" P 4 4 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM ELEVATIONS OPT 1 009 1 2 3 A3.1 SHEET TITLE STRUCTURALCONSULTANTSMECHANICALSURVEYORGEOTECH COPYRIGHT FORUM PHI PROJECT NO:0608 DRAWN BY:SMW CIVIL CONTRACTOR DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL HPC 5/1/08 CD 6/13/08 CONSULTANTS HPC 7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL 10/23/08 REVISIONS 5/7/09 REVISIONS 08/18/10 REVISIONS ELEVATIONS 627 W. MAIN STASPEN, COLORADO 81611FORUM PHI174 Midland Ave, Suite 201P.O. Box 1606Basalt, Colorado 81621PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585DOUGLAS KELSO #### KELSO ADDITIONRocky Mountain Surveying4133 Crystal Springs Rd.Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 379-1919Fax: (970) 963-5873Yeh and Associates, Inc.170 Mel Ray RoadGlenwood Springs, CO 81601Phone: (970) 384-1500Fax: (970) 384-1501 Efficiency In Mind, LLC P.O. Box 1481 Carbondale, CO 81623 Phone: (970) 274-6336 Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd. P.O. Box 978 Avon, CO 81620 Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221 Fax: (970) 949-9339 Mozer-Renn Structural Service8573 E. Napa PlaceDenver, CO 80237Phone: (720) 212-0727Fax: (303) 484-8958 DATE OF PUBLICATION8/31/2010 23PROPOSED ADDITIONORIGINAL1888 ADDITION 200011'25'100'100'-9"109'-9"111'-1"118'-7"32 764519 T.O. PLATET.O.F.F.EXISTING V.I.F.EXISTING V.I.F.25' HEIGHT LIMITEXISTING GRADE T.O. SLAB ADDITION 2000 PROPOSED ADDITION ORIGINAL 1888 25 ' 11 ' 100' 100'-9" 109'-9" 111'-1" 118'-7" 3'-4 1/2" 3' - 8 " 2' - 7 " 5 7 3 9 1 T.O. PLATE T.O.F.F. EXISTING V.I.F. EXISTING V.I.F. 25' HEIGHT LIMIT EXISTING GRADE T.O. SLAB 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISITING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISITING BRICK STANDING SEAM 8" WOOD FASCIA TIMBER COLUMN HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 1 WEST 1/4" = 1'-0" 3 EAST 1/4" = 1'-0" PROPOSED ADDITION ORIGINAL 1888 1 6 1 5 T.O. EXISTING RIDGE 124'-3" UPPER LEVEL T.O. FF 111'-1" 9 6 6 5 4 3 2 1 10 12 9 11 7 12 11 9 6 8 7 MAIN LEVEL T.O. FF 100'-0" LOWER LEVEL T.O. FF 95'-0" 123 A3.1SHEET TITLESTRUCTURALCONSULTANTSMECHANICALSURVEYORGEOTECHCOPYRIGHTFORUM PHIPROJECT NO:0608DRAWN BY:SMWCIVILCONTRACTORDESCRIPTIONMARKDATECONCEPTUALAPPROVALHPC5/1/08CD6/13/08 CONSULTANTSHPC7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL10/23/08 REVISIONS5/7/09 REVISIONS08/18/10 REVISIONS ELEVAT IONS 627 W. MAIN STASPEN, COLORADO 81611FORUM PHI174 Midland Ave, Suite 201P.O. Box 1606Basalt, Colorado 81621PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585DOUGLAS KELSO####KELSO ADDITIONRocky Mountain Surveying4133 Crystal Springs Rd.Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 379-1919Fax: (970) 963-5873Yeh and Associates, Inc.170 Mel Ray RoadGlenwood Springs, CO 81601Phone: (970) 384-1500Fax: (970) 384-1501Efficiency In Mind, LLCP.O. Box 1481Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 274-6336Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd.P.O. Box 978Avon, CO 81620Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221Fax: (970) 949-9339Mozer-Renn Structural Service8573 E. Napa PlaceDenver, CO 80237Phone: (720) 212-0727Fax: (303) 484-8958DATE OF PUBLICATION8/31/201023PROPOSED ADDITIONORIGINAL1888 ADDITION 200011'25'100'100'-9"109'-9"111'-1"118'-7"32 764519 T.O. PLATET.O.F.F.EXISTING V.I.F.EXISTING V.I.F.25' HEIGHT LIMITEXISTING GRADE T.O. SLABADDITION 2000PROPOSED ADDITION ORIGINAL 1888 25'11'100'100'-9"109'-9"111'-1"118'-7"3'-4 1/2"3'-8"2'-7"57 391 T.O. PLATET.O.F.F.EXISTING V.I.F.EXISTING V.I.F.25' HEIGHT LIMITEXISTING GRADE T.O. SLAB 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISITING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISITING BRICK STANDING SEAM 8" WOOD FASCIA TIMBER COLUMN HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 1 WEST 1/4" = 1'-0" 3 EAST 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 2 3 ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISTING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING BRICK 4 EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE 5 EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 6 PROPOSED VERTICAL SIDING 7 PROPSED STUCCO SIDING 8 PROPOSED STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF 9 PROPOSED RAILING 10 25' HEIGHT LIMIT 11 LINE OF ADDITION PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PER CHANGE ORDER 3 12 LINE OF PROPOSED DESIGN CHANGES TO THE REAR ADDITION KEYNOTE LEGEND CHANGE ORDER 3 EAST ELEVATION 1' = 1'-0" 1 PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0" P 4 5 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM ELEVATIONS OPT 1 010 1 4 3 8 4 6 5 5 12 11 T.O. EXISTING RIDGE 124'-3" UPPER LEVEL T.O. FF 111'-1" C B A MAIN LEVEL T.O. FF 100'-0" LOWER LEVEL T.O. FF 95'-0" 6 8 7 6 9 9 1 12 T.O. EXISTING RIDGE 124'-3" UPPER LEVEL T.O. FF 111'-1" A B C MAIN LEVEL T.O. FF 100'-0" LOWER LEVEL T.O. FF 95'-0" 1 2 3 A3.2 SHEET TITLE STRUCTURALCONSULTANTS MECHANICAL SURVEYORGEOTECH COPYRIGHT FORUM PHI PROJECT NO:0608 DRAWN BY:SMW CIVIL CONTRACTOR DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL HPC 5/1/08 CD 6/13/08 CONSULTANTS HPC 7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL 10/23/08 REVISIONS 5/7/09 REVISIONS 08/18/10 REVISIONS ELEVATIONS 627 W. MAIN STASPEN, COLORADO 81611FORUM PHI174 Midland Ave, Suite 201P.O. Box 1606Basalt, Colorado 81621PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585DOUGLAS KELSO #### KELSO ADDITIONRocky Mountain Surveying4133 Crystal Springs Rd.Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 379-1919Fax: (970) 963-5873Yeh and Associates, Inc.170 Mel Ray RoadGlenwood Springs, CO 81601Phone: (970) 384-1500Fax: (970) 384-1501 Efficiency In Mind, LLC P.O. Box 1481 Carbondale, CO 81623 Phone: (970) 274-6336 Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd. P.O. Box 978 Avon, CO 81620 Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221 Fax: (970) 949-9339 Mozer-Renn Structural Service8573 E. Napa Place Denver, CO 80237 Phone: (720) 212-0727 Fax: (303) 484-8958 DATE OF PUBLICATION1/5/2016 3 18'-10 11/16"18'-10 11/16"25'100'100'-9"111'-1"118'-7"6 87POINT 3 POINT 4 15 T.O. PLATET.O.F.F.T.O. SLAB25' HEIGHT LIMITEXISTING GRADE T.O. SLAB 100' 109'-9" 111'-7 3/16" 25 ' 14 ' - 9 9/ 1 6 " 14 ' - 9 9/ 1 6 " 3 8 2 1 7 POINT 1POINT 2 5 EXISTING V.I.F. EXISTING V.I.F. EXISTING V.I.F. 25' HEIGHT LIMIT EXISTING GRADE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISITING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISITING BRICK STANDING SEAM 8" WOOD FASCIA TIMBER COLUMN HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 2 SOUTH 1/4" = 1'-0" 4 NORTH 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 2 3 A3.2 SHEET TITLE STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS MECHANICAL SURVEYOR GEOTECH COPYRIGHT FORUM PHI PROJECT NO:0608 DRAWN BY:SMW CIVIL CONTRACTOR DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL HPC 5/1/08 CD 6/13/08 CONSULTANTS HPC 7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL 10/23/08 REVISIONS 5/7/09 REVISIONS 08/18/10 REVISIONS ELEVATIONS 627 W. MAIN ST ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 FORUM PHI 174 Midland Ave, Suite 201 P.O. Box 1606 Basalt, Colorado 81621 PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585 DOUGLAS KELSO #### KELSO ADDITION Rocky Mountain Surveying 4133 Crystal Springs Rd. Carbondale, CO 81623 Phone: (970) 379-1919 Fax: (970) 963-5873 Yeh and Associates, Inc. 170 Mel Ray Road Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: (970) 384-1500 Fax: (970) 384-1501 Efficiency In Mind, LLC P.O. Box 1481 Carbondale, CO 81623 Phone: (970) 274-6336 Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd. P.O. Box 978 Avon, CO 81620 Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221 Fax: (970) 949-9339 Mozer-Renn Structural Service 8573 E. Napa Place Denver, CO 80237 Phone: (720) 212-0727 Fax: (303) 484-8958 DATE OF PUBLICATION1/5/2016 3 18 ' - 1 0 11 / 1 6 " 18 ' - 1 0 11 / 1 6 " 25 ' 100' 100'-9" 111'-1" 118'-7" 6 8 7 POINT 3 POINT 4 1 5 T.O. PLATE T.O.F.F. T.O. SLAB 25' HEIGHT LIMIT EXISTING GRADE T.O. SLAB 100' 109'-9" 111'-7 3/16" 25 ' 14 ' - 9 9/ 1 6 " 14 ' - 9 9/ 1 6 " 3 8 2 1 7 POINT 1POINT 2 5 EXISTING V.I.F. EXISTING V.I.F. EXISTING V.I.F. 25' HEIGHT LIMIT EXISTING GRADE 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9ASPHALT SHINGLEEXISITING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISITING BRICK STANDING SEAM 8" WOOD FASCIA TIMBER COLUMN HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 2 SOUTH 1/4" = 1'-0" 4 NORTH 1/4" = 1'-0" 123 A3.1SHEET TITLESTRUCTURALCONSULTANTSMECHANICALSURVEYORGEOTECHCOPYRIGHTFORUM PHIPROJECT NO:0608DRAWN BY:SMWCIVILCONTRACTORDESCRIPTIONMARKDATECONCEPTUALAPPROVALHPC5/1/08CD6/13/08 CONSULTANTSHPC7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL10/23/08 REVISIONS5/7/09 REVISIONS08/18/10 REVISIONS ELEVATIONS 627 W. MAIN STASPEN, COLORADO 81611FORUM PHI174 Midland Ave, Suite 201P.O. Box 1606Basalt, Colorado 81621PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585DOUGLAS KELSO####KELSO ADDITIONRocky Mountain Surveying4133 Crystal Springs Rd.Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 379-1919Fax: (970) 963-5873Yeh and Associates, Inc.170 Mel Ray RoadGlenwood Springs, CO 81601Phone: (970) 384-1500Fax: (970) 384-1501Efficiency In Mind, LLCP.O. Box 1481Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 274-6336Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd.P.O. Box 978Avon, CO 81620Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221Fax: (970) 949-9339Mozer-Renn Structural Service8573 E. Napa PlaceDenver, CO 80237Phone: (720) 212-0727Fax: (303) 484-8958DATE OF PUBLICATION8/31/201023PROPOSED ADDITIONORIGINAL1888 ADDITION 200011'25'100'100'-9"109'-9"111'-1"118'-7"32 764519 T.O. PLATET.O.F.F.EXISTING V.I.F.EXISTING V.I.F.25' HEIGHT LIMITEXISTING GRADE T.O. SLABADDITION 2000PROPOSED ADDITION ORIGINAL 1888 25'11 '100'100'-9"109'-9"111'-1"118'-7"3'-4 1/2"3'-8"2'-7"57 391 T.O. PLATET.O.F.F.EXISTING V.I.F.EXISTING V.I.F.25' HEIGHT LIMITEXISTING GRADE T.O. SLAB 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISITING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISITING BRICK STANDING SEAM 8" WOOD FASCIA TIMBER COLUMN HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 1 WEST 1/4" = 1'-0" 3 EAST 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 2 3 ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISTING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING BRICK 4 EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE 5 EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 6 PROPOSED VERTICAL SIDING 7 PROPSED STUCCO SIDING 8 PROPOSED STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF 9 PROPOSED RAILING 10 25' HEIGHT LIMIT 11 LINE OF ADDITION PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PER CHANGE ORDER 3 12 LINE OF PROPOSED DESIGN CHANGES TO THE REAR ADDITION KEYNOTE LEGEND 4 PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0"2 PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0" CHANGE ORDER 3 NORTH ELEVATION 1' = 1'-0"CHANGE ORDER 3 SOUTH ELEVATION 1' = 1'-0" HEIGHT OF ROOF IS INACCURATELY SHOWN IN THE CHANGE ORDER 3 DRAWINGS VERIFICATION IN FIELD CONFIRMS THAT THIS ROOF IS 24'-3" ABOVE PROJECT 100' P 4 6 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM ELEVATIONS OPT 1 011 1 2 3 A3.1 SHEET TITLE STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS MECHANICAL SURVEYOR GEOTECH COPYRIGHT FORUM PHI PROJECT NO:0608 DRAWN BY:SMW CIVIL CONTRACTOR DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL HPC 5/1/08 CD 6/13/08 CONSULTANTS HPC 7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL 10/23/08 REVISIONS 5/7/09 REVISIONS 08/18/10 REVISIONS ELEVATIONS 627 W. MAIN ST ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 FORUM PHI 174 Midland Ave, Suite 201 P.O. Box 1606 Basalt, Colorado 81621 PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585 DOUGLAS KELSO #### KELSO ADDITION Rocky Mountain Surveying 4133 Crystal Springs Rd. Carbondale, CO 81623 Phone: (970) 379-1919 Fax: (970) 963-5873 Yeh and Associates, Inc. 170 Mel Ray Road Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: (970) 384-1500 Fax: (970) 384-1501 Efficiency In Mind, LLC P.O. Box 1481 Carbondale, CO 81623 Phone: (970) 274-6336 Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd. P.O. Box 978 Avon, CO 81620 Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221 Fax: (970) 949-9339 Mozer-Renn Structural Service 8573 E. Napa Place Denver, CO 80237 Phone: (720) 212-0727 Fax: (303) 484-8958 DATE OF PUBLICATION8/31/2010 2 3 PROPOSED ADDITIONORIGINAL1888 ADDITION 2000 11' 25 ' 100' 100'-9" 109'-9" 111'-1" 118'-7" 3 2 7 6 4 5 1 9 T.O. PLATE T.O.F.F. EXISTING V.I.F. EXISTING V.I.F. 25' HEIGHT LIMIT EXISTING GRADE T.O. SLAB ADDITION 2000 PROPOSED ADDITION ORIGINAL 1888 25 ' 11' 100' 100'-9" 109'-9" 111'-1" 118'-7" 3'-4 1/2" 3' - 8 " 2' - 7 " 5 7 3 9 1 T.O. PLATE T.O.F.F. EXISTING V.I.F. EXISTING V.I.F. 25' HEIGHT LIMIT EXISTING GRADE T.O. SLAB 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISITING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISITING BRICK STANDING SEAM 8" WOOD FASCIA TIMBER COLUMN HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 1 WEST 1/4" = 1'-0" 3 EAST 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 2 3 4 5 6 9 9'-71/2" ORIGINAL 1888 PROPOSED ADDITION 3 1 1 8 6 2 9 7 6 9 10 12 T.O. EXISTING RIDGE 124'-3" UPPER LEVEL T.O. FF 111'-1" 6 7 11 MAIN LEVEL T.O. FF 100'-0" LOWER LEVEL T.O. FF 95'-0" 123 A3.1SHEET TITLESTRUCTURALCONSULTANTSMECHANICALSURVEYORGEOTECHCOPYRIGHTFORUM PHIPROJECT NO:0608DRAWN BY:SMWCIVILCONTRACTORDESCRIPTIONMARKDATECONCEPTUALAPPROVALHPC5/1/08CD6/13/08 CONSULTANTSHPC7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL10/23/08 REVISIONS5/7/09 REVISIONS08/18/10 REVISIONS ELEVATIONS 627 W. MAIN STASPEN, COLORADO 81611FORUM PHI174 Midland Ave, Suite 201P.O. Box 1606Basalt, Colorado 81621PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585DOUGLAS KELSO####KELSO ADDITIONRocky Mountain Surveying4133 Crystal Springs Rd.Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 379-1919Fax: (970) 963-5873Yeh and Associates, Inc.170 Mel Ray RoadGlenwood Springs, CO 81601Phone: (970) 384-1500Fax: (970) 384-1501Efficiency In Mind, LLCP.O. Box 1481Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 274-6336Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd.P.O. Box 978Avon, CO 81620Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221Fax: (970) 949-9339Mozer-Renn Structural Service8573 E. Napa PlaceDenver, CO 80237Phone: (720) 212-0727Fax: (303) 484-8958DATE OF PUBLICATION8/31/201023PROPOSED ADDITIONORIGINAL1888 ADDITION 200011'25'100'100'-9"109'-9"111'-1"118'-7"32 764519 T.O. PLATET.O.F.F.EXISTING V.I.F.EXISTING V.I.F.25' HEIGHT LIMITEXISTING GRADE T.O. SLABADDITION 2000PROPOSED ADDITION ORIGINAL 1888 25'11'100'100'-9"109'-9"111'-1"118'-7"3'-4 1/2"3'-8"2'-7"57 391 T.O. PLATET.O.F.F.EXISTING V.I.F.EXISTING V.I.F.25' HEIGHT LIMITEXISTING GRADE T.O. SLAB 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISITING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISITING BRICK STANDING SEAM 8" WOOD FASCIA TIMBER COLUMN HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 1 WEST 1/4" = 1'-0" 3 EAST 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 2 3 ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISTING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING BRICK 4 EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE 5 EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 6 PROPOSED VERTICAL SIDING 7 PROPSED STUCCO SIDING 8 PROPOSED STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF 9 PROPOSED RAILING 10 25' HEIGHT LIMIT 11 LINE OF ADDITION PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PER CHANGE ORDER 3 12 LINE OF PROPOSED DESIGN CHANGES TO THE REAR ADDITION KEYNOTE LEGEND CHANGE ORDER 3 WEST ELEVATION 1' = 1'-0" 3 PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0" HEIGHT OF ROOF IS INACCURATELY SHOWN IN THE CHANGE ORDER 3 DRAWINGS VERIFICATION IN FIELD CONFIRMS THAT THIS ROOF IS 24'-3" ABOVE PROJECT 100' P 4 7 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM SECTIONS OPT 1 012 DRESSING RM 111 BEDROOM 112 DECKDECK 1 2 3 4 5 6 6 9 T.O. EXISTING RIDGE 124'-3" UPPER LEVEL T.O. FF 111'-1" MAIN LEVEL T.O. FF 100'-0" LOWER LEVEL T.O. FF 95'-0" BATH 110 ABC T.O. EXISTING RIDGE 124'-3" UPPER LEVEL T.O. FF 111'-1" DRESSING RM 111 MAIN LEVEL T.O. FF 100'-0" BATH 110 A B C T.O. EXISTING RIDGE 124'-3" UPPER LEVEL T.O. FF 111'-1" DRESSING RM 111 MAIN LEVEL T.O. FF 100'-0" 112 C B A T.O. EXISTING RIDGE 124'-3" UPPER LEVEL T.O. FF 111'-1" BEDROOM MAIN LEVEL T.O. FF 100'-0" EXISTING WALLS TO REMAIN PROPOSED REMODEL ADDITION WALL TYPE LEGEND 1 SECTION 1/4" = 1'-0" 2 SECTION 1/4" = 1'-0"3 SECTION 1/4" = 1'-0"4 SECTION 1/4" = 1'-0" P 4 8 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM 3D VIEW OPT 1 013 1 2 3 ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISTING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING BRICK 4 EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE 5 EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 6 PROPOSED VERTICAL SIDING 7 PROPSED STUCCO SIDING 8 PROPOSED STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF 9 PROPOSED RAILING 10 25' HEIGHT LIMIT 11 LINE OF ADDITION PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PER CHANGE ORDER 3 12 LINE OF PROPOSED DESIGN CHANGES TO THE REAR ADDITION KEYNOTE LEGEND SOUTHWEST PERSPECTIVE 1 9 8 3 6 7 5 7 9 8 6 9 2 P 4 9 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM 3D VIEW OPT 1 014 1 2 3 ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISTING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING BRICK 4 EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE 5 EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 6 PROPOSED VERTICAL SIDING 7 PROPSED STUCCO SIDING 8 PROPOSED STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF 9 PROPOSED RAILING 10 25' HEIGHT LIMIT 11 LINE OF ADDITION PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PER CHANGE ORDER 3 12 LINE OF PROPOSED DESIGN CHANGES TO THE REAR ADDITION KEYNOTE LEGEND SOUTHEAST PERSPECTIVE 8 9 6 1 2 3 7 5 6 8 6 7 P 5 0 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM 3D VIEW OPT 1 015 1 2 3 ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISTING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING BRICK 4 EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE 5 EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 6 PROPOSED VERTICAL SIDING 7 PROPSED STUCCO