The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.20030409 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 9, 2003 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 130 S. GALENA ASPEN, COLORADO NOON - SITE VISIT - 5:00 I. Roll call II. Approval of minutes - March 12, 2003 and III. Public Comments IV. CommisSion member comments V. Disclosure of conflict of interest (aCtual and aPparent) VI. Project Monitoring VII. Staff comments: Certificates of No Negative Effect issued (Next resolution will be #7) VIII. OLD BUSINESS A. 533 W. Francis - Amendment to Final - Public Hearing (variance) IX. NEW BUSINESS A. 114 Neale/17 Queen St, - Conceptual - PH (continue to 4/23) B. 331 W. Bleeker ' Conceptual - Public Hearing (Cont'd from 3/26) C. 819 E. Hopkins - Conceptual - Public Hearing (cont'd from 3/26) X. WORKSESSIONS A. 470 N. Spring St. B. 515 (507) Gillespie Lot B 6:55 XI. ADJOURN ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION 4 APRIL 9, 2003 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 130 S. GALENA ASPEN, COLORADO NOON - SITE VISIT - 5:00 I. Roll call II. Approval of minutes - March 12, 2003 and #Ju .16, <60 1 94- III. Public Comments IV. Commission member comments V. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent) VI. Project Monitoring VII. Staff comments: Certificates of No Negative Effect issued (Next resolution will be #7) VIII. OLD BUSINESS /L A. Â»,533 W. Francis - Amendment to Final - Public Hearing (variance) IX. NEW BUSINESS A. 114 Neale/17 Queen St. - Conceptual - PH (continue to 4/23) B. 331 W. Bleeker - Conceptual - Public Hearing (cont'd from 3/26) 12_23 k C. 819 E. Hopkins - Conceptual - Public Hearing (cont'd from 3/26) 4, .13 X. WORKSESSIONS A. 470 N. Spring St. B. 515 (507) Gillespie Lot B 6:55 XI. ADJOURN nROJECT MONITORING Jeffrey Halferty 428 E. Hyman (former Sportstalker Store) 213 W. Bleeker (Schelling) 101 E. Hallam (Gorman), with Neill 216 E. Hallam (Frost/Auger), with Mike 735 W. Bleeker (Marcus), with Teresa 922 W. Hallam 110 W. Main (Hotel Aspen) 118 E. Cooper (Little Red Ski Haus) Neill Hirst 434 E. Main (Hills) 409 E. Hyman (New York Pizza building) 205 S. Third 101 E. Hallam (Gorman), with Jeffrey 635 W. Bleeker 110 E. Bleeker ike Hoffman 950 Matchless Drive (Becker) 216 E. Hallam (Frost/Auger), with Jeffrey 513 W. Smuggler (Harman) 633 W. Main (Dart) 920 W. Hallam (Guthrie) 640 N. Third Teresa Melville 232 W. Main (Christmas Inn) 323 W. Hallam (Rispoli) 513 W. Bleeker 735 W. Bleeker (Marcus), with Jeffrey 515 Gillespie (Bone) 501 W. Main Street (Christiania Lodge) Valerie Alexander 216 E. Hallam (Frost) 533 W. Francis (Gibson) 232 W. Main (Christmas Inn) Derek Skalko 135 W. Hopkins 302 E. Hopkins 501 W. Main Street (Christiania Lodge) CONCEPTUAL APPROVALS WHICH HAVE NOT GONE TO FINAL: HPC Legal Procedures (Submit affidavit of notice for PH - conceptual) Swear In Staff presentation Applicant presentation Board Questions and Clarifications PH opened and closed Board Comments Applicant Comments Motion r-Emmr-~ ATTACHMENT 7 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 5 375 63 - Pe OLA~\(U 5 , Aspen, co SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: A-ve-,\ 9 , 200.3 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. County of Pitkin ) I, Â¥-a>~ e. / urqur (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. ,/ Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (~) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the 21 day of ~'Â»ch , 2002-, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. - Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to any federal agency, state, county, municipal government, school, service district or other governmental or quasi-governmental agency that owns property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map has been available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. g 4-- Signattlry rk The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was a#nowledged before me this 9 day of A-pr- LQ , 200_, by ~<5U1Â·.LT~JUA.~~\~ WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My commission expires: 9-64 )04 47.61 \*etaa-Rub lie 8 9:, 9,. 4.9Â· f:bu, f ATTACHMENTS: '35-2.. , it o : p ....~ .. - COPY OF THE PUBLICATION PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160Â® 318 FOURTH STREET LTD 609 CORPORATION ASPEN GK LLC C/O BUSTER FELDOM A COLORADO CORPORATION PO BOX 640 PO BOX 445 PO BOX 1819 ASPEN, CO 81612 STON, TX 77001 ASPEN, CO 81612 BERLINER ARTHUR S ASPEN HISTORICAL SOCIETY BAUER WALTER F FAMILY TRUST C/O WALDEN 620 W BLEEKER ST 15935 VALLEY VISTA 750 BATTERY ST #700 ASPEN, CO 81611 ENCINO, CA 91436 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 BLANK ROBERT S & NANCY L BLAICH ROBERT I & JANET S CITY OF ASPEN C/O WHITCOMB PARTNERS 319 N FOURTH ST 130 S GALENA ST 110 W 51ST ST ROOM 4310 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 NEW YORK, NY 10020 DIKEOU LUCY SHARP CROWN PATRICIA DOREMUS FAMILY LP C/O SBTM INC 222 N LASALLE ST STE 800/JXC 85 GLEN GARRY DR 1790 30TH