SIDING 8 PROPOSED STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF 9 PROPOSED RAILING 10 25' HEIGHT LIMIT 11 LINE OF ADDITION PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PER CHANGE ORDER 3 12 LINE OF PROPOSED DESIGN CHANGES TO THE REAR ADDITION KEYNOTE LEGEND NORTHEAST PERSPECTIVE 4 5 1 8 6 3 7 6 1 4 P 5 1 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM 3D VIEW OPT 1 016 1 2 3 ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISTING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING BRICK 4 EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE 5 EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 6 PROPOSED VERTICAL SIDING 7 PROPSED STUCCO SIDING 8 PROPOSED STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF 9 PROPOSED RAILING 10 25' HEIGHT LIMIT 11 LINE OF ADDITION PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PER CHANGE ORDER 3 12 LINE OF PROPOSED DESIGN CHANGES TO THE REAR ADDITION KEYNOTE LEGEND NORTHWEST PERSPECTIVE 5 4 3 2 6 9 9 1 9 4 9 P 5 2 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM MAIN LEVEL OPT 2 017 1 1 A A B B C C 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 9 9 2 2 '-3 1 /2 " 33'-0"24'-111/2"22'-7" 1 0 '-0 1 /2 " 1 2 '-3 " 6'-0"3'-71/2"1'-11"3'-61/2"3'-61/2"3'-61/2" 4 '-1 1 1 /2 " 1 1 '-2 " 6 '-2 " 5'-5" 2 '-0 1 /2 " 1'-81/2" 33'-0"24'-111/2"22'-7" 2 2 '-3 1 /2 " 1 '-1 " 9 '-0 " 1 '-1 " 1 '-2 " 8 '-1 0 1 /2 " 6 " 5 1 /2 " 6 '-1 0 " 5 1 /2 " 2 '-1 0 " 1 '-2 " 1'-81/2" 14'-8"9'-8"8'-8"9'-71/2"15'-4"11'-31/2"11'-31/2" 4 '-1 1 1 /2 " 5 '-1 " 6 '-1 " 6 '-2 " 5'-0"51/2" 5 '-0 " 5 1 /2 " 1 023 1 023 2 023 2 023 4 023 4 023 3 023 3 023 3 022 2 021 1 020 4 021 PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE MECH ROOM 001 6 6 EXISTING WALLS TO REMAIN PROPOSED REMODEL ADDITION WALL TYPE LEGEND NPROPOSED MAIN LEVEL 1/4" = 1'-0" P 5 3 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM UPPER LEVEL OPT 2 018 1 1 A A B B C C 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 9 9 CDW 1 023 1 023 2 023 2 023 4 023 4 023 3 023 3 023 3 022 2 021 1 020 4 021 9'-73/4"15'-33/4"15'-7" 33'-0" 4 '-4 1 /2 " 7 " 1 2 '-3 " 2 '-1 1 /2 " 2 '-1 1 1 /2 " 14'-8"9'-8"8'-8"24'-111/2"5'-8"9'-11"9'-6" 33'-0"47'-61/2"2'-6" 51/2"14'-21/2"51/2"3'-21/2"51/2"13'-9"51/2" 2 2 '-3 1 /2 " 1 0 '-0 1 /2 " 1 2 '-3 " 7'-103/8"7'-53/8" 2 '-1 1 1 /2 " 4'-81/2"5'-103/4"4'-81/2"7'-1"3'-0"3'-0"2'-6" 51/2"14'-43/4"51/2" 2 '-1 1 /2 " 80'-61/2"2'-6" 9'-73/4"7'-103/8"7'-53/8"2'-10"2'-10"4'-111/2"4'-111/2" 6 '-1 1 /2 " 6 '-1 1 /2 " 1 0 1 /2 " 9 1 /2 " 5 1 /2 " 2 '-1 1 1 /2 " 4'-81/2"3'-17/8"7'-53/8" 2 '-6 3 /4 " 2'-21/2" 6 1 /2 " PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE EXIST. BEDROOM EXIST. BEDROOM DECK BATH 110 DRESSING RM 111 BEDROOM 112 DECK EXT. STAIR STAIR BATH 5 '-0 1 /8 " 5 1 /2 " 6 6 EXISTING WALLS TO REMAIN PROPOSED REMODEL ADDITION WALL TYPE LEGEND NPROPOSED UPPER LEVEL 1/4" = 1'-0" P 5 4 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM ROOF PLAN OPT 2 019 1 1 A A B B C C 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 9 9 1 023 1 023 2 023 2 023 4 023 4 023 3 023 3 023 3 022 2 021 1 020 4 021 4 3/8:12 4 3/8:124 3/8:12 4 3/8:12 DECK BELOW DECK BELOW PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE 6 6 NPROPOSED ROOF PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0" P 5 5 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM ELEVATIONS OPT 2 020 1 2 3 A3.1 SHEET TITLE STRUCTURALCONSULTANTSMECHANICALSURVEYORGEOTECH COPYRIGHT FORUM PHI PROJECT NO:0608 DRAWN BY:SMW CIVIL CONTRACTOR DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL HPC 5/1/08 CD 6/13/08 CONSULTANTS HPC 7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL 10/23/08 REVISIONS 5/7/09 REVISIONS 08/18/10 REVISIONS ELEVATIONS 627 W. MAIN STASPEN, COLORADO 81611FORUM PHI174 Midland Ave, Suite 201P.O. Box 1606Basalt, Colorado 81621PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585DOUGLAS KELSO #### KELSO ADDITIONRocky Mountain Surveying4133 Crystal Springs Rd.Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 379-1919Fax: (970) 963-5873Yeh and Associates, Inc.170 Mel Ray RoadGlenwood Springs, CO 81601Phone: (970) 384-1500Fax: (970) 384-1501 Efficiency In Mind, LLC P.O. Box 1481 Carbondale, CO 81623 Phone: (970) 274-6336 Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd. P.O. Box 978 Avon, CO 81620 Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221 Fax: (970) 949-9339 Mozer-Renn Structural Service8573 E. Napa PlaceDenver, CO 80237Phone: (720) 212-0727Fax: (303) 484-8958 DATE OF PUBLICATION8/31/2010 23PROPOSED ADDITIONORIGINAL1888 ADDITION 200011'25'100'100'-9"109'-9"111'-1"118'-7"32 764519 T.O. PLATET.O.F.F.EXISTING V.I.F.EXISTING V.I.F.25' HEIGHT LIMITEXISTING GRADE T.O. SLAB ADDITION 2000 PROPOSED ADDITION ORIGINAL 1888 25 ' 11 ' 100' 100'-9" 109'-9" 111'-1" 118'-7" 3'-4 1/2" 3' - 8 " 2' - 7 " 5 7 3 9 1 T.O. PLATE T.O.F.F. EXISTING V.I.F. EXISTING V.I.F. 25' HEIGHT LIMIT EXISTING GRADE T.O. SLAB 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISITING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISITING BRICK STANDING SEAM 8" WOOD FASCIA TIMBER COLUMN HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 1 WEST 1/4" = 1'-0" 3 EAST 1/4" = 1'-0" PROPOSED ADDITION ORIGINAL 1888 1 6 1 5 T.O. EXISTING RIDGE 124'-3" UPPER LEVEL T.O. FF 111'-1" 9 6 6 5 4 3 2 1 10 12 11 7 12 11 9 6 8 7 9 MAIN LEVEL T.O. FF 100'-0" LOWER LEVEL T.O. FF 95'-0" 123 A3.1SHEET TITLESTRUCTURALCONSULTANTSMECHANICALSURVEYORGEOTECHCOPYRIGHTFORUM PHIPROJECT NO:0608DRAWN BY:SMWCIVILCONTRACTORDESCRIPTIONMARKDATECONCEPTUALAPPROVALHPC5/1/08CD6/13/08 CONSULTANTSHPC7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL10/23/08 REVISIONS5/7/09 REVISIONS08/18/10 REVISIONS ELEVAT IONS 627 W. MAIN STASPEN, COLORADO 81611FORUM PHI174 Midland Ave, Suite 201P.O. Box 1606Basalt, Colorado 81621PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585DOUGLAS KELSO####KELSO ADDITIONRocky Mountain Surveying4133 Crystal Springs Rd.Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 379-1919Fax: (970) 963-5873Yeh and Associates, Inc.170 Mel Ray RoadGlenwood Springs, CO 81601Phone: (970) 384-1500Fax: (970) 384-1501Efficiency In Mind, LLCP.O. Box 1481Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 274-6336Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd.P.O. Box 978Avon, CO 81620Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221Fax: (970) 949-9339Mozer-Renn Structural Service8573 E. Napa PlaceDenver, CO 80237Phone: (720) 212-0727Fax: (303) 484-8958DATE OF PUBLICATION8/31/201023PROPOSED ADDITIONORIGINAL1888 ADDITION 200011'25'100'100'-9"109'-9"111'-1"118'-7"32 764519 T.O. PLATET.O.F.F.EXISTING V.I.F.EXISTING V.I.F.25' HEIGHT LIMITEXISTING GRADE T.O. SLABADDITION 2000PROPOSED ADDITION ORIGINAL 1888 25'11'100'100'-9"109'-9"111'-1"118'-7"3'-4 1/2"3'-8"2'-7"57 391 T.O. PLATET.O.F.F.EXISTING V.I.F.EXISTING V.I.F.25' HEIGHT LIMITEXISTING GRADE T.O. SLAB 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISITING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISITING BRICK STANDING SEAM 8" WOOD FASCIA TIMBER COLUMN HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 1 WEST 1/4" = 1'-0" 3 EAST 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 2 3 ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISTING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING BRICK 4 EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE 5 EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 6 PROPOSED VERTICAL SIDING 7 PROPSED HORIZONTAL SIDING 8 PROPOSED STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF 9 PROPOSED RAILING 10 25' HEIGHT LIMIT 11 LINE OF ADDITION PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PER CHANGE ORDER 3 12 LINE OF PROPOSED DESIGN CHANGES TO THE REAR ADDITION KEYNOTE LEGEND CHANGE ORDER 3 EAST ELEVATION 1' = 1'-0" 1 PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0" P 5 6 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM ELEVATIONS OPT 2 021 4 3 1 8 4 6 5 5 12 11 T.O. EXISTING RIDGE 124'-3" UPPER LEVEL T.O. FF 111'-1" C B A MAIN LEVEL T.O. FF 100'-0" LOWER LEVEL T.O. FF 95'-0" 6 8 7 6 9 9 1 12 T.O. EXISTING RIDGE 124'-3" UPPER LEVEL T.O. FF 111'-1" A B C MAIN LEVEL T.O. FF 100'-0" LOWER LEVEL T.O. FF 95'-0" 1 2 3 A3.2 SHEET TITLE STRUCTURALCONSULTANTS MECHANICAL SURVEYORGEOTECH COPYRIGHT FORUM PHI PROJECT NO:0608 DRAWN BY:SMW CIVIL CONTRACTOR DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL HPC 5/1/08 CD 6/13/08 CONSULTANTS HPC 7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL 10/23/08 REVISIONS 5/7/09 REVISIONS 08/18/10 REVISIONS ELEVATIONS 627 W. MAIN STASPEN, COLORADO 81611FORUM PHI174 Midland Ave, Suite 201P.O. Box 1606Basalt, Colorado 81621PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585DOUGLAS KELSO #### KELSO ADDITIONRocky Mountain Surveying4133 Crystal Springs Rd.Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 379-1919Fax: (970) 963-5873Yeh and Associates, Inc.170 Mel Ray RoadGlenwood Springs, CO 81601Phone: (970) 384-1500Fax: (970) 384-1501 Efficiency In Mind, LLC P.O. Box 1481 Carbondale, CO 81623 Phone: (970) 274-6336 Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd. P.O. Box 978 Avon, CO 81620 Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221 Fax: (970) 949-9339 Mozer-Renn Structural Service8573 E. Napa Place Denver, CO 80237 Phone: (720) 212-0727 Fax: (303) 484-8958 DATE OF PUBLICATION1/5/2016 3 18'-10 11/16"18'-10 11/16"25'100'100'-9"111'-1"118'-7"6 87POINT 3 POINT 4 15 T.O. PLATET.O.F.F.T.O. SLAB25' HEIGHT LIMITEXISTING GRADE T.O. SLAB 100' 109'-9" 111'-7 3/16" 25 ' 14 ' - 9 9/ 1 6 " 14 ' - 9 9/ 1 6 " 3 8 2 1 7 POINT 1POINT 2 5 EXISTING V.I.F. EXISTING V.I.F. EXISTING V.I.F. 25' HEIGHT LIMIT EXISTING GRADE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISITING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISITING BRICK STANDING SEAM 8" WOOD FASCIA TIMBER COLUMN HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 2 SOUTH 1/4" = 1'-0" 4 NORTH 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 2 3 A3.2 SHEET TITLE STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS MECHANICAL SURVEYOR GEOTECH COPYRIGHT FORUM PHI PROJECT NO:0608 DRAWN BY:SMW CIVIL CONTRACTOR DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL HPC 5/1/08 CD 6/13/08 CONSULTANTS HPC 7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL 10/23/08 REVISIONS 5/7/09 REVISIONS 08/18/10 REVISIONS ELEVATIONS 627 W. MAIN ST ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 FORUM PHI 174 Midland Ave, Suite 201 P.O. Box 1606 Basalt, Colorado 81621 PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585 DOUGLAS KELSO #### KELSO ADDITION Rocky Mountain Surveying 4133 Crystal Springs Rd. Carbondale, CO 81623 Phone: (970) 379-1919 Fax: (970) 963-5873 Yeh and Associates, Inc. 170 Mel Ray Road Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: (970) 384-1500 Fax: (970) 384-1501 Efficiency In Mind, LLC P.O. Box 1481 Carbondale, CO 81623 Phone: (970) 274-6336 Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd. P.O. Box 978 Avon, CO 81620 Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221 Fax: (970) 949-9339 Mozer-Renn Structural Service 8573 E. Napa Place Denver, CO 80237 Phone: (720) 212-0727 Fax: (303) 484-8958 DATE OF PUBLICATION1/5/2016 3 18 ' - 1 0 11 / 1 6 " 18 ' - 1 0 11 / 1 6 " 25 ' 100' 100'-9" 111'-1" 118'-7" 6 8 7 POINT 3 POINT 4 1 5 T.O. PLATE T.O.F.F. T.O. SLAB 25' HEIGHT LIMIT EXISTING GRADE T.O. SLAB 100' 109'-9" 111'-7 3/16" 25 ' 14 ' - 9 9/ 1 6 " 14 ' - 9 9/ 1 6 " 3 8 2 1 7 POINT 1POINT 2 5 EXISTING V.I.F. EXISTING V.I.F. EXISTING V.I.F. 25' HEIGHT LIMIT EXISTING GRADE 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9ASPHALT SHINGLEEXISITING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISITING BRICK STANDING SEAM 8" WOOD FASCIA TIMBER COLUMN HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 2 SOUTH 1/4" = 1'-0" 4 NORTH 1/4" = 1'-0" 123 A3.1SHEET TITLESTRUCTURALCONSULTANTSMECHANICALSURVEYORGEOTECHCOPYRIGHTFORUM PHIPROJECT NO:0608DRAWN BY:SMWCIVILCONTRACTORDESCRIPTIONMARKDATECONCEPTUALAPPROVALHPC5/1/08CD6/13/08 CONSULTANTSHPC7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL10/23/08 REVISIONS5/7/09 REVISIONS08/18/10 REVISIONS ELEVATIONS 627 W. MAIN STASPEN, COLORADO 81611FORUM PHI174 Midland Ave, Suite 201P.O. Box 1606Basalt, Colorado 81621PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585DOUGLAS KELSO####KELSO ADDITIONRocky Mountain Surveying4133 Crystal Springs Rd.Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 379-1919Fax: (970) 963-5873Yeh and Associates, Inc.170 Mel Ray RoadGlenwood Springs, CO 81601Phone: (970) 384-1500Fax: (970) 384-1501Efficiency In Mind, LLCP.O. Box 1481Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 274-6336Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd.P.O. Box 978Avon, CO 81620Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221Fax: (970) 949-9339Mozer-Renn Structural Service8573 E. Napa PlaceDenver, CO 80237Phone: (720) 212-0727Fax: (303) 484-8958DATE OF PUBLICATION8/31/201023PROPOSED ADDITIONORIGINAL1888 ADDITION 200011'25'100'100'-9"109'-9"111'-1"118'-7"32 764519 T.O. PLATET.O.F.F.EXISTING V.I.F.EXISTING V.I.F.25' HEIGHT LIMITEXISTING GRADE T.O. SLABADDITION 2000PROPOSED ADDITION ORIGINAL 1888 25'11 '100'100'-9"109'-9"111'-1"118'-7"3'-4 1/2"3'-8"2'-7"57 391 T.O. PLATET.O.F.F.EXISTING V.I.F.EXISTING V.I.F.25' HEIGHT LIMITEXISTING GRADE T.O. SLAB 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISITING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISITING BRICK STANDING SEAM 8" WOOD FASCIA TIMBER COLUMN HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 1 WEST 1/4" = 1'-0" 3 EAST 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 2 3 ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISTING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING BRICK 4 EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE 5 EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 6 PROPOSED VERTICAL SIDING 7 PROPSED HORIZONTAL SIDING 8 PROPOSED STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF 9 PROPOSED RAILING 10 25' HEIGHT LIMIT 11 LINE OF ADDITION PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PER CHANGE ORDER 3 12 LINE OF PROPOSED DESIGN CHANGES TO THE REAR ADDITION KEYNOTE LEGEND 4 PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0"2 PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0" CHANGE ORDER 3 NORTH ELEVATION 1' = 1'-0"CHANGE ORDER 3 SOUTH ELEVATION 1' = 1'-0" HEIGHT OF ROOF IS INACCURATELY SHOWN IN THE CHANGE ORDER 3 DRAWINGS VERIFICATION IN FIELD CONFIRMS THAT THIS ROOF IS 24'-3" ABOVE PROJECT 100' P 5 7 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM ELEVATIONS OPT 2 022 1 2 3 A3.1 SHEET TITLE STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS MECHANICAL SURVEYOR GEOTECH COPYRIGHT FORUM PHI PROJECT NO:0608 DRAWN BY:SMW CIVIL CONTRACTOR DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL HPC 5/1/08 CD 6/13/08 CONSULTANTS HPC 7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL 10/23/08 REVISIONS 5/7/09 REVISIONS 08/18/10 REVISIONS ELEVATIONS 627 W. MAIN ST ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 FORUM PHI 174 Midland Ave, Suite 201 P.O. Box 1606 Basalt, Colorado 81621 PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585 DOUGLAS KELSO #### KELSO ADDITION Rocky Mountain Surveying 4133 Crystal Springs Rd. Carbondale, CO 81623 Phone: (970) 379-1919 Fax: (970) 963-5873 Yeh and Associates, Inc. 170 Mel Ray Road Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: (970) 384-1500 Fax: (970) 384-1501 Efficiency In Mind, LLC P.O. Box 1481 Carbondale, CO 81623 Phone: (970) 274-6336 Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd. P.O. Box 978 Avon, CO 81620 Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221 Fax: (970) 949-9339 Mozer-Renn Structural Service 8573 E. Napa Place Denver, CO 80237 Phone: (720) 212-0727 Fax: (303) 484-8958 DATE OF PUBLICATION8/31/2010 2 3 PROPOSED ADDITIONORIGINAL1888 ADDITION 2000 11' 25 ' 100' 100'-9" 109'-9" 111'-1" 118'-7" 3 2 7 6 4 5 1 9 T.O. PLATE T.O.F.F. EXISTING V.I.F. EXISTING V.I.F. 25' HEIGHT LIMIT EXISTING GRADE T.O. SLAB ADDITION 2000 PROPOSED ADDITION ORIGINAL 1888 25 ' 11' 100' 100'-9" 109'-9" 111'-1" 118'-7" 3'-4 1/2" 3' - 8 " 2' - 7 " 5 7 3 9 1 T.O. PLATE T.O.F.F. EXISTING V.I.F. EXISTING V.I.F. 25' HEIGHT LIMIT EXISTING GRADE T.O. SLAB 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISITING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISITING BRICK STANDING SEAM 8" WOOD FASCIA TIMBER COLUMN HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 1 WEST 1/4" = 1'-0" 3 EAST 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 2 3 4 5 6 9 9'-71/2" ORIGINAL 1888 PROPOSED ADDITION 3 1 1 2 8 6 9 7 6 10 12 9 T.O. EXISTING RIDGE 124'-3" UPPER LEVEL T.O. FF 111'-1" 6 7 11 MAIN LEVEL T.O. FF 100'-0" LOWER LEVEL T.O. FF 95'-0" 123 A3.1SHEET TITLESTRUCTURALCONSULTANTSMECHANICALSURVEYORGEOTECHCOPYRIGHTFORUM PHIPROJECT NO:0608DRAWN BY:SMWCIVILCONTRACTORDESCRIPTIONMARKDATECONCEPTUALAPPROVALHPC5/1/08CD6/13/08 CONSULTANTSHPC7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL10/23/08 REVISIONS5/7/09 REVISIONS08/18/10 REVISIONS ELEVATIONS 627 W. MAIN STASPEN, COLORADO 81611FORUM PHI174 Midland Ave, Suite 201P.O. Box 1606Basalt, Colorado 81621PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585DOUGLAS KELSO####KELSO ADDITIONRocky Mountain Surveying4133 Crystal Springs Rd.Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 379-1919Fax: (970) 963-5873Yeh and Associates, Inc.170 Mel Ray RoadGlenwood Springs, CO 81601Phone: (970) 384-1500Fax: (970) 384-1501Efficiency In Mind, LLCP.O. Box 1481Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 274-6336Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd.P.O. Box 978Avon, CO 81620Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221Fax: (970) 949-9339Mozer-Renn Structural Service8573 E. Napa PlaceDenver, CO 80237Phone: (720) 212-0727Fax: (303) 484-8958DATE OF PUBLICATION8/31/201023PROPOSED ADDITIONORIGINAL1888 ADDITION 200011'25'100'100'-9"109'-9"111'-1"118'-7"32 764519 T.O. PLATET.O.F.F.EXISTING V.I.F.EXISTING V.I.F.25' HEIGHT LIMITEXISTING GRADE T.O. SLABADDITION 2000PROPOSED ADDITION ORIGINAL 1888 25'11'100'100'-9"109'-9"111'-1"118'-7"3'-4 1/2"3'-8"2'-7"57 391 T.O. PLATET.O.F.F.EXISTING V.I.F.EXISTING V.I.F.25' HEIGHT LIMITEXISTING GRADE T.O. SLAB 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISITING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISITING BRICK STANDING SEAM 8" WOOD FASCIA TIMBER COLUMN HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 1 WEST 1/4" = 1'-0" 3 EAST 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 2 3 ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISTING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING BRICK 4 EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE 5 EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 6 PROPOSED VERTICAL SIDING 7 PROPSED HORIZONTAL SIDING 8 PROPOSED STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF 9 PROPOSED RAILING 10 25' HEIGHT LIMIT 11 LINE OF ADDITION PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PER CHANGE ORDER 3 12 LINE OF PROPOSED DESIGN CHANGES TO THE REAR ADDITION KEYNOTE LEGEND CHANGE ORDER 3 WEST ELEVATION 1' = 1'-0" 3 PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0" HEIGHT OF ROOF IS INACCURATELY SHOWN IN THE CHANGE ORDER 3 DRAWINGS VERIFICATION IN FIELD CONFIRMS THAT THIS ROOF IS 24'-3" ABOVE PROJECT 100' P 5 8 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM SECTIONS OPT 2 023 DRESSING RM 111 BEDROOM 112 DECKDECK 1 2 3 4 5 6 6 9 T.O. EXISTING RIDGE 124'-3" UPPER LEVEL T.O. FF 111'-1" MAIN LEVEL T.O. FF 100'-0" LOWER LEVEL T.O. FF 95'-0" BATH 110 ABC T.O. EXISTING RIDGE 124'-3" UPPER LEVEL T.O. FF 111'-1" DRESSING RM 111 MAIN LEVEL T.O. FF 100'-0" BATH 110 A B C T.O. EXISTING RIDGE 124'-3" UPPER LEVEL T.O. FF 111'-1" DRESSING RM 111 MAIN LEVEL T.O. FF 100'-0" 112 C B A T.O. EXISTING RIDGE 124'-3" UPPER LEVEL T.O. FF 111'-1" BEDROOM MAIN LEVEL T.O. FF 100'-0" EXISTING WALLS TO REMAIN PROPOSED REMODEL ADDITION WALL TYPE LEGEND 1 SECTION SD 2 1/4" = 1'-0" 2 SECTION SD 2 1/4" = 1'-0"3 SECTION SD 2 1/4" = 1'-0"4 SECTION SD 2 1/4" = 1'-0" P 5 9 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM 3D VIEW OPT 2 024 1 2 3 ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISTING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING BRICK 4 EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE 5 EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 6 PROPOSED VERTICAL SIDING 7 PROPSED HORIZONTAL SIDING 8 PROPOSED STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF 9 PROPOSED RAILING 10 25' HEIGHT LIMIT 11 LINE OF ADDITION PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PER CHANGE ORDER 3 12 LINE OF PROPOSED DESIGN CHANGES TO THE REAR ADDITION KEYNOTE LEGEND SOUTHWEST PERSPECTIVE 1 9 8 3 6 7 5 7 9 8 6 9 2 P 6 0 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM 3D VIEW OPT 2 025 1 2 3 ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISTING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING BRICK 4 EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE 5 EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 6 PROPOSED VERTICAL SIDING 7 PROPSED HORIZONTAL SIDING 8 PROPOSED STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF 9 PROPOSED RAILING 10 25' HEIGHT LIMIT 11 LINE OF ADDITION PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PER CHANGE ORDER 3 12 LINE OF PROPOSED DESIGN CHANGES TO THE REAR ADDITION KEYNOTE LEGEND SOUTHEAST PERSPECTIVE 8 9 6 1 2 3 7 5 6 8 6 9 7 P 6 1 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM 3D VIEW OPT 2 026 1 2 3 ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISTING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING BRICK 4 EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE 5 EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 6 PROPOSED VERTICAL SIDING 7 PROPSED HORIZONTAL SIDING 8 PROPOSED STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF 9 PROPOSED RAILING 10 25' HEIGHT LIMIT 11 LINE OF ADDITION PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PER CHANGE ORDER 3 12 LINE OF PROPOSED DESIGN CHANGES TO THE REAR ADDITION KEYNOTE LEGEND NORTHEAST PERSPECTIVE 4 5 1 8 6 3 7 6 1 4 P 6 2 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM 3D VIEW OPT 2 027 1 2 3 ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISTING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING BRICK 4 EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE 5 EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 6 PROPOSED VERTICAL SIDING 7 PROPSED HORIZONTAL SIDING 8 PROPOSED STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF 9 PROPOSED RAILING 10 25' HEIGHT LIMIT 11 LINE OF ADDITION PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PER CHANGE ORDER 3 12 LINE OF PROPOSED DESIGN CHANGES TO THE REAR ADDITION KEYNOTE LEGEND NORTHWEST PERSPECTIVE 5 4 3 2 8 6 9 9 1 9 4 9 P 6 3 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM MAIN LEVEL OPT 3 028 1 1 A A B B C C 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 9 9 2 2 '-3 1 /2 " 33'-0"24'-111/2"22'-7" 1 0 '-0 1 /2 " 1 2 '-3 " 6'-0"3'-71/2"1'-11"3'-61/2"3'-61/2"3'-61/2" 4 '-1 1 1 /2 " 1 1 '-2 " 6 '-2 " 5'-5" 2 '-0 1 /2 " 1'-81/2" 33'-0"24'-111/2"22'-7" 2 2 '-3 1 /2 " 1 '-1 " 9 '-0 " 1 '-1 " 1 '-2 " 8 '-1 0 1 /2 " 6 " 5 1 /2 " 6 '-1 0 " 5 1 /2 " 2 '-1 0 " 1 '-2 " 1'-81/2" 14'-8"9'-8"8'-8"9'-71/2"15'-4"11'-31/2"11'-31/2" 4 '-1 1 1 /2 " 5 '-1 " 6 '-1 " 6 '-2 " 5'-0"51/2" 5 '-0 " 5 1 /2 " 1 034 1 034 2 034 2 034 4 034 4 034 3 034 3 034 3 033 2 032 1 031 4 032 PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE MECH ROOM 001 6 6 EXISTING WALLS TO REMAIN PROPOSED REMODEL ADDITION WALL TYPE LEGEND NPROPOSED MAIN LEVEL 1/4" = 1'-0" P 6 4 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM UPPER LEVEL OPT 3 029 1 1 A A B B C C 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 9 9 CDW 1 034 1 034 2 034 2 034 4 034 4 034 3 034 3 034 3 033 2 032 1 031 4 032 9'-73/4"15'-33/4"15'-7" 33'-0" 4 '-4 1 /2 " 7 " 1 2 '-3 " 2 '-1 1 /2 " 2 '-1 1 1 /2 " 14'-8"9'-8"8'-8"24'-111/2"5'-8"9'-11"9'-6" 33'-0"47'-61/2"2'-6" 51/2"14'-21/2"51/2"3'-21/2"51/2"13'-9"51/2" 2 2 '-3 1 /2 " 1 0 '-0 1 /2 " 1 2 '-3 " 7'-103/8"7'-53/8" 2 '-1 1 1 /2 " 4'-81/2"5'-103/4"4'-81/2"7'-1"3'-0"3'-0"2'-6" 51/2"14'-43/4"51/2" 2 '-1 1 /2 " 80'-61/2"2'-6" 9'-73/4"7'-103/8"7'-53/8"2'-10"2'-10"4'-111/2"4'-111/2" 6 '-1 1 /2 " 6 '-1 1 /2 " 1 0 1 /2 " 9 1 /2 " 5 1 /2 " 2 '-1 1 1 /2 " 4'-81/2"3'-17/8"7'-53/8" 2 '-6 3 /4 " 2'-21/2" 6 1 /2 " PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE EXIST. BEDROOM EXIST. BEDROOM DECK BATH 110 DRESSING RM 111 BEDROOM 112 DECK EXT. STAIR STAIR BATH 5 '-0 1 /8 " 5 1 /2 " 6 6 EXISTING WALLS TO REMAIN PROPOSED REMODEL ADDITION WALL TYPE LEGEND NPROPOSED UPPER LEVEL 1/4" = 1'-0" P 6 5 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM ROOF PLAN OPT 3 030 1 1 A A B B C C 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 9 9 1 034 1 034 2 034 2 034 4 034 4 034 3 034 3 034 3 033 2 032 1 031 4 032 2:12 2:12 2:122:12 DECK BELOW DECK BELOW PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE 6 6 NPROPOSED ROOF PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0" P 6 6 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM ELEVATIONS OPT 3 031 1 2 3 A3.1 SHEET TITLE STRUCTURALCONSULTANTSMECHANICALSURVEYORGEOTECH COPYRIGHT FORUM PHI PROJECT NO:0608 DRAWN BY:SMW CIVIL CONTRACTOR DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL HPC 5/1/08 CD 6/13/08 CONSULTANTS HPC 7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL 10/23/08 REVISIONS 5/7/09 REVISIONS 08/18/10 REVISIONS ELEVATIONS 627 W. MAIN STASPEN, COLORADO 81611FORUM PHI174 Midland Ave, Suite 201P.O. Box 1606Basalt, Colorado 81621PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585DOUGLAS KELSO #### KELSO ADDITIONRocky Mountain Surveying4133 Crystal Springs Rd.Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 379-1919Fax: (970) 963-5873Yeh and Associates, Inc.170 Mel Ray RoadGlenwood Springs, CO 81601Phone: (970) 384-1500Fax: (970) 384-1501 Efficiency In Mind, LLC P.O. Box 1481 Carbondale, CO 81623 Phone: (970) 274-6336 Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd. P.O. Box 978 Avon, CO 81620 Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221 Fax: (970) 949-9339 Mozer-Renn Structural Service8573 E. Napa PlaceDenver, CO 80237Phone: (720) 212-0727Fax: (303) 484-8958 DATE OF PUBLICATION8/31/2010 23PROPOSED ADDITIONORIGINAL1888 ADDITION 200011'25'100'100'-9"109'-9"111'-1"118'-7"32 764519 T.O. PLATET.O.F.F.EXISTING V.I.F.EXISTING V.I.F.25' HEIGHT LIMITEXISTING GRADE T.O. SLAB ADDITION 2000 PROPOSED ADDITION ORIGINAL 1888 25 ' 11 ' 100' 100'-9" 109'-9" 111'-1" 118'-7" 3'-4 1/2" 3' - 8 " 2' - 7 " 5 7 3 9 1 T.O. PLATE T.O.F.F. EXISTING V.I.F. EXISTING V.I.F. 25' HEIGHT LIMIT EXISTING GRADE T.O. SLAB 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISITING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISITING BRICK STANDING SEAM 8" WOOD FASCIA TIMBER COLUMN HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 1 WEST 1/4" = 1'-0" 3 EAST 1/4" = 1'-0" PROPOSED ADDITION ORIGINAL 1888 1 6 1 5 T.O. EXISTING RIDGE 124'-3" UPPER LEVEL T.O. FF 111'-1" 9 6 6 5 4 3 2 1 10 12 11 7 12 11 9 6 8 7 9 MAIN LEVEL T.O. FF 100'-0" LOWER LEVEL T.O. FF 95'-0" 123 A3.1SHEET TITLESTRUCTURALCONSULTANTSMECHANICALSURVEYORGEOTECHCOPYRIGHTFORUM PHIPROJECT NO:0608DRAWN BY:SMWCIVILCONTRACTORDESCRIPTIONMARKDATECONCEPTUALAPPROVALHPC5/1/08CD6/13/08 CONSULTANTSHPC7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL10/23/08 REVISIONS5/7/09 REVISIONS08/18/10 REVISIONS ELEVAT IONS 627 W. MAIN STASPEN, COLORADO 81611FORUM PHI174 Midland Ave, Suite 201P.O. Box 1606Basalt, Colorado 81621PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585DOUGLAS KELSO####KELSO ADDITIONRocky Mountain Surveying4133 Crystal Springs Rd.Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 379-1919Fax: (970) 963-5873Yeh and Associates, Inc.170 Mel Ray RoadGlenwood Springs, CO 81601Phone: (970) 384-1500Fax: (970) 384-1501Efficiency In Mind, LLCP.O. Box 1481Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 274-6336Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd.P.O. Box 978Avon, CO 81620Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221Fax: (970) 949-9339Mozer-Renn Structural Service8573 E. Napa PlaceDenver, CO 80237Phone: (720) 212-0727Fax: (303) 484-8958DATE OF PUBLICATION8/31/201023PROPOSED ADDITIONORIGINAL1888 ADDITION 200011'25'100'100'-9"109'-9"111'-1"118'-7"32 764519 T.O. PLATET.O.F.F.EXISTING V.I.F.EXISTING V.I.F.25' HEIGHT LIMITEXISTING GRADE T.O. SLABADDITION 2000PROPOSED ADDITION ORIGINAL 1888 25'11'100'100'-9"109'-9"111'-1"118'-7"3'-4 1/2"3'-8"2'-7"57 391 T.O. PLATET.O.F.F.EXISTING V.I.F.EXISTING V.I.F.25' HEIGHT LIMITEXISTING GRADE T.O. SLAB 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISITING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISITING BRICK STANDING SEAM 8" WOOD FASCIA TIMBER COLUMN HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 1 WEST 1/4" = 1'-0" 3 EAST 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 2 3 ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISTING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING BRICK 4 EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE 5 EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 6 PROPOSED VERTICAL SIDING 7 PROPSED HORIZONTAL SIDING 8 PROPOSED STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF 9 PROPOSED RAILING 10 25' HEIGHT LIMIT 11 LINE OF ADDITION PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PER CHANGE ORDER 3 12 LINE OF PROPOSED DESIGN CHANGES TO THE REAR ADDITION KEYNOTE LEGEND CHANGE ORDER 3 EAST ELEVATION 1' = 1'-0" 1 PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0" P 6 7 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM ELEVATIONS OPT 3 032 4 3 1 4 6 5 5 12 11 8 T.O. EXISTING RIDGE 124'-3" UPPER LEVEL T.O. FF 111'-1" C B A MAIN LEVEL T.O. FF 100'-0" LOWER LEVEL T.O. FF 95'-0" 6 8 7 6 9 9 1 12 T.O. EXISTING RIDGE 124'-3" UPPER LEVEL T.O. FF 111'-1" A B C MAIN LEVEL T.O. FF 100'-0" LOWER LEVEL T.O. FF 95'-0" 1 2 3 A3.2 SHEET TITLE STRUCTURALCONSULTANTS MECHANICAL SURVEYORGEOTECH COPYRIGHT FORUM PHI PROJECT NO:0608 DRAWN BY:SMW CIVIL CONTRACTOR DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL HPC 5/1/08 CD 6/13/08 CONSULTANTS HPC 7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL 10/23/08 REVISIONS 5/7/09 REVISIONS 08/18/10 REVISIONS ELEVATIONS 627 W. MAIN STASPEN, COLORADO 81611FORUM PHI174 Midland Ave, Suite 201P.O. Box 1606Basalt, Colorado 81621PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585DOUGLAS KELSO #### KELSO ADDITIONRocky Mountain Surveying4133 Crystal Springs Rd.Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 379-1919Fax: (970) 963-5873Yeh and Associates, Inc.170 Mel Ray RoadGlenwood Springs, CO 81601Phone: (970) 384-1500Fax: (970) 384-1501 Efficiency In Mind, LLC P.O. Box 1481 Carbondale, CO 81623 Phone: (970) 274-6336 Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd. P.O. Box 978 Avon, CO 81620 Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221 Fax: (970) 949-9339 Mozer-Renn Structural Service8573 E. Napa Place Denver, CO 80237 Phone: (720) 212-0727 Fax: (303) 484-8958 DATE OF PUBLICATION1/5/2016 3 18'-10 11/16"18'-10 11/16"25'100'100'-9"111'-1"118'-7"6 87POINT 3 POINT 4 15 T.O. PLATET.O.F.F.T.O. SLAB25' HEIGHT LIMITEXISTING GRADE T.O. SLAB 100' 109'-9" 111'-7 3/16" 25 ' 14 ' - 9 9/ 1 6 " 14 ' - 9 9/ 1 6 " 3 8 2 1 7 POINT 1POINT 2 5 EXISTING V.I.F. EXISTING V.I.F. EXISTING V.I.F. 25' HEIGHT LIMIT EXISTING GRADE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISITING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISITING BRICK STANDING SEAM 8" WOOD FASCIA TIMBER COLUMN HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 2 SOUTH 1/4" = 1'-0" 4 NORTH 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 2 3 A3.2 SHEET TITLE STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS MECHANICAL SURVEYOR GEOTECH COPYRIGHT FORUM PHI PROJECT NO:0608 DRAWN BY:SMW CIVIL CONTRACTOR DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL HPC 5/1/08 CD 6/13/08 CONSULTANTS HPC 7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL 10/23/08 REVISIONS 5/7/09 REVISIONS 08/18/10 REVISIONS ELEVATIONS 627 W. MAIN ST ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 FORUM PHI 174 Midland Ave, Suite 201 P.O. Box 1606 Basalt, Colorado 81621 PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585 DOUGLAS KELSO #### KELSO ADDITION Rocky Mountain Surveying 4133 Crystal Springs Rd. Carbondale, CO 81623 Phone: (970) 379-1919 Fax: (970) 963-5873 Yeh and Associates, Inc. 170 Mel Ray Road Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: (970) 384-1500 Fax: (970) 384-1501 Efficiency In Mind, LLC P.O. Box 1481 Carbondale, CO 81623 Phone: (970) 274-6336 Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd. P.O. Box 978 Avon, CO 81620 Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221 Fax: (970) 949-9339 Mozer-Renn Structural Service 8573 E. Napa Place Denver, CO 80237 Phone: (720) 212-0727 Fax: (303) 484-8958 DATE OF PUBLICATION1/5/2016 3 18 ' - 1 0 11 / 1 6 " 18 ' - 1 0 11 / 1 6 " 25 ' 100' 100'-9" 111'-1" 118'-7" 6 8 7 POINT 3 POINT 4 1 5 T.O. PLATE T.O.F.F. T.O. SLAB 25' HEIGHT LIMIT EXISTING GRADE T.O. SLAB 100' 109'-9" 111'-7 3/16" 25 ' 14 ' - 9 9/ 1 6 " 14 ' - 9 9/ 1 6 " 3 8 2 1 7 POINT 1POINT 2 5 EXISTING V.I.F. EXISTING V.I.F. EXISTING V.I.F. 25' HEIGHT LIMIT EXISTING GRADE 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9ASPHALT SHINGLEEXISITING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISITING BRICK STANDING SEAM 8" WOOD FASCIA TIMBER COLUMN HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 2 SOUTH 1/4" = 1'-0" 4 NORTH 1/4" = 1'-0" 123 A3.1SHEET TITLESTRUCTURALCONSULTANTSMECHANICALSURVEYORGEOTECHCOPYRIGHTFORUM PHIPROJECT NO:0608DRAWN BY:SMWCIVILCONTRACTORDESCRIPTIONMARKDATECONCEPTUALAPPROVALHPC5/1/08CD6/13/08 CONSULTANTSHPC7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL10/23/08 REVISIONS5/7/09 REVISIONS08/18/10 REVISIONS ELEVATIONS 627 W. MAIN STASPEN, COLORADO 81611FORUM PHI174 Midland Ave, Suite 201P.O. Box 1606Basalt, Colorado 81621PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585DOUGLAS KELSO####KELSO ADDITIONRocky Mountain Surveying4133 Crystal Springs Rd.Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 379-1919Fax: (970) 963-5873Yeh and Associates, Inc.170 Mel Ray RoadGlenwood Springs, CO 81601Phone: (970) 384-1500Fax: (970) 384-1501Efficiency In Mind, LLCP.O. Box 1481Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 274-6336Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd.P.O. Box 978Avon, CO 81620Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221Fax: (970) 949-9339Mozer-Renn Structural Service8573 E. Napa PlaceDenver, CO 80237Phone: (720) 212-0727Fax: (303) 484-8958DATE OF PUBLICATION8/31/201023PROPOSED ADDITIONORIGINAL1888 ADDITION 200011'25'100'100'-9"109'-9"111'-1"118'-7"32 764519 T.O. PLATET.O.F.F.EXISTING V.I.F.EXISTING V.I.F.25' HEIGHT LIMITEXISTING GRADE T.O. SLABADDITION 2000PROPOSED ADDITION ORIGINAL 1888 25'11 '100'100'-9"109'-9"111'-1"118'-7"3'-4 1/2"3'-8"2'-7"57 391 T.O. PLATET.O.F.F.EXISTING V.I.F.EXISTING V.I.F.25' HEIGHT LIMITEXISTING GRADE T.O. SLAB 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISITING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISITING BRICK STANDING SEAM 8" WOOD FASCIA TIMBER COLUMN HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 1 WEST 1/4" = 1'-0" 3 EAST 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 2 3 ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISTING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING BRICK 4 EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE 5 EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 6 PROPOSED VERTICAL SIDING 7 PROPSED HORIZONTAL SIDING 8 PROPOSED STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF 9 PROPOSED RAILING 10 25' HEIGHT LIMIT 11 LINE OF ADDITION PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PER CHANGE ORDER 3 12 LINE OF PROPOSED DESIGN CHANGES TO THE REAR ADDITION KEYNOTE LEGEND 4 PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0"2 PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0" CHANGE ORDER 3 NORTH ELEVATION 1' = 1'-0"CHANGE ORDER 3 SOUTH ELEVATION 1' = 1'-0" HEIGHT OF ROOF IS INACCURATELY SHOWN IN THE CHANGE ORDER 3 DRAWINGS VERIFICATION IN FIELD CONFIRMS THAT THIS ROOF IS 24'-3" ABOVE PROJECT 100' P 6 8 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM ELEVATIONS OPT 3 033 1 2 3 A3.1 SHEET TITLE STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS MECHANICAL SURVEYOR GEOTECH COPYRIGHT FORUM PHI PROJECT NO:0608 DRAWN BY:SMW CIVIL CONTRACTOR DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL HPC 5/1/08 CD 6/13/08 CONSULTANTS HPC 7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL 10/23/08 REVISIONS 5/7/09 REVISIONS 08/18/10 REVISIONS ELEVATIONS 627 W. MAIN ST ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 FORUM PHI 174 Midland Ave, Suite 201 P.O. Box 1606 Basalt, Colorado 81621 PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585 DOUGLAS KELSO #### KELSO ADDITION Rocky Mountain Surveying 4133 Crystal Springs Rd. Carbondale, CO 81623 Phone: (970) 379-1919 Fax: (970) 963-5873 Yeh and Associates, Inc. 170 Mel Ray Road Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: (970) 384-1500 Fax: (970) 384-1501 Efficiency In Mind, LLC P.O. Box 1481 Carbondale, CO 81623 Phone: (970) 274-6336 Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd. P.O. Box 978 Avon, CO 81620 Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221 Fax: (970) 949-9339 Mozer-Renn Structural Service 8573 E. Napa Place Denver, CO 80237 Phone: (720) 212-0727 Fax: (303) 484-8958 DATE OF PUBLICATION8/31/2010 2 3 PROPOSED ADDITIONORIGINAL1888 ADDITION 2000 11' 25 ' 100' 100'-9" 109'-9" 111'-1" 118'-7" 3 2 7 6 4 5 1 9 T.O. PLATE T.O.F.F. EXISTING V.I.F. EXISTING V.I.F. 25' HEIGHT LIMIT EXISTING GRADE T.O. SLAB ADDITION 2000 PROPOSED ADDITION ORIGINAL 1888 25 ' 11' 100' 100'-9" 109'-9" 111'-1" 118'-7" 3'-4 1/2" 3' - 8 " 2' - 7 " 5 7 3 9 1 T.O. PLATE T.O.F.F. EXISTING V.I.F. EXISTING V.I.F. 25' HEIGHT LIMIT EXISTING GRADE T.O. SLAB 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISITING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISITING BRICK STANDING SEAM 8" WOOD FASCIA TIMBER COLUMN HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 1 WEST 1/4" = 1'-0" 3 EAST 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 2 3 4 5 6 9 9'-71/2" ORIGINAL 1888 PROPOSED ADDITION 3 1 1 2 8 6 9 7 6 10 12 9 T.O. EXISTING RIDGE 124'-3" UPPER LEVEL T.O. FF 111'-1" 6 7 11 MAIN LEVEL T.O. FF 100'-0" LOWER LEVEL T.O. FF 95'-0" 123 A3.1SHEET TITLESTRUCTURALCONSULTANTSMECHANICALSURVEYORGEOTECHCOPYRIGHTFORUM PHIPROJECT NO:0608DRAWN BY:SMWCIVILCONTRACTORDESCRIPTIONMARKDATECONCEPTUALAPPROVALHPC5/1/08CD6/13/08 CONSULTANTSHPC7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL10/23/08 REVISIONS5/7/09 REVISIONS08/18/10 REVISIONS ELEVATIONS 627 W. MAIN STASPEN, COLORADO 81611FORUM PHI174 Midland Ave, Suite 201P.O. Box 1606Basalt, Colorado 81621PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585DOUGLAS KELSO####KELSO ADDITIONRocky Mountain Surveying4133 Crystal Springs Rd.Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 379-1919Fax: (970) 963-5873Yeh and Associates, Inc.170 Mel Ray RoadGlenwood Springs, CO 81601Phone: (970) 384-1500Fax: (970) 384-1501Efficiency In Mind, LLCP.O. Box 1481Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 274-6336Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd.P.O. Box 978Avon, CO 81620Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221Fax: (970) 949-9339Mozer-Renn Structural Service8573 E. Napa PlaceDenver, CO 80237Phone: (720) 212-0727Fax: (303) 484-8958DATE OF PUBLICATION8/31/201023PROPOSED ADDITIONORIGINAL1888 ADDITION 200011'25'100'100'-9"109'-9"111'-1"118'-7"32 764519 T.O. PLATET.O.F.F.EXISTING V.I.F.EXISTING V.I.F.25' HEIGHT LIMITEXISTING GRADE T.O. SLABADDITION 2000PROPOSED ADDITION ORIGINAL 1888 25'11'100'100'-9"109'-9"111'-1"118'-7"3'-4 1/2"3'-8"2'-7"57 391 T.O. PLATET.O.F.F.EXISTING V.I.F.EXISTING V.I.F.25' HEIGHT LIMITEXISTING GRADE T.O. SLAB 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISITING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISITING BRICK STANDING SEAM 8" WOOD FASCIA TIMBER COLUMN HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 1 WEST 1/4" = 1'-0" 3 EAST 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 2 3 ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISTING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING BRICK 4 EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE 5 EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 6 PROPOSED VERTICAL SIDING 7 PROPSED HORIZONTAL SIDING 8 PROPOSED STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF 9 PROPOSED RAILING 10 25' HEIGHT LIMIT 11 LINE OF ADDITION PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PER CHANGE ORDER 3 12 LINE OF PROPOSED DESIGN CHANGES TO THE REAR ADDITION KEYNOTE LEGEND CHANGE ORDER 3 WEST ELEVATION 1' = 1'-0" 3 PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0" HEIGHT OF ROOF IS INACCURATELY SHOWN IN THE CHANGE ORDER 3 DRAWINGS VERIFICATION IN FIELD CONFIRMS THAT THIS ROOF IS 24'-3" ABOVE PROJECT 100' P 6 9 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM SECTIONS OPT 3 034 DRESSING RM 111 BEDROOM 112 DECKDECK 1 2 3 4 5 6 6 9 T.O. EXISTING RIDGE 124'-3" UPPER LEVEL T.O. FF 111'-1" MAIN LEVEL T.O. FF 100'-0" LOWER LEVEL T.O. FF 95'-0" BATH 110 ABC T.O. EXISTING RIDGE 124'-3" UPPER LEVEL T.O. FF 111'-1" DRESSING RM 111 MAIN LEVEL T.O. FF 100'-0" BATH 110 A B C T.O. EXISTING RIDGE 124'-3" UPPER LEVEL T.O. FF 111'-1" DRESSING RM 111 MAIN LEVEL T.O. FF 100'-0" 112 C B A T.O. EXISTING RIDGE 124'-3" UPPER LEVEL T.O. FF 111'-1" BEDROOM MAIN LEVEL T.O. FF 100'-0" EXISTING WALLS TO REMAIN PROPOSED REMODEL ADDITION WALL TYPE LEGEND 1 SECTION SD 3 1/4" = 1'-0" 2 SECTION SD 3 1/4" = 1'-0"3 SECTION SD 3 1/4" = 1'-0"4 SECTION SD 3 1/4" = 1'-0" P 7 0 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM 3D VIEW OPT 3 035 1 2 3 ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISTING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING BRICK 4 EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE 5 EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 6 PROPOSED VERTICAL SIDING 7 PROPSED HORIZONTAL SIDING 8 PROPOSED STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF 9 PROPOSED RAILING 10 25' HEIGHT LIMIT 11 LINE OF ADDITION PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PER CHANGE ORDER 3 12 LINE OF PROPOSED DESIGN CHANGES TO THE REAR ADDITION KEYNOTE LEGEND SOUTHWEST PERSPECTIVE 1 9 8 3 6 7 5 7 9 8 6 9 2 P 7 1 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM 3D VIEW OPT 3 036 1 2 3 ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISTING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING BRICK 4 EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE 5 EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 6 PROPOSED VERTICAL SIDING 7 PROPSED STUCCO SIDING 8 PROPOSED STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF 9 PROPOSED RAILING 10 25' HEIGHT LIMIT 11 LINE OF ADDITION PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PER CHANGE ORDER 3 12 LINE OF PROPOSED DESIGN CHANGES TO THE REAR ADDITION KEYNOTE LEGEND SOUTHEAST PERSPECTIVE 8 9 6 1 2 3 7 5 6 8 6 9 7 P 7 2 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM 3D VIEW OPT 3 037 1 2 3 ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISTING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING BRICK 4 EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE 5 EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 6 PROPOSED VERTICAL SIDING 7 PROPSED HORIZONTAL SIDING 8 PROPOSED STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF 9 PROPOSED RAILING 10 25' HEIGHT LIMIT 11 LINE OF ADDITION PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PER CHANGE ORDER 3 12 LINE OF PROPOSED DESIGN CHANGES TO THE REAR ADDITION KEYNOTE LEGEND NORTHEAST PERSPECTIVE 4 5 1 8 6 3 7 6 1 4 P 7 3 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM 3D VIEW OPT 3 038 1 2 3 ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISTING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING BRICK 4 EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE 5 EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 6 PROPOSED VERTICAL SIDING 7 PROPSED HORIZONTAL SIDING 8 PROPOSED STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF 9 PROPOSED RAILING 10 25' HEIGHT LIMIT 11 LINE OF ADDITION PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PER CHANGE ORDER 3 12 LINE OF PROPOSED DESIGN CHANGES TO THE REAR ADDITION KEYNOTE LEGEND NORTHWEST PERSPECTIVE 5 4 3 2 8 6 9 9 1 9 4 9 P 7 4 I I I . A . 834 W. Hallam St. Staff memo 6/22/2016 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Justin Barker, Senior Planner THRU: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 834 West Hallam Street- Major Development (Conceptual), Demolition, Relocation, Residential Design Standard Review, Setback Variances, Public Hearing DATE: June 22, 2016 ________________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY: 834 West Hallam Street is a designated landmark located on a 6,000 square foot parcel. The landmark is in its original location and has been altered over time. It is not located in the Main Street Historic District. The surrounding neighborhood is mostly a mix of single family and multi-family residential with the United States Forest Service located to the east. The property is zoned Mixed Use with a floor area restriction of 4,000 sf. The property was rezoned in 1994 from residential zoning to Mixed Use in order to legalize the restaurant use in existence at that time, with the condition that the floor area be restricted to 4,000 sf (the Mixed Use Zone district has a maximum 2:1 FAR or 12,000 sf). The applicant proposes to redevelop the site with seven (7) affordable housing units in order to create affordable housing credits. The applicant requests the following reviews from HPC: 1. Major Development Conceptual review 2. Demolition of non-historic additions to the landmark 3. Relocation of the historic home on the site toward Hallam Street and Eighth Street 4. Parking Reduction/Waiver for 1 parking space (6 are provided and 7 are required.) 5. East side setback variance (5’ required and 3’ proposed). 6. Residential Design Standard review for multi-family buildings The proposed development has an FAR of about 5,300 sf. The applicant will need to request City Council amend the ordinance from 1994 to increase the allowable FAR of the property. The project has made significant strides in responding to staff and HPC concerns from past reviews. The overall mass and scale have been reduced and the architecture relates more to the historic landmark than originally proposed. Staff believes that the project is almost there, but could use just a little more fine tuning. Staff recommends a continuation to restudy the building layout and roof pitches of the new construction to better relate to the historic landmark and to meet the Residential Design Standard requirements for porches and first story element. P75 III.B. 834 W. Hallam St. Staff memo 6/22/2016 2 APPLICANT: Bowden Properties, c/o Todd Stewart, 625 E. Main Street, Suite 102A, Aspen, CO 81611 PARCEL ID: 2735-123-04-002. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 834 West Hallam Street, Lots K and L Block 10, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado ZONE DISTRICT: MU, Mixed Use Figure 1 – Locator Map Proposal: This application has been reviewed by HPC several times in the past, with the last review occurring in March 2015. The most recent proposal reviewed by HPC included 11 affordable housing units, two new detached structures, and almost 7,180 square feet of FAR. The current proposed project includes removing the non-historic additions from the historic structure, relocating the historic structure closer to the southwest corner, and constructing 2 detached buildings. There are 6 parking spaces proposed along the alley. The project is entirely affordable housing with 7 proposed units. Following are the proposed unit descriptions: P76 III.B. 834 W. Hallam St. Staff memo 6/22/2016 3 CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT Table 1: Unit breakdown unit # bedroom count net livable area category location in building Number of FTEs 1 2 746.75 sf 3 Landmark building (basement, first and second floors) 2.25 2 2 783.5 sf 2 Landmark building (basement, first and second floors) 2.25 3 3 960.25 sf 3 East building (basement and first floors) 3 4 3 961 sf 2 East building (basement, first and second floors) 3 5 1 725.75 sf 3 East building (third floor) 1.75 6 3 1,119 sf 3 East building (basement and second floors) 3 7 4 1,167.75 sf 3 Entire north building (basement, first and second floors) 3.5 18.75 total Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan unless agreed to by the applicant. Staff Response: Conceptual review focuses on the height, scale, massing and proportions of a proposal. A list of the relevant HPC design guidelines is attached as “Exhibit A.” On the next page are historic maps and images that will assist in the review of this project. P77 III.B. 834 W. Hallam St. Staff memo 6/22/2016 4 Figure 3 – 1904 Sanborn – rear addition to original house and outbuildings along alley have since been demolished Figure 2 – 834 W. Hallam in 1893 Figure 4 – photo date unknown. Note original inset porch. P78 III.B. 834 W. Hallam St. Staff memo 6/22/2016 5 The applicant proposes to demolish all non-historic construction, to move the Victorian onto a basement at the southwest corner of the site, and to add two new detached buildings to the north and east of the Victorian. Seven affordable housing units are to be accommodated in the three structures. The Victorian will be restored, including reconstruction of the original inset porch. In March 2015, HPC raised questions about restoration of the side porch shown in the historic photograph (Figure 4). This has not been incorporated into the design. No additions are proposed for the historic structure. The building will be prominently sited, and will avoid impacts to the historic cottonwood trees along Main Street and 8th Street. The Victorian will house two of the affordable housing units. Two detached structures containing five units are proposed to the north and east of the Victorian. The two-story building along 8th Street will contain one four-bedroom unit and the trash enclosure for the entire project. The unit is accessed off 8th Street. The two- to three-story structure on the east side of the property will contain the remaining four units as well as exterior storage for all seven units. One of the units is accessed from Hallam Street, and the other three from interior walkways. Figure 5 – current condition. Note that the original porch was enclosed and a new porch was added to the front of the house. Additions were made to the side and rear of the Victorian. The building was converted from residential to restaurant use in 1972. P79 III.B. 834 W. Hallam St. Staff memo 6/22/2016 6 During the review of this project, HPC has seen a number of options for the new construction. The commission has reviewed plans that housed all the new units in one large building behind or wrapping around the historic structure, plans that created a free standing building on the east of the Victorian and one at the rear, and the current plan, with a long structure along the east property line and a detached building at the northwest corner of the site. Staff believes that the best solution to support the character of the historic structure is to respect its form and scale with a contemporary structure, related to the Victorian in footprint as well as form, materials and/or fenestration, and a new detached building along the alley. This scenario was first presented to HPC in March 2015 (shown in Figures 6-8) and had staff support, except that the alley building was too large and lacked an architectural dialogue with the historic resource. Staff finds that reflecting the scale of the original home is of highest importance from the Hallam Street perspective, as achieved in this previous proposal, which also featured the appropriate roof pitch lacking in the current drawings. Having two smaller structures along Hallam is more in line with the historic 1893 image (Figure 2 on page 4) and traditional development patterns which would place larger additions or new structures at the back of the site. Staff recommends a restudy to consider the revised program with the building layout proposed in March 2015 (Figure 8). Figure 6 P80 III.B. 834 W. Hallam St. Staff memo 6/22/2016 7 Figure 7 Figure 8 P81 III.B. 834 W. Hallam St. Staff memo 6/22/2016 8 11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale with the historic buildings on the parcel. • Subdivide larger masses into smaller "modules" that are similar in size to the historic buildings on the original site. 11.5 Use building forms that are similar to those of the historic property. • They should not overwhelm the original in scale. 11.6 Use roof forms that are similar to those seen traditionally in the block. • Sloping roofs such as gable and hip roofs are appropriate for primary roof forms. • Flat roofs should be used only in areas where it is appropriate to the context. • On a residential structure, eave depths should be similar to those seen traditionally in the context. • Exotic building and roof forms that would detract from the visual continuity of the street are discouraged. These include geodesic domes and A-frames. In previous reviews, staff and HPC have also expressed concern about the mass and scale of the proposed development. The applicant has made several adjustments including reducing the size of the third floor, reducing the number of units proposed, and reducing the overall square footage. The proposed floor area is now 1,283 sf over the allowable 4,000 sf for the site, compared to the 3,180 sf over originally proposed. Staff finds that the proposed roof pitches on the new structures do not relate well to the landmark. The design utilizes gable roof forms which was recommended by staff and HPC, but there are several different pitches, most of which do not relate to the simplistic form of the Victorian. Staff recognizes that the varied roof forms are likely used to reduce the overall height of the structure, which is appreciated. However, staff recommends restudying the roof forms to closer relate to the Victorian, particularly facing Hallam and 8th Street. Staff finds that the following guidelines for new structures on a historic landmark lot are not currently met by the design and recommends a restudy of the site plan and the architecture of the new building to complement and not to overwhelm the Victorian. DEMOLITION AND RELOCATION (EXHIBIT B): Staff finds that the review criteria (Exhibit B) are met to demolish non-historic additions and to relocate the historic home on the site. Conditions for the relocation, temporary storage of the building and a letter of credit shall be included in the draft resolution. VARIANCES (EXHIBIT C): Staff is supportive of the east side yard setback variances (3’2” provided and 5’ required) as it provides space to preserve the large cottonwood trees along the west property line. Staff finds that the distance between buildings variance (7’ provided and 10’ required) could potentially be unnecessary if the layout is revised as suggested by staff. Staff recommends this setback be revisited during the restudy of the building layout. P82 III.B. 834 W. Hallam St. Staff memo 6/22/2016 9 SPECIAL REVIEW (EXHIBIT D): A parking reduction from 7 spaces to 6 spaces is requested. The applicant cannot fit any more parking along the rear of the property – 6 parking spaces (one ADA accessible) is the maximum that will fit in addition to the development. Consistent with the affordable housing development at 518 W. Main Street, Staff recommends a reduction in the parking requirement with the condition that the applicant pay the cash in lieu fee of $30,000 per space. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD REVIEW (EXHIBIT E): Neither of the two proposed new structures provide covered entry porches or first story elements that meet the requirements of the Residential Design Standards that apply to this project. The porches are required to be at least 6 feet deep and 50 sq. ft. in size. The RDS have been amended to allow loggias as a first story element, but are still required to be at least 6 feet deep. Staff is not supportive of variations for the depth requirements of the porches and first story elements or the size requirements of the porches. Staff is supportive of the design variations for the historic landmark. REFERRALS (EXHIBIT F): Comments from the DRC are attached. There are significant concerns from the Water and Engineering Departments and from the Si Johnson Ditch Company about the proposed work related to the ditch. Any conceptual approval for this project shall include a condition that the proposed development be approved by the Si Johnson Ditch Company prior to the City Council hearing. NEXT STEPS: After HPC review, City Council is asked to amend the ordinance to allow more floor area – an increase from 4,000 sf to about 5,300 sf. After City Council review, the project will proceed back to HPC for final reviews. RECOMMENDATION: The project has made significant strides in responding to staff and HPC concerns from past reviews. The overall mass and scale have been reduced and the architecture relates more to the historic landmark than originally proposed. Staff believes that the project is almost there, but could use just a little more fine tuning. Staff recommends a continuation to restudy the building layout and roof pitches of the new construction to better relate to the historic landmark and to meet the Residential Design Standard requirements for porches and first story element. EXHIBITS: A. Relevant HPC Design Guidelines B. Demolition/Relocation Review Criteria C. Variance Review Criteria D. Special Review Criteria E. Residential Design Standard Review Criteria F. Development Review Committee comments G. Application P83 III.B. Exhibit A – HP Design Guidelines Page 1 of 3 EXHIBIT A HISTORIC PRESERVATION GUIDELINES Site Design 1.16 Preserve historically significant landscape designs and features. • This includes the arrangement of trees, shrubs, plant beds, irrigation ditches and sidewalks in the public right-of-way. 1.17 Maintain historic irrigation ditches as an integral component of the streetscape. The character of an irrigation ditch should be maintained. • It is inappropriate to use an irrigation ditch as a planting bed, or to fill it with another material. • Ditches cannot by culverted except where crossed by a walkway or driveway, and a culvert must be approved by the Parks Department. Front porch 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. 5.4 The use of a porch on a residential building in a single-family context is strongly encouraged. • This also applies to large, multifamily structures. There should be at least one primary entrance and should be identified with a porch or entry element. Relocation 9.3 If relocation is deemed appropriate by the HPC, a structure must remain within the boundaries of its historic parcel. • If a historic building straddles two lots, then it may be shifted to sit entirely on one of the lots. Both lots shall remain landmarked properties. 9.4 Site the structure in a position similar to its historic orientation. • It should face the same direction and have a relatively similar setback. • It may not, for example, be moved to the rear of the parcel to accommodate a new building in front of it. 9.5 A new foundation should appear similar in design and materials to the historic foundation. • On modest structures, a simple foundation is appropriate. Constructing a stone foundation on a modest miner's cottage is discouraged because it would be out of character. P84 III.B. Exhibit A – HP Design Guidelines Page 2 of 3 • Where a stone foundation was used historically, and is to be replaced, the replacement should be similar in the cut of the stone and design of the mortar joints. 9.6 When rebuilding a foundation, locate the structure at its approximate historic elevation above grade. • Raising the building slightly above its original elevation is acceptable. However, lifting it substantially above the ground level is inappropriate. • Changing the historic elevation is discouraged, unless it can be demonstrated that it enhances the resource. 9.7 A lightwell may be used to permit light into below-grade living space. • In general, a lightwell is prohibited on a wall that faces a street (per the Residential Design Standards). • The size of a lightwell should be minimized. • A lightwell that is used as a walkout space may be used only in limited situations and will be considered on a case-by-case basis. If a walkout space is feasible, it should be surrounded by a simple fence or rail. Additions 10.2 A more recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed. Building Orientation 11.1 Orient the primary entrance of a new building to the street. • The building should be arranged parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid pattern of the site. 11.2 In a residential context, clearly define the primary entrance to a new building by using a front porch. • The front porch should be "functional," in that it is used as a means of access to the entry. • A new porch should be similar in size and shape to those seen traditionally. • In some cases, the front door itself may be positioned perpendicular to the street; nonetheless, the entry should still be clearly defined with a walkway and porch that orients to the street. Mass and Scale 11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale with the historic buildings on the parcel. • Subdivide larger masses into smaller "modules" that are similar in size to the historic buildings on the original site. 11.4 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building. • The primary plane of the front should not appear taller than the historic structure. • The front should include a one-story element, such as a porch. Building & Roof Forms 11.5 Use building forms that are similar to those of the historic property. • They should not overwhelm the original in scale. 11.6 Use roof forms that are similar to those seen traditionally in the block. P85 III.B. Exhibit A – HP Design Guidelines Page 3 of 3 • Sloping roofs such as gable and hip roofs are appropriate for primary roof forms. • Flat roofs should be used only in areas where it is appropriate to the context. • On a residential structure, eave depths should be similar to those seen traditionally in the context. • Exotic building and roof forms that would detract from the visual continuity of the street are discouraged. These include geodesic domes and A-frames. 11.7 Roof materials should appear similar in scale and texture to those used traditionally. • Roof materials should have a matte, non-reflective finish. Materials 11.8 Use building materials that contribute to a traditional sense of human scale. • Materials that appear similar in scale and finish to those used historically on the site are encouraged. • Use of highly reflective materials is discouraged. Architectural Details 11.9 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those of the historic property. • These include windows, doors and porches. • Overall, details should be modest in character. 11.10 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged. • This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings. • Highly complex and ornately detailed revival styles that were not a part of Aspen's history are especially discouraged on historic sites. P86 III.B. Exhibit B – Demolition & Relocation Page 1 of 3 EXHIBIT B DEMOLITION & RELOCATION DEMOLITION Demolition shall be approved if it is demonstrated that the application meets any one of the following criteria: a. The property has been determined by the city to be an imminent hazard to public safety and the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely manner, b. The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner’s efforts to properly maintain the structure, c. The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen, or d. No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic, architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance, and Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met: a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or historic district in which it is located, and b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated properties and c. Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the area. Staff Response: The applicant proposes to remove non-historic additions to the landmark and to restore the landmark using historic photographs (below). Staff finds that criterion d and criteria a-c are met and recommends demolition approval for non-historic additions. P87 III.B. Exhibit B – Demolition & Relocation Page 2 of 3 RELOCATION The following standards apply for relocating a historic property as per Section 26.415.090.C of the Municipal Code: C. Standards for the Relocation of Designated Properties Relocation for a building, structure or object will be approved if it is determined that it meets any one of the following standards: 1. It is considered a non-contributing element of a historic district and its relocation will not affect the character of the historic district; or 2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on which it is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the historic district or property; or 3. The owner has obtained a Certificate of Economic Hardship; or 4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given the character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district in which it was originally located or diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated properties; and Additionally, for approval to relocate all of the following criteria must be met: 1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding the physical impacts of relocation; and 2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and 3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary financial security. Staff Response: The historic home is located in its original location. The applicant proposes relocation to site the landmark in a prominent location on the lot. Relocation also allows room on the property for redevelopment that is detached from the landmark. A letter from Bill Bailey House Movers demonstrating the ability to move the home is included in the application. The landmark is proposed to remain onsite during construction and temporary relocation. Staff is supportive of relocation and finds that review criterion 4 and criteria 1 -3 are met. 9.1 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis. • In general, relocation has less of an impact on individual landmark structures than those in a historic district. • It must be demonstrated that relocation is the best preservation alternative. • Rehabilitation of a historic building must occur as a first phase of any improvements. P88 III.B. Exhibit B – Demolition & Relocation Page 3 of 3 • A relocated building must be carefully rehabilitated to retain original architectural details and materials. • Before a building is moved, a plan must be in place to secure the structure and provide a new foundation, utilities, and to restore the house. • The design of a new structure on the site should be in accordance with the guidelines for new construction. • In general, moving a building to an entirely different site or neighborhood is not approved. 9.2 Moving an existing building that contributes to the character of a historic district should be avoided. • The significance of a building and the character of its setting will be considered. • In general, relocating a contributing building in a district requires greater sensitivity than moving an individually-listed structure because the relative positioning of it reflects patterns of development, including spacing of side yards and front setbacks, that relate to other historic structures in the area. P89 III.B. Exhibit C - Variances Page 1 of 1 EXHIBIT C VARIANCES SETBACK VARIANCES The criteria for granting setback variances, per Section 26.415.110.B of the Municipal Code are as follows: 26.415.110.B.2 In granting a variance, the HPC must make a finding that such a variance: a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district; and/or b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district. Staff Response: The following setback variances are requested: East Setback: 3 ft. provided and 5 ft. is required. Distance between buildings: 7 ft. provided between new structures and 10 ft. is required. The applicant proposes to shift the entire development to the east to provide relief to the cottonwood trees that line Eighth Street. Staff is supportive of the east sideyard setback as it mitigates adverse impacts to the cottonwood trees. Staff finds that the distance between buildings variance (7’ provided and 10’ required) could potentially be unnecessary if the layout is revised as suggested by staff. Staff recommends this setback be revisited during the restudy of the building layout. P90 III.B. Exhibit D – Special Review Page 1 of 1 EXHIBIT D SPECIAL REVIEW PARKING WAIVERS: Parking reductions are permitted for designated historic properties on sites unable to contain the number of on-site parking spaces required by the underlying zoning. Commercial designated historic properties may receive waivers of payment in lieu fees for parking reductions. The parking reduction and waiver of payment-in-lieu fees may be approved upon a finding by the HPC that it will enhance or mitigate an adverse impact on the historic significance of architectural character of a designated historic property, an adjoining designated property or a historic district. Section 26.515.040 Special Review Standards. If the project requires review by the Historic Preservation Commission and the Community Development Director has authorized consolidation pursuant to Section 26.304.060.B, the Historic Preservation Commission shall approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the Special Review application. A. A Special Review for establishing, varying, or waiving off-street parking requirements may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: 1. The parking needs of the residents, customers, guests, and employees of the project have been met, taking into account the potential uses of the parcel, the projected traffic generation of the project, any shared parking opportunities, expected schedule of parking demands, the projected impacts on to the on-street parking of the neighborhood, the proximity to mass transit routes and the downtown area, and any special services, such as vans, provided for residents, guests and employees. 2. An on-site parking solution meeting the requirement is practically difficult or results in an undesirable development scenario. 3. Existing or planned on-site or off-site parking facilities adequately serve the needs of the development, including the availability of street parking. Staff Response: The project is required to provide 8 spaces onsite. The applicant proposes 7 parking spaces along the alley. Residents are able to apply for residential parking passes, and the neighborhood seems able to support additional on-street parking. Consistent with the affordable housing development at 518 W. Main Street, Staff recommends a reduction in the parking requirement with the condition that the applicant pay the cash in lieu fee of $30,000 per space. P91 III.B. Exhibit E – Residential Design Standards Page 1 of 3 EXHIBIT E RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS 26.410.020.D Variances 2. Variances from the Residential Design Standards, Section 26.410.040, which do not meet this Section may be granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Board of Adjustment or the Historic Preservation Commission, if the project is subject to the requirements of Chapter 26.415. An applicant who desires to consolidate other requisite land use review by the Historic Preservation Commission, the Board of Adjustment or the Planning and Zoning Commission may elect to have the variance application decided by the board or commission reviewing the other land use application. An applicant who desires a variance from the Residential Design Standards shall demonstrate and the deciding board shall find that the variance, if granted would: a. Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. In evaluating the context as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing board may consider the relationship of the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting or a broader vicinity as the board feels is necessary to determine if the exception is warranted; or b. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints. (Ord. No. 52-2003, § 5; Ord. No. 20-2005, § 1) Section 26.410.040.D. Building elements. The intent of the following building element standards is to ensure that each residential building has street-facing architectural details and elements, which provide human scale to the facade, enhance the walking experience and reinforce local building traditions. 1. Street oriented entrance and principal window. All single-family homes and duplexes, except as outlined in Subsection 26.410.010.B.4 shall have a street-oriented entrance and a street facing principal window. Multi-family units shall have at least one (1) street-oriented entrance for every four (4) units and front units must have a street facing a principal window. Staff Response: The primary façade for this project is Hallam Street. The proposal includes 2 street facing entrances along Hallam Street (one for each building fronting Hallam., and 2 street facing entrances along Eighth Street (one for each new structure). A variation is required for the northwest building because the entrance does not face Hallam Street. Staff is supportive of the variation and finds that the intent of the standard is met by providing entrances along Eighth Street. P92 III.B. Exhibit On corner lots, entries and principal windows should face whichever street has a greater block length. This standard shall be satisfied if all of the following conditions are met: a. The entry door shall face the street and be no more than ten (10) feet back from the front-most wall of the building. Entry doors shall not be taller than eight (8) feet. Staff Response: All entry doors located at grade meet this standard. b. A covered entry porch of f square feet, with a minimum depth of six (6') feet, shall be part of the front facade. Entry porches and canopies shall not be more than one (1) story in height. Staff Response: Entry porches are proposed for the two buildings that front Hallam Street. The front porch on the historic building does not meet the minimum size requirement (it is 36 sf) and requires a variance. The front porches on the two new buildings do not meet the minimum size or depth requirements and require variations Staff does not support variations provide front porches that meet the standards historic landmark. c. A street-facing principal window requires that a significant window or group of windows face street. Staff Response: The two buildings that face Hallam Street have principal street facing windows. The northwest building meets thi for the northwest building because it meets the intent of the standard. 2. First story element. All residential buildings shall have a first story street the width of which comprises at least twenty percent (20%) of the building's overall width and the depth of which is at least six (6) feet from the wall the first story element is projecting from. Assuming that the first story element includes interior living space, the height of the first story element shall not exceed ten (10) feet, as measured to the plate height. A first story element may be a porch or living space. Accessible it is a deck, porch or enclosed area) shall not be allowed over the first story element; however, accessible space over the remaining first story elements on the front façade shall not be precluded. Staff Response: The historic landmark variation. The new buildings do not Exhibit E – Residential Design Standards Page 2 of 3 On corner lots, entries and principal windows should face whichever street has a greater block length. This standard shall be satisfied if all of the following conditions are met: shall face the street and be no more than ten (10) feet back from the most wall of the building. Entry doors shall not be taller than eight (8) feet. All entry doors located at grade meet A covered entry porch of fifty (50) or more square feet, with a minimum depth of six (6') feet, shall be part of the front facade. Entry porches and canopies shall not be more than one (1) story in height. Entry porches are proposed for the two buildings that front Hallam Street. The front porch on the historic building does not meet the minimum size requirement (it is 36 sf) and es a variance. The front porches on the two the minimum size or variations. variations for the rear building and recommends that the applicant that meet the standards. Staff is supportive of the variation facing principal window requires that a significant window or group of The two buildings that face Hallam Street have principal street facing windows. building meets this standard facing Eighth Street. Staff is supportive of a varia building because it meets the intent of the standard. All residential buildings shall have a first story street the width of which comprises at least twenty percent (20%) of the building's overall width and the depth of which is at least six (6) feet from the wall the first story element is rojecting from. Assuming that the first story element includes interior living space, the height of the first story element shall not exceed ten (10) feet, as measured to the plate height. A first story element may be a porch or living space. Accessible it is a deck, porch or enclosed area) shall not be allowed over the first story element; however, accessible space over the remaining first story elements on the front façade Staff Response: The historic landmark does not meet the first story element and requires a do not provide first story elements that meets this standard and One Story Element On corner lots, entries and principal windows should face whichever street has a greater block length. This standard shall be satisfied if all of the following conditions are met: square feet, with a minimum depth of six (6') feet, shall be part of the front facade. Entry porches and canopies shall not be more than one (1) story in height. for the rear building and recommends that the applicant pportive of the variation request for the facing principal window requires that a significant window or group of The two buildings that face Hallam Street have principal street facing windows. Staff is supportive of a variation All residential buildings shall have a first story street-facing element the width of which comprises at least twenty percent (20%) of the building's overall width and the depth of which is at least six (6) feet from the wall the first story element is rojecting from. Assuming that the first story element includes interior living space, the height of the first story element shall not exceed ten (10) feet, as measured to the plate height. A first story element may be a porch or living space. Accessible space (whether it is a deck, porch or enclosed area) shall not be allowed over the first story element; however, accessible space over the remaining first story elements on the front façade element and requires a that meets this standard and Principal Window P93 III.B. Exhibit require variations. The standards have been amended to allow loggias to count as a first story element, however the depth requirement is still 6 ft. first story element and suggests a restudy to comply with the standard 4. Lightwells. All areaways, lightwells and/or stairwells on the street building shall be entirely recessed behind the front-most wall of the building. Staff Response: The project does not include any of these features between the front-most wall of the buildings and the street. Exhibit E – Residential Design Standards Page 3 of 3 The standards have been amended to allow loggias to count as a first story ever the depth requirement is still 6 ft. Staff is not supportive of variations for either first story element and suggests a restudy to comply with the standard. All areaways, lightwells and/or stairwells on the street-facing facade(s) of a building shall be entirely recessed behind the most wall of the building. does not include any of these most wall of the buildings and The standards have been amended to allow loggias to count as a first story variations for either P94 III.B. Exhibit G – DRC Comments Page 1 of 3 EXHIBIT F DRC COMMENTS ENGINEERING Transportation Impact Analysis: Provide a transportation impact analysis. – condition of approval for Final Drainage: Provide a full major drainage report that meets URMP and Engineering Design Standards. A green roof would help mitigate drainage impacts. Snow Storage: A minimum functional area equaling 30% of the paved area shall be provided contiguous to the paved and designed to accommodate snow storage. For heated areas, the functional area can be reduced to 10%. Sidewalk and Curb and Gutter: All sidewalk, curb and gutter must meet the Engineering Standards as outlined in Title 21 and the Engineering Design Standards adopted by Title 29. The Engineering Design Standards call for a 6 foot sidewalk property when located in a multi- family area. However, the Hallam Ave frontage is proposed to be a trail and should meet an 8 foot minimum cross section. The project manager for the trail connection is Tyler Christoff with the Engineering Department. Please coordinate with Tyler (544-3143). The minimum width of the planting strip is 5 ft. Since there are many trees on-site and adjacent to the property, the applicant should coordinate with the Parks and Engineering Departments to find alignment solutions. Curb and gutter will likely need to be replaced. Alley: Identify utility pedestals serving the property. Relocate all utility pedestals to within the property boundary. Locate any new electric transformer within the property boundary. Locate trash enclosure within the property boundary.- condition of approval for Final Parking must be located within the property boundary. The entrance to the alley needs to be improved in order to meet ADA and City standards. Parking Parking along ROW shall remain parallel. Site Access Alley access shall remain. No new curb cuts will be approved. Construction Management Engineering is concerned about the Construction Impacts of this site. Please submit a construction management plan prior to Council review. The plan must include a planned sequence of construction that minimizes construction impacts. The plan shall describe mitigation for parking, staging/encroachments, and truck traffic. Excavation Stabilization The proposed foundation is slab on grade. No excavation stabilization plan will be required. P95 III.B. Exhibit G – DRC Comments Page 2 of 3 Survey Requirements A survey requirement is to pothole and provide depth to utilities. Please comply with this requirement at building permit submittal. ACSD Service is contingent upon compliance with the District’s rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) are not connected to the sanitary sewer system. On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD. New sanitary sewer services lines will be required to serve this project. These services must be connected to the District’s main sanitary sewer line in Eighth Street. Oil and grease interceptors are required for establishments that install commercial grade kitchens. Old service lines must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to specific ACSD requirements. Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system. One tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements may be required where more than one unit is served by a single service line. Permanent improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or right of ways. Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and hard landscaping may impact public ROW or easements to be dedicated to the district. All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. Peg in our office can develop an estimate for this project once detailed plans have been made available to the district. Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the planned reserve capacity of the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an additional proportionate fee will be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection system or treatment capacity constraint. Additional proportionate fees would be collected over time from all development in the area of concern in order to fund the improvements needed. Glycol heating and snow melt systems must be designed to prohibit and discharge of glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. The glycol storage areas must have approved containment facilities. The district will be able to respond with more specific comments and requirements once detailed building and utility plans are available. PARKS A 15’ setback for the cottonwood trees along 8th Street Ditch protection fencing P96 III.B. Exhibit G – DRC Comments Page 3 of 3 Tree protection fencing Tree permit submitted for the removal of specific conifers and fruit tree on site A plan for the ditch going under the parking area close to the alley A plan for the sidewalk along 8th Street as well as one along Hwy 82 UTILITIES No alteration to the Ditch without written authorization, full review by City Raw Water Dept. and Water Dept. Engineer as needed. A transformer on site may be required so give consideration for transformer easement and access. Water services will need to meet all 2013 Water Distribution System Standards. All Tap Fees musty be paid prior to scheduling taps. A full review will be done at building permit (and ROW permit) and signed off by water and/or electric prior to commencement of construction. Coordinate all proposed Electrical work through City electric including providing Load Calculation forms. P97 III.B. ATTACHMENT 2 - Historic Preservation Land Use Application PROJECT: Name: Location: (Indicate street address, lot & block number or metes and bounds description of property) Parcel ID # (REQUIRED)___________________________________________________________ APPLICANT: Name: Address: Phone #: _______________________Fax#:___________________E-mail:_____________________ REPRESENTATIVE: Name: Address: Phone #: _______________________Fax#:___________________E-mail:______________________ TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): Historic Designation Certificate of No Negative Effect Certificate of Appropriateness -Minor Historic Development -Major Historic Development -Conceptual Historic Development -Final Historic Development -Substantial Amendment Relocation (temporary, on or off-site) Demolition (total demolition) Historic Landmark Lot Split EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: May 29, 2007 P98 III.B. Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: May 29, 2007 General Information Please check the appropriate boxes below and submit this page along with your application. This information will help us review your plans and, if necessary, coordinate with other agencies that may be involved. YES NO Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: May 29, 2007 ATTACHMENT 3 - Dimensional Requirements Form (Item #10 on the submittal requirements key. Not necessary for all projects.) Project: Applicant: Project Location: Zone District: Lot Size: Lot Area: (For the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Existing:__________Proposed:___________________ Number of residential units: Existing:__________Proposed:___________________ Number of bedrooms: Existing:__________Proposed:___________________ Proposed % of demolition:__________ DIMENSIONS: (write n/a where no requirement exists in the zone district) Floor Area: Height Existing:_________Allowable:__________Proposed:________ Principal Bldg.: Existing:_________Allowable:__________Proposed:________ Accessory Bldg.: Existing:_________Allowable:__________Proposed:________ On-Site parking: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ % Site coverage: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ % Open Space: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Front Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Rear Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Combined Front/Rear: Indicate N, S, E, W Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Side Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Side Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Combined Sides: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Distance between buildings: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Existing non-conformities or encroachments and note if encroachment licenses have been issued: ____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ Variations requested (identify the exact variances needed): ______________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ P100 III.B. 715 W MAIN ST | SUITE 204 | ASPEN CO 81611 | 970.279.4157 | FORUMPHI.COM TO: Justin Barker, Senior Planner, City of Aspen Community Development Department FROM: Forum Phi RE: 834 West Hallam Street DATE: June 01, 2016 Justin: On behalf of 834 West Hallam Associates, LLC (the “Applicant”) please accept the enclosed updated HPC Land Use Application based on the “temporary relocation” standards for a historic structure located at 834 W Hallam Street. The subject property is listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. The existing building is located at 834 W Hallam Street, which is legally described as Lots K and L of Block 10. The structure was previously remodeled with a non-historic addition in 1980, was used as a restaurant, and is currently unoccupied. This proposal focuses on restoring the historic Victorian house located on the property, removing the non-historic addition, and converting it into two (2) affordable housing units. There will also be a new basement constructed underneath the historic structure. Additionally, we are proposing two (2) detached buildings to be developed on the same lot, both of which would contain affordable housing. The total number of affordable units the Applicant is proposing has been revised. The Applicant is now proposing seven (7) affordable housing units with a total of eighteen (18) bedrooms. Generous storage has been provided and the units will provide an exceptional affordable housing opportunity for local residents. This Applicant continues to propose the relocation of the historic Victorian closer to the street on both Hallam Street and 8th Street, giving it prominence on the site and visibility to those driving into Aspen. Sincerely, Steev Wilson, AIA P101 III.B. 715 W MAIN ST | SUITE 204 | ASPEN CO 81611 | 970.279.4157 | FORUMPHI.COM LAND USE APPLICATION SUBMISSION 834 WEST HALLAM ASSOCIATES, LLC A HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROJECT FEATURING ONSITE AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS. 01 JUNE 2016 An Application for Major Development Review – Conceptual Review P102 III.B. PROJECT OVERVIEW 834 West Hallam Associates, LLC (the “ Applicant”) submits this application for Major Development Review - Conceptual for redevelopment of an existing historic home. The subject site is an 6,010 SF parcel located at the corner of West Hallam Street and 8th Street at 834 West Hallam (the “Property”). The Property lies within the Mixed-Use (MU) zone district and an existing historic home is located on the parcel. The historic home will remain and be incorporated into the affordable housing development. The proposed redevelopment will include seven (7) affordable housing units along with accessory storage and exterior parking spaces. A parking deficit of one space is proposed due to site restrictions. A cash-in-lieu fee is proposed to meet the parking requirement. The proposed development is completely within the allowable Floor Area Ratios and Net Area Allowances for all of the uses provided within the redevelopment. The required 10-foot front setback and the 5-foot rear setbacks are all being met. We are requesting a variance of three (3) feet for the east setback in order to locate the historic home 2’-10” further in from the west setback, and to protect the existing cottonwood trees along West Hallam Street. A third level, consisting of 561.50 Net Livable square feet, is proposed for the far northeast portion of the site. This feature has been pulled back from each street facing façade with gable roofs above that are all under the 28- foot height limit. The variation in façade depths, as well as the heights of decks and roof elements, reduces the appearance of the massing of the development. The redevelopment will provide a new sidewalk along West Hallam Street, which will be constructed so that the the existing cottonwood trees will remain unharmed.. P103 III.B. City of Aspen Residential Design Standards Compliance 26.410.040. Multi-family Standards B. Design Standards. 