ST STE 235 CHICAGO, IL 60601 ASPEN, CO 81611 BOULDER, CO 80301 EMERSON LTD EGGLESTON ROBERT H JR FINKLE S MARCUS & SARA F C/O SWEENEY 434 W HALLAM 117 AABC 2704 15TH AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 CARMEL, CA 93923 FISCHER SISTIE GARDNER JOHN ALSTON GELL-MANN/MURDOCK PTNS LLP 442 W BLEEKER 4060 PEACHTREE RD STE D-327 500 W FRANCIS ASPEN, CO 81611 ATLANTA, GA 30319 ASPEN, CO 81611 GLENN SALLY RAE GOLD RICHARD HAISFIELD TRACY E 504 W HALLAM AVE 300 ST PIERRE RD 434 W HALLAM ST ASPEN, CO 81611 LOS ANGELES, CA 90024 ASPEN, CO 81611 HALL CHARLES L HALLAM SIX LLC HALPERIN ELLEN & BARRY PO BOX 1819 4430 ARAPAHO STE 110 420 W FRANCIS ST ASPEN, CO 81612 - BOULDER, CO 80303 ASPEN, CO 81611-1233 HARDER JAMES B & DELLA 1/2 INT HENRY KRISTEN HILLMAN DORA B TRUST 2001 KIRBY DR STE 1220 525 W HALL-AM ST 504 W BLEEKER HOUSTON, TX 77019 ASPEN, CO 81611-1246 ASPEN, CO 81611 -MASTER THOMAS J HOUGH JENNINE HUNT ROGER H 4.â€ž N SMUGGLER ST 265 BRIGHTON RD NE PO BOX 3944 ASPEN, CO 81611 ATLANTA, GA 30309 ASPEN, CO 81612 ~AVERYÂ® Address Labels Laser 5160Â® Smooth Feed Sheets TM Use template for 5160Â® IBBOTSON ANNE B IGLEHART JAMES P ISRAEL CHARLES B 505 N 5TH ST 610 W HALLAM ST 522 W FRANCIS ST ASDEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611-1235 JOY WILLIAM N KAFRISSEN ARTHUR & CAROLE F KASCH JEFFERY C PO BOX 23 485 CITY HALL 68 RONAN RD ASPEN, CO 81612 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107 FORT SHERIDAN, IL 60010-2065 KOVAL BARBARA TRSTE KEY R BRILL & ELIZABETH R KOUTSOUBOS TED A C/O NORTH OF NELL 506 W HALL-AM ST 415 E HYMAN AVE #206 555 E DURANT ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 MARTIN JAMES R QPRT KOVAL BARBARA TRUST MCCAUSLAND LINDA TRUST CO OF KNOXVILLE TRSTE 621 W FRANCIS ST PO BOX 1584 620 MARKET ST #300 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 KNOXVILLE, TN 37902 MCGILL DONALD R MULLEN MICHEL MYERS JOSEPH V JR 11800 OLD KATY RD 8411 PRESTON RD #730 LB 2 421 W HALLAM ST HOUSTON, TX 77079 DALLAS, TX 75225 ASPEN, CO 81611 NATIONWIDE THEATRES CORPORATION NEISSER JUDITH E REV TRUST OXLEY DEBBY M 50% A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION C/O BERNADETTE REED 1300 WILLIAMS TOWER I 120 N ROBERTSON BLVD 3281 GRAFTON LN TULSA, OK 74103 LOS ANGELES, CA 90048 AURORA, IL 60504 OXLEY JOHN C 50% POPE WILLIAM H ROSENBERG PHILLIP I ATTN BARBARA WALKER 540 W SMUGGLER 68 RONAN RD 1437 S BOULDER AVE #1475 ASPEN, CO 81611 FORT SHERIDAN, IL 60010-2065 TULSA, OK 74119 SFP 1996 PERS RES TRST 1/2 INT SHAFROTH JOHN F SILVERMAN JACK E #2 PINE HILL LN 3901 E BELLEVIEW AVE 612 W FRANCIS ST HOUSTON, TX 77019 LITTLETON, CO 80121 ASPEN, CO 81611 SUGAR MOUNTAIN TRUST ST CLAIR STEVEN TRUSTEE VERLEGER PHILIP K & MARGARET B C/O WIEN & MALKIN LLP 4001 MAC ARTHUR BLVD STE 100 15 TORREY PINES LN 60 E 42ND ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEW YORK, NY 10165 V ZI GEORGE A TRUST WALNUT CREEK RANCH LLC WARE NINA COULTER PO Â¤OX 2238 4520 MAIN ST STE 1050 34 CLERMONT LN ASPEN, CO 81612 KANSAS CITY, MO 64111-1816 ST LOUIS, MO 63124 ~AVERYÂ® Address Labels Laser 5160Â® Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160Â® WERLIN LAURA B WEST SMUGGLER LOT SPLIT LLC WAX RICHARD A & HILDEGARD C C/O WALDEN C/O LEONARD WEINGLASS 2727 SULPHUR SPRINGS AVE 750 BATTERY ST #700 PO BOX 11509 ST HELENA, CA 94574 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94705 ASPEN, CO 81612 WHIPPLE RALPH U & LYNNE C WILKE JOHN H & BONNIE K TRSTE WILSON MARY ELIZABETH 855 GIBSON AVE 626 W FRANCIS 630 W HALLAM ST ASPEN, C0 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ~AVERYÂ® Address Labels Laser 5160Â® PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 533 W. FRANCIS STREET- SETBACK VARIANCE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday, April 9,2003 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission, Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by David Gibson, requesting approval for a setback variance. The property is located at Lot 1, Historic Landmark Lot Split City at 533 W. Francis St., City and Townsite ofAspen. The proposal is for a four (4) foot rear yard setback variance. In accordance with Section 26.410.020 of the Land Use Code, the Historic Preservation Commission will serve in the capacity of Design Review Appeal Committee. For further information, contact Katie Ertmer at the Aspen/Pitkin County Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5711, katiee@ci.aspen.co.us. s/Jeffrev Halfertv. Chair Aspen Historic Preservation Commission Published in the Aspen Times on March 22,2003 City of Aspen Account - PUBUC NOTICE DATE 4/9/63 TIME5.908 PLACE CrrY HALL PURPOSE _&v/ FOOT 50'AcK i _3/ARJANCE *rAI,6*t~ _8*,alk/*SWSm- - rl 14 -r > = PUBLIC NOTICE DATE 4/9/03 f- TIME 5.00 el ~- PLACE OrY HALL ~-- PURPOSE . Fog Fccr 58784 01 VAAANCE ATAL.EY Foz FEMAÂ« 5/ucTurp . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT THE ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICEL 130 SOUTH GALENA ASPEN CO (970) 920-5090 -NIE A) MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission DA THRU: Joyce Allgaier Ohlsuii, deputy Planning Director FROM: Katie Ertmer, Historic Preservation Intern RE: 533 W. Francis Street- Variance - Public Hearing DATE: April 9,2003 SUMMARY: This property is listed on the "Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures" and contains a Victorian home. The applicant has Conceptual and Final approval from HPC for the development of the site. The applicant has returned to HPC for a rear yard setback variance. The applicant is not proposing any changes to the approved plans. APPLICANT: David Gibson, represented by Haas Land Planning, LLC. PARCEL ID: 2735-124-25-001. ADDRESS: 533 W. Francis St., Lots A-C, Block 28, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: R-6 (Medium Density Residential) CURRENT LAND USE: 9,000 sq. ft. lot, single family residence. As part of the Conceptual approval, the applicant received a 4' west side yard setback variance, a 2.5' east side yard setback variance, a 6.5' combined sideyard setback variance, and a 15' combined front and rear yard setback variance. When the applicant came in for their building permit, it was discovered that a specific rear yard variance was needed. The plans included livable space along the alley, which requires a rear yard setback variance rather than a combined front and rear yard setback variance. Section 26.710.040(D)(4) of the Land Use Code states For principal buildings, the front and rear yard shall total no less than thirty (30) feet, and the front yard and rear yard shall each be a minimum of ten (10) feet; provided, that the rear yard for that portion of a principal building used as a garage only shall be a minimum offive (5) feet. 1 Because there is a portion of the principal building that is not a garage that is located along the rear of the property it requires a separate variance. The applicant is not proposing any changes to the HPC approved plan. The request is for a rear yard setback variance of four (4) feet. SETBACK VARIANCES The criteria, per Section 26.415.110.C ofthe Municipal Code are as follows: HPC must make a finding that the setback 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 Finding: The variance does not change any of the HPC approved Conceptual or Final plans. When the building permit application was received by the Community Development Department it was discovered that the applicant planned a portion of the principal structure that was not a garage on the alley next to the garage. According to the Land Use Code, any portion of the principal structure along the alley that is not used as a garage requires a specific rear yard setback. Approval of the setback variance will allow the applicant to construct the building exactly as was approved by the HPC. RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the request meets requirements for a variance and recommends that HPC approve Resolution No. , Series of 2003, for the requested four (4) foot rear yard setback variance for 533 W. Francis St., Lots A-C, Block 28, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution No. , Series of 2003." Exhibits: A. Staff memo dated April 9,2003 B. Application 2 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 533 W. FRANCIS STREET, LOTS A-C, BLOCK 28, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. , SERIES OF 2003 PARCEL ID: 2735-124-25-001 WHEREAS, the applicant, David Gibson, represented by Haas Land Planning, LLC, has requested an amendment to approval for a Variance for the property located at 533 W. Bleeker Street, Lots A-C, Block 28, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. The property is listed on the "Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures;" and WHEREAS, the applicant is required to request a separate rear yard setback variance for any portion of the principal building along the rear ofthe property that is not used as a garage; and WHEREAS, Katie Ertmer, in her staff report dated April 9,2003, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, developed findings based on the applicable review criteria, and recommended that the project be approved; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on April 9,2003, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application was consistent with the applicable sections of the Municipal Code, and approved the application with conditions by a vote of to . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: HPC approves the application for a rear yard setback variance of four (4) feet for the property located at 533 W. Francis Street, Lots A-C, block 28, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado with the following conditions 1. The HPC hereby approves the following setback variance for Lot 1 : a 4' rear yard setback variance. 2. 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. 3. 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. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 9th day of April, 2003. Approved as to Form: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney Approved as to content: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Jeffrey Halferty, Chair ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk HAAS LAND PLANNING, LLC March 12, 2003 Ms. Katie Ertmer Interim Historic Preservation Planner 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: 533 W. Francis Street Rear Yard Setback Variance Request Dear Katie: Please consider this letter to constitute a formal request for approval of a rear yard setback variance of four (4) feet for the above-captioned property. The four (4) foot variance would allow a rear yard setback of six (6) feet for a portion of the principal structure not used as a garage, where ten (10) feet would otherwise be required. Pursuant to the approved Historic Landmark Lot Split Subdivision Exemption Plat (hereinafter "the Plat"), the subject property is now known as "Lot 1, Historic Landmark Lot Split at 533 West Francis Street." It is zoned R-6, Medium Density Residential, and contains 4,200 square feet. A vicinity map (not to scale) showing the location of the subject property is provided below. MÂ®foint .net- Il 1. '19 , 11 9 14 2 - 4.-I-.4...41 - 2 -3 533 W Francis St,\ ~ Z:=:C..' ., "-~ :s 00 Â·~-sy~i Aspen,*CO 81611 ---tÂ·171-92:7---2 N. '20 Z.* * .....21:.-fic. -- - . 2-- 4 - 2*U.243 O Aspen <22- ~i f .,10 -~w Â·- , 7.--Â»-23-AL White River : 1--_ National Forest -<br --PA<*r f- M.r--1 CO 1. *2001 111Â©ms#,teolp ,Â©2000 N-wkÂ«GOT.lne. lad/oraNO 015 8 9. < .#-%4.949~:.9 Â· 201 N. MILLSTREET, SUITE 108 â€¢ ASPEN, COLORADO Â· 81611 â€¢ â€¢ PHONE: (970) 925-7819 â€¢ FAX: (970) 925-7395 â€¢ The HPC granted a combined front and rear yard setback variance to accommodate the approved design; however, due to an inadvertent omission by the applicant and staff, it was not recognized that the design also required the above-described rear yard setback variance. The rear yard setback variance requested herein is completely consistent with all representations made during, and conforms to all conditions of approval stipulated in, the Conceptual and Final approvals. When the applicant submitted a building permit application for development of the approved project, the City Zoning Officer noticed the need for the rear yard setback variance. Thus, this application is basically a "clean-up" item aimed at ensuring that all technical requirements are addressed and the "i's" are dotted and the "t's" are crossed, so to speak. Section 26.415.110(B) of the Code states that dimensional variations are allowed on projects involving designated properties to create development that is more consistent with the character of the historic property than would be required by the underlying zoning's dimensional standards. Specifically, the HPC is empowered to grant variances for designated properties to allow: a. Development in the side, rear and front setbacks; b. Development that does not meet the minimum distance requirements between buildings; c. Up to five (5) percent additional site coverage; d. Less open space than required for the on-site relocation of commercial historic properties. In granting any of the variance types authorized under Section 26.415.110(B) of the Code, the HPC must find that the requested variance(s): a. Are similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district; and/ or b. Enhance or mitigate an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district. In reviewing the project, the HPC granted a number of variances and approved the overall site plan, layout and architectural design at both the Conceptual and Final levels. No changes have been made to the Final development plans approved by the HPC. Many HPC members used such adjectives as "exemplary" and " outstanding" in referring to the project. Since the past approvals were granted unanimously and were based on the exact design for which the requested rear 533 W. FRANCIS REAR YARD SE-1-BACK VARIANCE PAGE 2 yard setback variance is required, it would seem that the HPC finds the proposal to meet the requirements for a variance of the nature now requested. We hope the information and responses provided herein prove helpful in your review. If you should have any questions or desire any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours truly, Haas Land Planning, LLC 3 Owner/ Principal Attch./ c: My Documents/City Applications/Gibson Rear Yard Variance 533 W. FRANCIS REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCE PAGE 3 .-701,9, 4 4..ily,-2.tet<.A,4>. J. 1 2*ft#:t#*peÂ»t fey.: r.* '.Â·*di}?,iPS~M'%203.14 1 f 97 1.13':.7---:1:4-:'1*Â»,4 'n 1 st'eht#*%}f?*fi:*2: -'. AÂ· liM#. #V ., M.1 4 ~,Yv Â¥' â€¢1;Â·'' ' '4 Â»Â·Kâ€¢- . â‚¬.,1.44 : ''. 0 4.9 -,g#IM,41-9 liz*%O f 'P t ; 7, U i 'lip -Â·34-E i: 4Â£99495,~ Rit 49 -9 1 3 :U 14:ge .<* 6 94 4/ , > . . L--1 GRAVE .--2-. 91** FA -tf: 1.,1.,inp..':Â£915. .22*-:2.i...6% L DRIVE .D~ 7 /744"* 441 4 -4 ' 49*01- *01'.r h-4. ,>1.1 , rt *,P.40 lip.1 'â‚¬44.9 *4, 42. 431?.:,8, 2. 1,4*t El,P~ . 21 -E';i,-21.