1. Building Orientation (Flexible). This is a corner site with a five (5) foot west side setback along 8th Street and a ten (10) foot front yard setback along West Hallam Street. The historic home has a front yard along West Hallam. All additional proposed buildings are oriented to face towards West Hallam Street or 8th Street and are parallel to each street. 2. Garage Access (Non-flexible). All parking spaces for the proposed development are accessed via the alley. 3. Garage Placement (Non-flexible). N/A 4. Entry Connection (Non-flexible). We are proposing to restore the street-oriented historic front entrance. All proposed buildings have a street-oriented front entries and porches. All proposed units are accessible via pathways connected to the alley, proposed sidewalk and front sidewalk. 5. Principal Window (Flexible). The existing historic home has a street-facing principal window which will remain. As this is a corner lot with street frontage on two streets, all proposed street facing facades have at least one street-facing principal window. P104 III.B. City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Introduction The Property at 834 West Hallam Street is listed in the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. This lot is legally described as Lots K and L of Block 10. As required for submittal, this letter of compliance is for HPC Conceptual Review. Chapter 1 – Site Planning & Landscape Design 1.1 All projects shall respect the historic development pattern or context of the block, neighborhood or district. The existing non-historic addition will be removed. The removal of the non-historic element will ensure that the building footprint will be compatible with other strcutures located in the neighborhood. 1.2 Preserve the system and character of historic streets, alleys, and ditches. The existing unpaved alleyway will be maintained with a small portion to be graded for access to the proposed parking area. The existing Si Johnson ditch will not be disturbed. An extension of the inlet will be requested in order to provide an accessible walkway for residents. 1.3 Remove driveways or parking areas accessed directly from the street if they were not part of the original development of the site. No new curb cuts are proposed and no non-historic driveways currently exist. 1.4 Design a new driveway or improve an existing driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual impact. No new driveways are proposed. 1.5 Maintain the historic hierarchy of spaces. A walkway establishes the progression of public to semi-private spaces. Semi-pirvate entries lead to private spaces. 1.6 Provide a simple walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry on residential projects. The proposed walkway is five (5) feet wide to accommodate for ADA accessibility. Sidewalks are aligned to avoid required window wells. 1.7 Provide positive open space within a project site. Open space is proposed to be provided to the west of the historic home. 1.8 Consider stormwater quality needs early in the design process. Preliminary design will be provided for HPC consideration with a final design to be review prior to building permit submittal. 1.9 Landscape development on AspenModern landmarks shall be addressed on a case by case basis. N/A 1.10 Built-in furnishings, such as water features, fire pits, grills, and hot tubs, that could interfere with or block views of historic structures are inappropriate. P105 III.B. N/A 1.11 Preserve and maintain historically significant landscaping on site, particularly landmark trees and shrubs. Cottonwood trees along the Si Johnson ditch are to be preserved. 1.12 Provide an appropriate context for historic structures. Landscape design to be provided for final HPC review. An appropriate landscape design will be provided that honors the historic structure. 1.13 Additions of plant material to the landscape that could interfere with or block views of historic structures are inappropriate. Landscape design to be provided for final HPC review. Final landscape design will avoide interfering with or blocking views of historic strcutures. 1.14 Minimize the visual impacts of landscape lighting. Landscape lighting design to be provided for final HPC review. All lighting will comply with applicable City of Aspen Land Use Code provisions. 1.15 Preserve original fences. The existing non-historic wrought-iron fence on site is proposed to be removed. No additional fencing is proposed. 1.16 When possible, replicate a missing historic fence based on photographic evidence. N/A 1.17 No fence in the front yard is often the most appropriate solution. N/A 1.18 When building an entirely new fence, use materials that are appropriate to the building type and style. N/A 1.19 A new fence should have a transparent quality, allowing views into the yard from the street. N/A 1.20 Any fence taller than 42” should be designed so that it avoids blocking public views of important features of a designated building. N/A 1.21 Preserve original retaining walls No retaining walls exist on the site.. 1.22 When a new retaining wall is necessary, its height and visibility should be minimized. P106 III.B. A 30” retaining wall is proposed along the northwest portion of the property to meet the City of Aspen Engineering requirements for parking. The height and visibility of the retaining wall will be minimized to the greatest extent possible. 1.23 Re-grading the site in a manner that changes historic grade is generally not allowed and will be reviewed on a case by case basis. There will be no major change to the historic grading of the site. 1.24 Preserve historically significant landscapes with few or no alterations. N/A 1.25 New development on these sites should respect the historic design of the landscape and its built features. N/A 1.26 Preserve the historic circulation system. The general orientation of the historic home will be preserved thereby preserving the historic circulation of the site. 1.27 Preserve and maintain significant landscaping on site. The large cottonwood trees located along the Si Johnson ditch are to be preserved. Chapter 2 - Building Materials 2.1-2.6 The primary historic building material is painted cedar shingle. Tthe lower level of the home has horizontal cedar siding while the upper portion on the front facade is sided with round sawn cedar shingle siding. The historic materials are to remain as practical and any necessary repairs will be made with historically sensitive materials and techniques. No synthetic material will be used for repair or replacement. The existing roof is composed of asphalt shingles. No historic materials will be covered. Chapter 3 - Windows 3.1-3.8 All historic windows are to remain. Where historic windows have been previously removed, these windows will be replaced to match the existing historic windows. These windows are double-hung type with wood trim and sills. All historic windows will receive repairs where required, with no changes to character-defining features. Chapter 4 - Doors 4.1-4.7 The historic entrance doors at the front and rear of the structure were removed with the 1980's addition. The replacement doors will match the images of the historic home that we have found at the Aspen Historical Society. The closest matching hardware from the historic image will be selected for the new doors. Chapter 5 - Porches P107 III.B. 5.1-5.4 The historic front porch will be restored based on the images of the building that we have obtained from the Aspen Historical Society. 5.5-5.6 The porch at the front of the structure was previously enclosed and will be restored to its original design visible in the historic image provided with this application. The materials will be consistent with those on the rest of the historic structure. Gaurds or handrails that did not exist on the historic home will not be provided. Chapter 6 - Architectural Details 6.1-6.5 Distinct architectural details exist on the historic structure, specifically the windows, wood siding and trim. These details represent those typical of the late 1800s Victorian era and will be maintained and repaired only where required. Any repairs and/or replacements to historic features will be documented prior to submission of a building permit and construction. Chapter 7 - Roofs 7.1-7.10 The existing roof structure and chimney will be maintained in its current condition over the portion of the existing home that is historic. Repairs will be made where required. Chapter 8 - Secondary Structures 8.1-8.8 The property does not currently contain a secondary structure. We are proposing two (2) detatched affordable housing buildings to be constructed on the lot. Chapter 9 - Building Relocation & Foundations 9.1- 9.8 The historic home is proposed to be located to the west. The relocation if the historic structure will allow the other improvements to the Lot to be made and will ensure appropriate preservation efforts are made to the historic home. All relocation work will be completed by an experience contractor. The proposed design includes the addition of a lower level beneath the historic building. The original foundation for the historic building was previously removed with the construction of the existing basement. The visible portions of the proposed foundation will appear similar in design and materials to the historic foundation. Chapter 10 - Building Additions 10.1-10.2 In 1980, additions were constructed on the North, East, and South side of the building, enclosing the historic recessed front porch. The existing non-historic addition will be removed and the recessed porch restored. 10.3-10.15 P108 III.B. The proposed development will be located in two buildings that are detached from the historic structure. These buildings will be differentiated from the historic home through separate materials, colors, and styles. The removal of the existing non-historic addition and the proposed detached development will preserve and enhance the character of the historic structure. The historic resource will be relocated to the South- West corner of the lot which has frontage on both 8th Street and West Hallam Street, giving it prominence over the new buildings. The proposed floor area is approximately 5,283.25 square feet. This is below the maximum allowable floor area for the parcel which, based on parcel size, is 12,020 square feet. Chapter 11 - New Buildings on Landmarked Properties/Historic Landmark Lot Splits 11.1-11.2 The primary entrance for the proposed building which is adjacent to the historic building is oriented towards West Hallam Street and has a street-oriented entry porch that is similar in scale to the historic entry porch. 11.3-11.4 The new buildings are similar in scale to the historic building. The street-facing elevations of the proposed buildings are similar in scale to the historic building. 11.5-11.6 The proposed buildings relate to the historic home through form and materials. 11.7 The proposed design does not mimic the historic style. Chapter 12 - General Guidelines 12.1 The proposed development will be in compliance with the applicable ADA requirements. 12.2-12.3 Exterior lighting will be simple in form and detail. Existing lights on the historic structure will remain. Any proposed site lighting will be shielded and/or low intensity and meet applicable land use code requirements. Visual impacts from interior lighting will be subdued. 12.4 Mechanical and service areas will be located within the proposed buildings. All service areas will be visually blocked from the primary street facade. All facades of the historic structure will remain free of mechanical and service equipment. 12.5 N/A 12.6-12.9 P109 III.B. The project is for affordable housing and will not utilize any signage. 26.415.080 Demolition of designated historic properties or properties within an historic district The proposed areas to be demolished are non-historic additions to the original Victorian structure completed in 1980. It is clear that this addition did not exist when the house was originally built as seen on the Sanborn map shown below. The other structures shown on lots K and L no longer exist on the site. P110 III.B. Chapter 26.430 SPECIAL REVIEW A. The general application information required under Section 26.304.030 A. A special review for establishing, varying or waiving off-street parking requirements may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: 1. The parking needs of the residents, customers, guests and employees of the project have been met, taking into account potential uses of the parcel, the projected traffic generation of the project, any shared parking opportunities, expected schedule of parking demands, the projected impacts on the on-street parking of the neighborhood, the proximity to mass transit routes and the downtown area and any special services, such as vans, provided for residents, guests and employees The parking needs of the residents will be met through the provision of six (6) provided parking spaces. The residents of the affordable housing complex will benefit from the readily accessible public transportation. The applicant also proposes providing a sidewalk along 8th Street as well as a pathway between the proposed development to give residents direct access to the City of Aspen sidewalk network. 2. An on-site parking solution meeting the requirement is practically difficult or results in an undesirable development scenario. With our existing curb cut for the alley and the lot size, we are taking up the entire width of the property to provide six (6) parking spaces. In order to provide the one (1) additional parking space required, we would have to rearrange the parking by removing three (3) interior parking spaces to create a driveway, and subsequently we would need to relocate those parking spaces further into the lot, taking away valuable space for the affordable housing units. The deficit of one required parking space is proposed to be be provided through cash-in-lieu. 3. Existing or planned on-site or off-site parking facilities adequately serve the needs of the development, including the availability of street parking. There is ample street parking in this neighborhood. It is unlikely that residents and visitors would have a problem finding a space within one block of the development. B. A sketch plan showing the configuration of the development on the lot and those features of the site which are relevant to the special review application. See site plan on the next page. C. There are no similar properties with the same Zone district within the neighborhood. P111 III.B. P112 III.B. 26.540 Affordable Housing Credits 26.540.070 Review Criteria for establishing an affordable housing credit Review criteria for establishing an affordable housing credit An Affordable Housing Credit may be established by the Planning and Zoning Commission if all of the following criteria are met. The proposed units do not need to be constructed prior to this review. A. The proposed affordable housing unit(s) comply with the review standards of Section 26.470.070.4(a-d). City of Aspen Land Proposed units meet the requirements of section 26.470.070 (a-d). Shown in attached plans. B. The affordable housing unit(s) are not an obligation of a Development Order and are not otherwise required by this Title to mitigate the impacts of development. Proposed units are not required to mitigate development impacts. 26.470.070.4 Growth Management/Affordable Housing 4. Affordable housing. The development of affordable housing deed-restricted in Accordance with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines shall be approved, Approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the Following criteria: a. The proposed units comply with the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be required for this standard. The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority may choose to hold a public hearing with the Board of Directors. All units comply With the Aspen/pitkin county housing authority. APCHA has provided a recommendation of approval with conditions as contained in memorandum dated 28 April 2016. b. Affordable housing required for mitigation purposes shall be in the form of actual newly built units or buy-down units. Off-site units shall be provided within the City limits. Units outside the City limits may be accepted as mitigation by the City Council, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.2. If the mitigation requirement is less than one (1) full unit, a cash-in lieu payment may be accepted by the Planning and Zoning Commission upon a recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. If the mitigation requirement is one (1) or more units, a cash-in-lieu payment shall require City Council approval, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.3. A Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit may be used to satisfy mitigation requirements by approval of the Community Development Department Director, pursuant to Section 26.540.080 Extinguishment of the Certificate. Required affordable housing may be provided through a mix of these methods. N/A, no mitigation is required. c. Each unit provided shall be designed such that the finished floor level of fifty percent (50%) or more of the unit's net livable area is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher. This dimensional requirement may be varied through Special Review, Pursuant to Chapter All units are 50% or more above most restrictive grade. d. The proposed units shall be deed-restricted as "for sale" units and transferred to qualifed purchasers according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. The owner may be entitled to select the frst purchasers, subject to the aforementioned qualifcations, with approval from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. The deed restriction shall authorize the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority or the P113 III.B. City to own the unit and rent it to qualifed renters as defned in the Affordable Housing Guidelines established by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, as amended. The proposed units may be rental units, including but not limited to rental units owned by an employer or nonproft organization, if a legal instrument in a form acceptable to the City Attorney ensures permanent affordability of the units. The City encourages affordable housing units required for lodge development to be rental units associated with the lodge operation and contributing to the long-term viability of the lodge. Units owned by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, the City of Aspen, Pitkin County or other similar governmental or quasi-municipal agency shall not be subject to this mandatory "for sale" provision. Owner will deed restrict the unit's as for sale units. e. Non-Mitigation Affordable Housing. Affordable housing units that are not required for mitigation, but meet the requirements of Section 26.470.070.4(a-d). The owner of such nonmitigation affordable housing is eligible to receive a Certifcate of Affordable Housing Credit pursuant to Chapter 26.540. Proposed units meet the requirements of section 26.470.070 (a-d). 26.710.180 Mixed-Use (MU) The following variance requests are to consider the projection of the new front porch into the existing 10' front yard setback and establishment of the east side yard setback at 3' instead of 5'. D. Dimensional requirements 4. Minimum front yard setback (feet): 10, which may be reduced to 5, pursuant to Special Review, Chapter 26.430. In order to comply with the Residential Design Standards (RDS) 26.410.040.D.2 regarding first story elements and maintain continuity with the surrounding structures, the proposed building along West Hallam Street includes a front porch. 5. Minimum side yard setback (feet): 5 The Castle Creek Bridge Corridor improvement plan set forth by the City of Aspen Engineering Department encourages the preservation of mature trees along the entrance to Aspen. There are several mature trees on the 8th Street (West) side of the lot. In order to preserve these trees and have minimal impact on their root structure we propose reducing the side yard setback on the east side of the lot from 5' to 3'. Thus shifting the area impacted by construction away from the trees and their root systems. P114 III.B. Status of Alley The existing alley is accessed via 8th street. It extends from 8th street to the East edge of Lots K & L of Block 10. The driving surface of the alley is currently gravel and will remain unchanged. Any improvements to the alley will be coordinated with the Engineering Department at the City of Aspen. P115 III.B. 970.797.4881 | CFOX@FORUMPHI.COM CAET FOX UNIT CATEGORIES & REDUCTIONS NEW DATE: June 1, 2016 PROJECT ADDRESS: 834 West Hallam Owner: Architect: Project Manager: Matt Brown Steev Wilson Steven May swilson@forumphi.com smay@forumphi.com P: (970) 279-4109 P: (970) 319-8094 F: (866) 770-5585 F: (866) 770-5585 OVERVIEW UNIT ONE - TWO BEDROOM, 2 BATH – CATEGORY 3 (EXISTING HISTORIC HOME) Storage: 41.75 SF Lower: 251 SF Main: 229.75 SF Second: 266 SF Total: 746.75 SF - 2.25 Credits UNIT TWO - TWO BEDROOM, 2 BATH – CATEGORY 2 (EXISTING HISTORIC HOME) Storage: 41.75 SF Lower: 251.50 SF Main: 266 SF Second: 266 SF Total: 783.50 SF - 2.25 Credits UNIT THREE - THREE BEDROOM, 2.5 BATH – CATEGORY 3 Storage: 55 SF Lower: 433.75 SF Main: 526.50 SF Total: 960.25 SF - 3.0 Credits UNIT FOUR - THREE BEDROOM, 2.5 BATH – CATEGORY 2 Storage: 55 SF Lower: 206 SF Main: 73.75 SF Second: 681.25 SF Total: 961 SF – 3.0 Credits UNIT FIVE – ONE BEDROOM, 1 BATH – CATEGORY 3 Storage: 67.25 SF Main: 90.50 SF Second: 73.75 SF Third: 561.50 SF Total: 725.75 SF - 1.75 Credits P116 III.B. 2 UNIT SIX - THREE BEDROOM, 2 BATH – CATEGORY 3 Storage: 41.75 SF Lower: 521.50 SF Main: 88.75 SF Second: 508.75 SF Total: 1,119 SF – 3.5 Credits UNIT SEVEN - FOUR BEDROOM, 2 BATH – CATEGORY 3 Storage: 41.75 SF Lower: 408.50 SF Main: 284.25 SF Second: 475 SF Total: 1,167.75 SF - 3.0 Credits TOTAL UNITS 7 Units TOTAL NET LIVABLE SQUARE FEET 6,464 SF TOTAL GROSS SQUARE FEET 7,605 SF TOTAL FAR SQUARE FEET 5,283.25 SF TOTAL CREDITS 18.75 Credits P117 III.B. C D CD CD UP UP UP UP UP UP 1 2 3 4 UNIT 6 LOWER LEVEL 521.50 SF UNIT 1 LOWER LEVEL 251 SF UNIT 7 LOWER LEVEL 408.50 SF CLOS. BATH 1 CLOS. CLOSET CLOSETBATH 2 BEDROOM 2 BEDROOM 3 BATH 1 BEDROOM 1 BEDROOM 2CLOSET BATH 1 BEDROOM 1 STOR. BEDROOM 2 BATH 2 BATH 1 CLOSET UNIT 3 LOWER LEVEL 433.50 SF UNIT 2 LOWER LEVEL 251.50 SF BEDROOM 1 BATH 1 STORAGE UNIT 4 LOWER LEVEL 209.50 SF BEDROOM 1 STORAGE CLOSET STOR. BEDROOM 1 CLOSET CLOSET LOWER LEVEL 834 HALLAMARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNINGFORUMPHI.COM LOWER LEVELFORUM PHI P 1 1 8 I I I . B . RG RG R G RG C D 1 2 3 4 ENTRY ENTRY ENTRY KITCHEN LIVING KITCHEN LIVING CLOSET TRASH ENCLOSURE LIVING KITCHEN ENTRY UNIT 7 STORAGE 41.75 SF UNIT 2 STORAGE 41.75 SF UNIT 3 STORAGE 55 SF UNIT 1 STORAGE 41.75 SF UNIT 4 STORAGE 55 SF UNIT 5 STORAGE 67.25 SF ENTRY ENTRY ENTRY BATH 1 BEDROOM 1 POWDER UNIT 6 STORAGE 41.75 SF DN UP UP DN UP DNUP DN UP DN DN UP F F F F UNIT 1 MAIN LEVEL 229.75 SF UNIT 2 MAIN LEVEL 266 SF UNIT 4 MAIN LEVEL 74.25 SF UNIT 5 MAIN LEVEL 90.50 SF UNIT 6 MAIN LEVEL 88.75 SF UNIT 7 MAIN LEVEL 284.50 SF UNIT 3 MAIN LEVEL 526.25 SF LIVING KITCHEN STORAGE MAIN LEVEL 834 HALLAMARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNINGFORUMPHI.COM MAIN LEVELFORUM PHI P 1 1 9 I I I . B . RG RG CD CD CDCD CDCD 1 2 3 4 BALCONY DECK DECK DN DN UP DN DN DN F F UNIT 1 SECOND LEVEL 266 SF UNIT 2 SECOND LEVEL 266 SF BEDROOM 2 STOR. BATH 2 UNIT 4 SECOND LEVEL 715 SF BATH 2 BEDROOM 2 BEDROOM 3 CLOSET CLOS. LIVING KITCHEN UNIT 5 SECOND LEVEL 73.75 SF UNIT 7 SECOND LEVEL 475 SF CLOS. BEDROOM 3 KITCHEN LIVING BATH 3 BEDROOM 3 CLOS. BATH 2 UNIT 6 SECOND LEVEL 506.75 SF STORAGE CLOS. BEDROOM 2 STOR. BATH 2 CLOS. CLOSET CLOS. POWDER STOR. STOR. BEDROOM 4 SECOND LEVEL 834 HALLAMARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNINGFORUMPHI.COM SECOND LEVELFORUM PHI P 1 2 0 I I I . B . CD R G 1 2 3 4 BEDROOM 1 LIVINGKITCHEN CLOSET STOR. DECK STOR. DN F BATH 1 UNIT 5 THIRD LEVEL 561.50 SF THIRD LEVEL 834 HALLAMARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNINGFORUMPHI.COM THIRD LEVELFORUM PHI P 1 2 1 I I I . B . 5' - 0 " 10 ' - 0 " 5'-0"3'-0" KEEP EXISTING SLOPE CONDITION TO STREET PROPOSED 5" ROLL CURB SIDEWALK PARKING 1 PARKING 3 PARKING 4 PARKING 5 PARKING 6 N O R T H 8 T H S T R E E T ALLEY FRONT YARD SIDE YARD SIDE YARD 7917 7916 7915 7914 7913 7912 7911 7910 7909 EXISTING UTILITIES BUS STOP BACK YARD 8'-6 " 5'-0 " PROPOSED 8'-6" EXTENSION OF CULVERT INLET TO CLEAR WALKWAY AREA TO BE GRADED FOR PARKING PROPOSED RETAINING WALL EXISTING CULVERT INLET 5'-0" DITCH EASEMENT PARKING 2 SITE PLAN 834 HALLAMARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNINGFORUMPHI.COM SITE PLANFORUM PHI P 1 2 2 I I I . B . 28 ' - 0 " 28' HEIGHT LIMIT 1 834 HALLAMARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNINGFORUMPHI.COM ELEVATIONFORUM PHI P 1 2 3 I I I . B . 28 ' - 0 " 28' HEIGHT LIMIT 2 834 HALLAMARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNINGFORUMPHI.COM ELEVATIONFORUM PHI P 1 2 4 I I I . B . 28 ' - 0 " 28' HEIGHT LIMITMID POINTMID POINT 3 834 HALLAMARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNINGFORUMPHI.COM ELEVATIONFORUM PHI P 1 2 5 I I I . B . 28' HEIGHT LIMITMID POINT 4 834 HALLAMARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNINGFORUMPHI.COM ELEVATIONFORUM PHI P 1 2 6 I I I . B . 834 HALLAMARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNINGFORUMPHI.COM PERSPECTIVEFORUM PHI P 1 2 7 I I I . B . 834 HALLAMARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNINGFORUMPHI.COM PERSPECTIVEFORUM PHI P 1 2 8 I I I . B . 19'-0" 28 ' - 1 0 " 19'-0" 28 ' - 1 0 " 19'-0" 20 ' - 1 1/ 8 " 6'-25/8" 4' - 0 5/ 8 " 12'-11/4" 24 ' - 9 7/ 8 " 17'-3" 39 ' - 4 3/ 4 " 4'-53/8" 22'-41/2" 64 ' - 1 0 3/ 4 " 1 2 4 3 5 8 6 7 9 10 14 15 16 13 12 7 8 500.25 sq ft 613.50 sq ft 1,366.75 sq ft PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE SETBACK LINE PROPERTY LINE S E T B A C K L I N E PR O P E R T Y L I N E SE T B A C K L I N E P R O P E R T Y L I N E BUILDING A BUILDING B BUILDING C 11 RG RG R G RG 328.50 sq ft 568.75 sq ft 131.50 sq ft 1,317.25 sq ft SETBACK LINE PROPERTY LINE SE T B A C K L I N E P R O P E R T Y L I N E S E T B A C K L I N E PR O P E R T Y L I N E PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE BUILDING A BUILDING B BUILDING C F F F F TRASH ENCLOSURE 14.50 sq ft 49.00 sq ft 32.75 sq ft17.50 sq ft 2.00 sq ft 0.50 sq ft 8' - 0 " 19'-0"28'-10"19'-0"28'-10" 8' - 0 " 19'-0"20'-11/8"6'-25/8"4'-05/8"12'-11/4"24'-97/8" 8' - 6 " 17'-3"39'-43/4" 8' - 0 " 4'-53/8"24'-97/8" 8' - 0 " 22'-41/2" 8' - 6 " 40'-51/4"24'-51/2" 152.00 sq ft 224.50 sq ft 6.25 sq ft 136.75 sq ft 197.00 sq ft 14.75 sq ft14.75 sq ft 137.25 sq ft 14.75 sq ft 160.75 sq ft 49.75 sq ft 17.50 sq ft 14.75 sq ft 96.75 sq ft 198.50 sq ft 146.75 sq ft 334.75 sq ft 35.50 sq ft 198.50 sq ft 0.25 sq ft 178.50 sq ft 440.25 sq ft 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13 14 15 16 12 COUNTABLE FAR PLAN LEGEND DECK GARAGE EXEMPT Proposed Floor Area Calculations 834 W Hallam Building A Proposed Subgrade Level Exposed Wall Calculations Subgrade Level Wall Label Subgrade Wall Area (Sq Ft) Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)Total Wall Area (Sq Ft) 1 152.00 0.00 152.00 2 224.00 6.25 230.25 3 136.25 14.50 150.75 4 197.00 31.50 228.50 Subgrade Wall Area (Sq Ft)709.25 Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)52.25 Overall Total Wall Area (Sq Ft)761.50 % of Exposed Wall (Exposed / Total)6.86% Building A Proposed Subgrade Floor Area Calculations Subgrade Floor Area (Sq Ft)613.50 % of Exposed Wall (Exposed / Total)6.86% Subgrade Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft) 42.10 Building B Proposed Subgrade Level Exposed Wall Calculations Subgrade Level Wall Label Subgrade Wall Area (Sq Ft) Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)Total Wall Area (Sq Ft) 5 137.25 14.75 152.00 6 160.75 0.00 160.75 7 49.75 0.00 49.75 8 17.50 14.75 32.25 9 96.75 0.00 96.75 10 198.50 0.00 198.50 Subgrade Wall Area (Sq Ft)660.50 Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)29.50 Overall Total Wall Area (Sq Ft)690.00 % of Exposed Wall (Exposed / Total)4.28% Building B Proposed Subgrade Floor Area Calculations Subgrade Floor Area (Sq Ft)500.25 % of Exposed Wall (Exposed / Total)4.28% Subgrade Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft) 21.39 Building C Proposed Subgrade Level Exposed Wall Calculations Subgrade Level Wall Label Subgrade Wall Area (Sq Ft) Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)Total Wall Area (Sq Ft) 11 146.75 0.00 146.75 12 334.75 0.00 334.75 13 35.50 0.00 35.50 14 198.50 0.25 198.75 15 178.50 0.50 179.00 16 440.25 99.25 539.50 Subgrade Wall Area (Sq Ft)1,334.25 Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)100.00 Overall Total Wall Area (Sq Ft)1,434.25 % of Exposed Wall (Exposed / Total)6.97% Building C Proposed Subgrade Floor Area Calculations Subgrade Floor Area (Sq Ft)1,366.75 % of Exposed Wall (Exposed / Total)6.97% Subgrade Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft) 95.29 Total Floor Area Calculations Deck Area (Sq Ft)Floor Area (Sq Ft)Multiplied % Exposed Floor Area Ratio (Sq Ft) Building A Subgrade Floor Area (Sq Ft)613.50 6.86%42.10 Main Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)568.75 568.75 Upper Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)522.50 522.50 Deck Floor Area (Sq Ft)0.00 Building B Subgrade Floor Area (Sq Ft)500.25 4.28%21.39 Main Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)328.50 328.50 Upper Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)490.50 490.50 Deck Floor Area (Sq Ft)31.75 Building C Subgrade Floor Area (Sq Ft)1,366.75 6.97%95.29 Main Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)1,317.25 1,317.25 Upper Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)1,355.75 1,355.75 Third Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)575.00 575.00 Deck Floor Area (Sq Ft)162.25 Total Deck Area (Sq Ft)194.00 Total Area (Sq Ft)7,638.75 5,317.03 N LOWER LEVEL 1/8" = 1'-0"MAIN LEVEL 1/8" = 1'-0" 4 8 161 STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS SURVEYOR MECHANICAL COPYRIGHT CONTRACTOR CIVIL SHEET TITLE 5/26/16 PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY:CMF 5/24/16SD NOT FOR CONST. TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD DATE OF PUBLICATION Z-014 FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS 834 Hallam St., Aspen, CO,81611, USA 834 Hallam 715 West Main Street, Suite 204Aspen, Colorado 81611P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 PARCEL ID273-512-304-002 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Subdivision: CITY AND TOWNSITEOF ASPEN Block 10 Lot K-L ZONE DISTRICTMixed Use P 1 2 9 I I I . B . RG RG 522.50 sq ft 1,355.75 sq ft 490.50 sq ft 23.50 sq ft 46.75 sq ft 8.25 sq ft SETBACK LINE PROPERTY LINE S E T B A C K L I N E PR O P E R T Y L I N E SE T B A C K L I N E P R O P E R T Y L I N E PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE BUILDING A BUILDING B BUILDING C F F DECK DECK DECK R G 575.50 sq ft 115.50 sq ft SETBACK LINE PROPERTY LINE SE T B A C K L I N E P R O P E R T Y L I N E S E T B A C K L I N E PR O P E R T Y L I N E PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE BUILDING C F DECK COUNTABLE FAR PLAN LEGEND DECK GARAGE EXEMPT Proposed Floor Area Calculations 834 W Hallam Building A Proposed Subgrade Level Exposed Wall Calculations Subgrade Level Wall Label Subgrade Wall Area (Sq Ft) Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)Total Wall Area (Sq Ft) 1 152.00 0.00 152.00 2 224.00 6.25 230.25 3 136.25 14.50 150.75 4 197.00 31.50 228.50 Subgrade Wall Area (Sq Ft)709.25 Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)52.25 Overall Total Wall Area (Sq Ft)761.50 % of Exposed Wall (Exposed / Total)6.86% Building A Proposed Subgrade Floor Area Calculations Subgrade Floor Area (Sq Ft)613.50 % of Exposed Wall (Exposed / Total)6.86% Subgrade Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft) 42.10 Building B Proposed Subgrade Level Exposed Wall Calculations Subgrade Level Wall Label Subgrade Wall Area (Sq Ft) Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)Total Wall Area (Sq Ft) 5 137.25 14.75 152.00 6 160.75 0.00 160.75 7 49.75 0.00 49.75 8 17.50 14.75 32.25 9 96.75 0.00 96.75 10 198.50 0.00 198.50 Subgrade Wall Area (Sq Ft)660.50 Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)29.50 Overall Total Wall Area (Sq Ft)690.00 % of Exposed Wall (Exposed / Total)4.28% Building B Proposed Subgrade Floor Area Calculations Subgrade Floor Area (Sq Ft)500.25 % of Exposed Wall (Exposed / Total)4.28% Subgrade Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft) 21.39 Building C Proposed Subgrade Level Exposed Wall Calculations Subgrade Level Wall Label Subgrade Wall Area (Sq Ft) Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)Total Wall Area (Sq Ft) 11 146.75 0.00 146.75 12 334.75 0.00 334.75 13 35.50 0.00 35.50 14 198.50 0.25 198.75 15 178.50 0.50 179.00 16 440.25 99.25 539.50 Subgrade Wall Area (Sq Ft)1,334.25 Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)100.00 Overall Total Wall Area (Sq Ft)1,434.25 % of Exposed Wall (Exposed / Total)6.97% Building C Proposed Subgrade Floor Area Calculations Subgrade Floor Area (Sq Ft)1,366.75 % of Exposed Wall (Exposed / Total)6.97% Subgrade Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft) 95.29 Total Floor Area Calculations Deck Area (Sq Ft)Floor Area (Sq Ft)Multiplied % Exposed Floor Area Ratio (Sq Ft) Building A Subgrade Floor Area (Sq Ft)613.50 6.86%42.10 Main Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)568.75 568.75 Upper Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)522.50 522.50 Deck Floor Area (Sq Ft)0.00 Building B Subgrade Floor Area (Sq Ft)500.25 4.28%21.39 Main Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)328.50 328.50 Upper Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)490.50 490.50 Deck Floor Area (Sq Ft)31.75 Building C Subgrade Floor Area (Sq Ft)1,366.75 6.97%95.29 Main Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)1,317.25 1,317.25 Upper Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)1,355.75 1,355.75 Third Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)575.00 575.00 Deck Floor Area (Sq Ft)162.25 Total Deck Area (Sq Ft)194.00 Total Area (Sq Ft)7,638.75 5,317.03 N SECOND LEVEL 1/8" = 1'-0"THIRD LEVEL 1/8" = 1'-0" 4 8 161 STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS SURVEYOR MECHANICAL COPYRIGHT CONTRACTOR CIVIL SHEET TITLE 5/26/16 PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY:CMF 5/24/16SD NOT FOR CONST. TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD DATE OF PUBLICATION Z-015 FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS 834 Hallam St., Aspen, CO,81611, USA 834 Hallam 715 West Main Street, Suite 204Aspen, Colorado 81611P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 PARCEL ID273-512-304-002 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Subdivision: CITY AND TOWNSITEOF ASPEN Block 10 Lot K-L ZONE DISTRICTMixed Use P 1 3 0 I I I . B . 834 W Hallam Street, Aspen CO Conceptual Landscape Plan 15 June 2016 For planning purposes only, not for construction Parking Screening Mixed Low Perennial Beds Benches Planters ADA Decorative Porous Pavers Patio Deck Daylit Ditch Existing Cottonwoods to Remain P131 III.B. 834 W Hallam Street, Aspen CO Walkability, Recreation, and Trails Stan Clauson Associates, Inc. 7 June 2016 20 min. walk 10 min. walk Site Key Parks and Open Space 1. Marolt Open Space 2. Bugsy Barnard Park 3. Hillyard Park 4. Aspen Institute 5. Pioneer Park 6. Across the Pond Park 7. Aspen Golf Course and Nordic Center 8. Community Garden 9. Mary B. Mine 10. Little Cloud Park 11. Triangle Park 12. Aspen Center for Environmental Studies 13. Pitkin Reserve 14. Red Butte Cemetery 15. Aspen Ice House 16. Yellow Brick Park 17. Rio Grande Trail Trail Type Paved On Road Unpaved 2 1 3 5 11 12 4 13 14 7 159 8 10 6 17 16 P132 III.B.