Â»*.4.R, 3, 33~*Ii:.8<Â¥ '*3>t;'r ;,ied'*~1.1 72= WALKWAY ruk'**4 rtit-0.*22.:2Â·,4 , i.:6,~.2,:t.-Â·,%,23 ';0 2,7 X :4.-:t'.iÂ«44:241Â¢19~Mt,11,14eÂ«?4!;kiE)--'I--1442%9iff**32-Flmwlâ‚¬%1 ' .- - fA~*,'{ 113' I '1 .' :d ./ 14 10,7- Â· 4.49-'v, 0.3 ., I#B ...P.t.Â·Â·Â·1.4 :*.AL l-M- +. '..2... - i#'6#MN,SHE*;113#z . ~-â‚¬63*ki-%124*W@>?-11 bl?')42>IN; 142021*~loi'.3-,9. 71*N*2*43 ~ Â£ i; w:i-' -f'Â·Â·,0 '4:,11;.,1 'Â·4:71 I. 2 ...te'llt,K?i Pa. Â·p.Â·y.: '*W (' f#sele 'f'I. nÂ¥44-: Â·yir;) t..tl;Fl*-7 - 4x I. TAASH.. .:1Â·~.,1.1*. : t.,19.9442*~~1*,ffv#:*3:-b 9.-9 1344~~fj.%1 9 - - 9. it SHED , *$, ,.1 :L,fzz:. '.4.54 1ltl'i,kB,f-â‚¬Â·.2,(7, 1... /3/17.,6.5*.44%*Wf 'Sa/*Ubpl Afti.... < .. e :'.2.#Â·./,I yae'/37,1,B'&*T#r::4$4#4#4:-Â·'4, u t.41: 1, ~93Â£12*~F,444;3:v,titiÂ« r - 44392IiÂ»4903â‚¬%>5?49*469 :f- , 4:et'<2~':~}1*(4~a,#~;~kâ€¢~t~~'~'~~%6-rÂ·-U, V~ eÂ·,Ng f<-,2:~ . : 7-,2 . N+,-: 'J 0 i vrv, t ,, 1% I / Â·ak-69. TE&*)K,tif(->93<RM'.fÂ¢Â©~4':1 :R-~4..~ ~:. v.,. - ;:~6 840;14<1*1'.*f** 32*t~*3â‚¬:11.4*3- ~ â€ž LOT 1 â€¢ BRICK 6,000'q ft PATIO 24343**44:**2344-J,7. 4464,2*33*15Â«3'. -,1 :: 0 137ac '444., - 539Â·2?f*#Â»; -Â·, 329.-Giti.~34:Â·:522....19%24144)~~::4:93%*3rÂ»-3* #5&~.. 2 . 9*#rd..fc#Mil:-,cr,:14:~:4:~~~~ ~24~:421,1**<1'uk,3&5 UiAÂ»,bAÂ®Â·>f-:'t,ki,fro 91 iÂ»% r 6 ~Â«fFf**3 ~31~.,:- E::.Vky ~:-~~I-<~~.4,,~~,F~#9~~a~,3.1..~11%~..~31,2Â·Â·.5::t:-1,,>;t~D)14Â·f t49 S WOOD DECK under canopy garden 6' tence - vertical 6 " boards st~ ger spaces canopy aligns w/ wall above - rear setback ~ center on property line each sl e ~- light & egress well -- front wall of , ' ~ 1 .. /- 10' for main house, existing house / N / \ 51 for garage PROPERTY LINE S 14Â°50'49" W 100 00' .. -l .-*. I t ~-vent 1 - / \ '1 1 minimal egress/light Wells per Focieine existing tree canopy above-- -4 GARDEN \ /1 \ V . ------ 1-- 0 \ 1 1113 - - 1 1 1 f , ' tâ€ž- I 1 1 1 L ~1 L______ d 1 -r-- =1---f- -11--T >th 1 1 1 1-2 , 1 1 -9-101'Op -1 - - -- - - -7 ~ 1 ~~-ex,sting tree ~ -i--OP i 1 1 1 1 6=1_1 1114~=-- ~ PORCH I I L_i_ _---_J ' IL- i lil , -, PATIO 1 1 %..r \ 1 1 1 sandstone colored paving ~ 1 31~~ _- . , 1 1 1. â€¢ 1 \ 17-7-77 1@T 2 F--- -- +00'-0' | b wail above -= X 1 1 I 3.~sq R \ \ % 1/ (10Â¢18ac -- 1 i *- 1 +101,-0. i p k . -1 1\\ 1~;>Pil ' I Il--fl , 1 1 -\ 1 ./ 1 \ 1 -i~ -1,0%\ 1 - 1 I p-- flower pots parking ' M GARDEN space ~ ~-~ PRppERTY LINE o ~ S 14Â°â€ž59'49' W 100 09: .. -Â· V '. CD 'Â· 3 4,...,. â€¢ ,00 06 M.11,60.9Â£ N X goNg:10(]OM METAL FENCE S 75Â°09'11" E 30 00' BLEEKER -- ~lt 8) MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Joyce Olilson, Deputy Planning Director.~AO FROM: Katie Ertmer Assistant I-Iistoric Preservation Planner RE: 331 W. Bleeker Street- Major Development, Conceptual- Public Hearing, Continued from March 26,2003 DATE: April 9,2003 SUMMARY: This is a continuation of the Public Hearing that was held regarding new development on a lot-split site at 331 W. Bleeker Street on March 26. 2003. The applicant was given direction to provide a visual comparison between the historic structure and the proposed new building. The applicant will bring this information to the 1-1PC meeting on April 9.2003. The current application involves the design of a new, single-family residence on the newly created lot. The neighboring historic resource is a two-story Queen Anne style house. Because the entire site remains listed on the 'Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures." the proposed building must receive HPC approval and must comply with the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and the Land Use Code. The maximum allowable floor area, 1,800 square feet was established through the lot split. The applicant is not asking for any variances. APPLICANT: Chris Berry. represented by Mitch 11aas, Haas Land Planning, LLC. PARCELID: 2735-124-41-001. ADDRESS: 331 W. Bleeker Street, Lot C, Block 44, City and Townsite of Aspen. Colorado ZONING: R-6 (Medium Density Residential) MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) The procedure.for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual level, is as follows. Staff reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. 1 This report is transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. The procedures for the review of Major Development projects include a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approved 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. A list of the design guidelines relevant to Conceptual Review is attached as "Exhibit B. STAFF ANALYSIS: The applicant has built a model that compares the historic resource to the proposed new building. Staff reviewed the original application and examined the model. Staff finds tlie proposed proiect complies with Chapter 11 "New Buildings on Landmarked " Properties/Historic Landmark Lot Splits . The proposed project is compatible in scale and massing with the two-story Queen Anne house on the adjoining property. The building and roof forms are complimentary to the historic structure. but distinguishable as being new. The proposed porch and front elevation are similar in scale and complimentary to the historic resource. The height of the proposed new building is the sanie as the historic structure, however the topography of the new lot site steps down from the lot on which the historic structure sits. Staff maintains the same concerns with the walkway and material palate that were mentioned in the memo from March 26,2003. There is a concern with the width of the proposed walkway, which is approximately six and a half (6.5) feet wide. Staff also has concerns regarding the prominence of the some of the proposed materials, specifically the brick on the front faÂ¢ade. in comparison with the materials on the historic structure. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Major Development Review (Conceptual) for 331 W. Bleeker, Lot C, Block 44, City and Townsite of Aspen. Colorado. 2 RECOMMENDED MOTION "I move to approve Resolution # . Series of 2003 approving the Major Development (Conceptual ) application for 331 W. Bleeker." Exhibits: A. Staff memo dated April 9,2003 B. Relevant Design Guidelines LJ Exhibit B 331 W. Bleeker, Guidelines Relevant to Conceptual Review of the New House Building Orientation 11.1 Orient the primary entrance of a new building to the street. u 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. Iii 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. o 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 & Ro Of Forms 11.5 Use building forms that are similar to those of the historic property. o 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. 1 Exotic building and roof forms that would detract from the visual continuity of the street are discouraged. These include geodesic domes and A-frames. Architectural Details 4 UCU C U 00 0 11.9 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those of the historic property. u These include windows, doors and porches. u 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. Ilighly complex and ornately detailed revival styles that were not a part of Aspen's history are especially discouraged on historic sites. Driveways & Parking 14.17 Design a new driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual impact. o Plan parking areas and driveways in a manner that utilizes existing curb cuts. New curb cuts are not permitted. u If an alley exists, a new driveway must be located off of it. 14.18 Garages should not dominate the street scene. See Chapter 8: Secondary Struct tires. 14.22 Driveways leading to parking areas should be located to the side or rear of a primary structure. u Locating drives away from the primary facade will maintain the visual importance the structure has along a block. See Chapter 8. Secondary Structures. 5 EC RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) FOR THE NEW HOUSE LOCATED AT 331 W. BLEEKER STREET, LOT C, BLOCK 44, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. SERIES OF 2003 Parcel ID #: 2735-124-41-001. WHEREAS, the applicant, Chris Berry. represented by Mitch Haas, Haas Land Planning, LLC, has requested Major Development approval (Conceptual) for the construction of a new house located at 331 W. Bleeker Street, Lot C, Block 44. City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved iii accordance with the procedures established for their review; and WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The l-IPC 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, Katie Ertmer. Assistant Historic Preservation Planner. in her staff reports dated March 26,2003 and April 9.2003 performed an analysis of the application based on the standards. and recommended the application be approved; and WHEREAS, at a regular meeting held on April 9, 2003, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application after a duly noticed. public hearing, took testimony, found the application to meet the pertinent standards. and approved the application by a vote o f to THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the LIPC approves Major Development (Conceptual) for the new house located at 331 W. Bleeker Street, Lot C, Block 44 City and Townsite of Aspen. Colorado. finding r that the review standards are met. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 9th day of April, 2003. Approved as to Form: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney Approved as to Content: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Jeffrey Halferty, Chair ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 13. ' Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision r==7- o f this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such ~ ~ * <3&- O Es revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement o f an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map has been available for public 9192- inspection in the planning agency during all b~ness hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendlpd;if~:0,/ ~, ~ Â«Â«al YANA*wo y The foregoing "Affidavit ofNotice" was acknowledged before me this 9411day of AFR-, L , 200.3 by RALLY 04Â©es WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL Â·Â·f W, Â¢7 4.--1) 22 Lekili **L-4 - My commission expires: 4\ 1 3- 1 leo .1- ~tary Public ATTACHMENTS: COPY OF THE PUBLICATION PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL - .41 1, 0 Â£ 4.~ 4 1 f,# 4... 6- F. Il V: 41/ 1 74./i . f; 1~ 1 1/ 441 /14 0/ Â·A" A W L 33421 - i \ 7 P- 7 1 1 1. 1/ 34 $ I 0 . . . .4 4 Vi/1-'ll ~ 4 1, + 4/ :, 4 . I 1. . 1. .2 4-k :.1.61 . - .0 .... i . ... *4.1.y fill/elyt N. A t: u 1 . r ,% 4, .4 41,/ ..1.- -- . 0 fr.,4 17-11.41 ir --I ;- a.... t i .hi; It El . 11 1., 4 - , + IIIIII 7 1 ., .4 . ...1 t 1.1 =4 + ///f f. 11.1 2 $ I . - t~ 04* ~11 *~43 A : 1 . ... lip .'..... 4 -3 Â·a!:iÂ·) 119*9=~ . â€ž . ..'ll.- 4 .. * PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 819 E. HOPKINS- MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday, April 9,2003 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission, Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Tom and Darlyn Fellman, requesting approval for Major Development (Conceptual); The proposal is for the relocation and restoration of the existing Historically Designated structure on-site, demolition of a shed, and construction of a new, four-unit multi-family building with a floor area that would be permitted the R/MF zone district. The application includes a request for a 500 square foot bonus, variances from the Residential Design Standards, and a waiver of parking requirements. A PUD application will be submitted in conjunction with the Major HPC Development Application to establish the dimensional requirements of the development plan. The property is located at 819 E. Hopkins, Lots D,E & F, Block 31, City and Townsite ofAspen. For further information, contact Katie Ertmer at the Aspen/Pitkin County Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5711, katiee@ci.aspen.co.us. s/Jeffrev Halfertv, Chair Aspen Historic Preservation Commission Published in the Aspen Times on March 24,2003 City of Aspen Account 1~ 898 E HOPKINS LLC ADAMS HOWARD S AIKEN LYNDA K TRUST 1800 MOLER RD 39060 HWY 82 #17 10832 N HADDONSTONE PL ABUS, OH 43207 ASPEN, CO 81611 MEQUON, WI 53092 ANDERSON ANGUS A REVOCABLE ATHLETIC CLUB MGMT SYSTEMS INC ARNOLD ELIZABETH TRUST 720 E HYMAN AVE 2154 WEST ADDISON #28 1201 BERING #7 SUITE 001 CHICAGO, IL 60618 HOUSTON, TX 77057 ASPEN, CO 81611 BARNES JONATHAN A BARNETT JERALD BARTLETT KATY I 265 RIVERSIDE DR 500 E MARKHAM STE 305 715 E HYMAN AVE #18 BASALT, CO 81621 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 ASPEN, CO 81611-2066 BAUTSCH MARY BEAUDETTE PETER C BECKER JANICE ~: 1982 BLUE MTN RD PO BOX 3582 72 ADLER AVE LONGMONT, CO 80504-6211 ASPEN, CO 81612 SAN ANSELMO, CA 94960 BERGMAN ALAN M BELKOVA DASHA REV TRUST BERMAN PETER J & ROCHELLE L C/O ALAN M BERGMAN 819 E HYMAN AVE #7 10021 ORMOND RD 10960 WILSHIRE BLVD 10TH FL ASPEN, CO 81611-2092 POTOMAC, MD 20854 LOS ANGELES, CA 90024 BLAINE BARBARA J BOELENS GREGORY S BRODIN PAULA I 1/2 417 WINCHESTER PO BOX 2360 PO BOX 3795 GLENDALE, CA 91201 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 BROWN MINDY ROBINSON & STEPHEN BROWN JOEL & ANDREA BROWN SCOTT M REV TRUST 50% N 762 PURITAN 320 N 7TH ST 638 VOSS RD BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009 ASPEN, CO 81611 HOUSTON, TX 77024 CAVE LEONARD E REVOCABLE TRUST CAMPBELL JOHN E CHAPUT DANIEL A 50% 900 E HOPKINS AVE APT 8 3426 WESTCUPP RD S 1400 TUCKER LN ASPEN, CO 81611-2077 FORT WORTH, TX 76109 ASHTON, MD 20861 CITY OF ASPEN COATES NELIGH C JR COHEN LILIANA M 130 S GALENA ST 720 E HYMAN AVE 50 STONEHEDGE RD ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 PITTSFIELD, MA 01201 COORS PHYLLIS M QPRT CORRECTIONAL HEALTH SERVICES INC uw.OSI THOMAS W WILLIAM SCOTT COORS TRUSTEE OH!O CORPORATION 715 E HYMAN AVE APT 6 15481 W 26TH AVE PO BOX 51 I ASPEN, CO 81611-2099 GOLDEN, CO 80401 AKRON, OH 44309 COULTER GAYLA CRUMLEY ALFRED BRUCE DART ELIZABETH PO BOX L-3 PO BOX 451 747 GALENA ST , CO 81612 PALISADE, CO 81526 ASPEN, CO 81611 DELPHINIUM ASSOC DOPKIN DEVELOPMENT LLC DAVIS HARRIET S & MARTIN C/O WALTER S BAKER JR C/O BUZZ DOPKIN 121 S GALENA ST STE 201 PO BOX 4696 1022 POTOMAC ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 HOUSTON, TX 77057 DOWS PATRICE J EGGLESTON ROBERT H JR EISEN JUDITH A 1411 9TH ST SW 434 WEST HALLAM PO BOX 10042 CEDAR RAPIDS, IA 52404 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 ETTLIN ROSS L FAMA ANTHONY REV TRUST 50% FLINT MARILYN TRUSTEE 715 E HYMAN AVE # 7 320 N 7TH ST 3945 KIRKLAND CT ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48302 FORD ANNE MICHIE FOX HERB FRANK FREDERIC QPRT 825 E HOPKIN UNIT 1 N PO BOX 1355 12 TRILBY BRANCH ASPEN, CO 81611 WINTER PARK, CO 80482 LONGWOOD, FL 32779 FRANKS ROOK GAECHTER ANN E & WILLIAM R GAME-CRUMLEY MICHAELA C/O HELEN WRATE PO BOX 285 PO BOX 451 3414 SEABREEZE LN WOODY CREEK, CO 81656 PALISADE, CO 81526 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 GLAUSER STEVEN JERRY & BARBARA GATES JOHN S GOLDMAN JEROME K TRUST GLAUSER MERCEDES BENZ - C/O 811 E HOPKINS AVE PO BOX 249 6828 S TAMIAMI TRAIL ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 SARASOTA, FL 34231 GOLDMAN MICHAEL VICTOR & GLORIA GRAHAM RAYMOND A GREENFIELD BARRY L TRUSTEE ANNA 11766 WILSHIRE BLVD STE 1610 PO BOX 210 6919 GLENEAGLE DR ASPEN, CO 81612 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 TUCSON, AZ 85718 HASU AG HALL CHARLES E HEXNER MICHAEL T TRUSTEE C/O MCFLYNN PICKETT PO BOX 10122 2555 UNION ST PO BOX 503 ASPEN, CO 81612 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94123 SNOWMASS, CO 81654 INS ASSOCIATES LP J & F INVESTMENT CO LP HYMAN STREET LLC c,v SHEKMAN NEW JERSEY LTD PARTNERSHIP 3201 S TAMARAC DR STE 200 2000 MARKET ST 10TH FL 25 BERKELEY TERRACE DENVER, CO 80213 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-3291 LIVINGSTON, NJ 07039 JOHNSON BARBARA WEAVER LIVING JOHNSON SALLYANNE C JONES JANET MCGRATH ~ TRUST PO BOX 5050 PO BOX 301 PO BOX 3570 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 RUCES, NM 88003 JUSTIS KAREN L TRUSTEE KARST REBECCA KNODE MICHAEL C 2555 UNION ST 6230 SW 44TH ST 3494 E RD SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94123 MIAMI, FL 33155 PALISADE, CO 81526 KRANS GERALD ANTHONY & KOUTSOUBOS LOUIS KOUTSOUBOS TED ROSEMARY PO BOX 9199 415 E HYMAN #206 7831 WILLOW LAKE CT #217 1 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 DALLAS, TX 75231 KRAVITZ MICHAEL C KWIATKOWSKA JUSTYNA LEGNAME RUDI 1 PO BOX 11207 PO BOX 1904 202 STANFORD AVE I ASPEN, CO 81612-9630 ASPEN, CO 81612 MILL VALLEY, CA 94941 LIBERTORE DOUGLAS S LIEB MADELINE TRUST LOESCHEN LEE A & LINDA A ATTN SANDY 0602 W SOPRIS CREEK RD 1 800 E HYMAN AVE #A P O BOX 1838 BASALT, CO 81621 ASPEN, CO 81611 SARASOTA, FL 34230-1838 LOO MONA B TRUST LORD COURTNEY & KAREN LOUDERBACK JACQUELINE M & JOHN 1 31841 SEAFIELD DR 200 E LONG LAKE RD 719 E HOPKINS AVE MALIBU, CA 90265 BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48304 ASPEN, CO 81611 MAGNER CHILDRENS MINORS TRUST MANLEY CHARLES G & LINDA MARCUS STEPHEN 3 1 12 C/O KEVIN MAGNER 16703 SOUTHERN OAKS DR PO BOX 3795 932 GEORGE ST HOUSTON, TX 77068 ASPEN, CO 81612 CHICAGO, IL 60657 MASINI ERMANNO TRUST MARTIN GALEN A & MARY LOU MCCAFFERTY PEGGY ) MASINI ALDA TRUST 5001 HOPEWELL RD 900 E HOPKINS #6 830 E HOPKINS #201 LOUISVILLE, KY 40299 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 MCFADDEN GORDON K MCGRATH GEORGE JOHN MEGA VIVIAN ~ 18519 E VALLEY RD PO BOX 301 1982 BLUE MTN RD KENT, WA 98032 ASPEN, CO 81612 LONGMONT, CO 80504-6211 MOUNTAIN HOUSE PARTNERSHIP i ELSON BRUCE V REV TRST NELLIS CHAD C/O WERNING JOHN ROBERT 7701 FORSYTH STE 900 13316 BEACH AVE ~ 905 E HOPKINS AVE ST LOUIS, MO 63105-1813 MARINA DEL RAY, CA 90292 ASPEN, CO 81611 ......~ -- NOONAN JOHN C NUDELL KAREN J 1999 REV TRUST O CONNELL SARA G 715 E HYMAN AVE #9 29929 EASTVALE CT PO BOX 491167 A I, CO 81611 AGOURA HILLS, CA 91301-4422 MIAMI, FL 33149 PAUL CAROLYN A OLANDER MICHAEL R PAUL RICHARD & SUZANNE TRUSTEE OF TRUST A PAUL TRUST PO BOX 2768 1210 INVERNESS AVE 2415 MORENA BLVD ASPEN, CO 81612 PITTSBURG, PA 15217 SAN DIEGO, CA 92110 PORTEOUS KIMBERLY R RESTAINO THOMAS RICCHIUTI JOSEPH F 734 E HOPKINS 72 ADLER AVE 558 N 23RD ST ASPEN, CO 81611 SAN ANSELMO, CA 94960 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19130 RODBELL UNDA & ARTHUR ROGER RICHARD R ROTH LEWIS 773 FOLLIN FARM LN 4300 WESTGROVE 6230 SW 44TH ST GREAT FALLS, VA 22066 ADDISON, TX 75001 MIAMI, FL 33155 RUSHNECK GARY RYERSON GEORGE W JR SAHR KAREN M 480 S BROADWAY 715 E HYMAN AVE #17 715 E HYMAN AVE #8 I TARRYTOWN, NY 10591 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 SAKSON DREW SCHMIDT CHERYL L SCHULTZ WILLIAM & LEAH TRST P O BOX 1625 PO BOX 2768 5110 SAN FELIPE RD 381 W CARBONDALE, CO 81623-4625 ASPEN, CO 81612 HOUSTON, TX 77056 SHAPIRO LAND TRUST 1 SEIFERT PATRICIA M SHAW BARBARA ANNE , STEVEN SHAPIRO AS TRUSTEE PO BOX 2262 11138 AQUA VISTA ST #22 1 14024 MONTRACHET LN ASPEN, CO 81612 NORTH HOLLYWOOD, CA 91602-3119 TOWN & COUNTRY, MO 63017 SKLAR LEONARD E SKLAR WILLIAM P SMALLING JENNY MARIE 3370 NE 190TH ST #604 777 S FLAGLER DR #200 3426 WESTCUPP RD S AVENTURA, FL 33180 WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33401 FT WORTH, TX 76109 SMART EDWIN J SMITH E GARLAND JR SOFFICI SHERI & ALEX PO BOX 799 900 E HOPKINS AVE #10 316W JUNIPERO ASPEN. CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 SANTA BARBARA, CA 93105 )ING ANNA EVE STEELE JULIANNE B STEINFELD ELEANOR YO BOX 636 41 AVE DE LA GRANDE ARMEE 44045 SUPERIOR CT ASPEN, CO 81612 75116 PARIS FRANCE INDIAN WELLS, CA 92210 STRIBLING DOROTHY & STENGER FRIEDERIKE & WALTER TRIONE GERARD W GRANTOR TRUST WACHOVIA BANK NA FL0135 117 CENTER POINT DR STE 300 1100 LOUISIANA STE 1600 PO BOX 40062 lili AN ONTARIO CANADA, K2G 5X3 HOUSTON, TX 77002 JACKSONVILLE, FL 32203-0062 TUROK SETH J UPTON MARY E VAVREK JOHN R 835 E HYMAN AVE UNIT K PO BOX 2360 819 E HYMAN AVE APT 4 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 VERONIKA INC VICENZI GEORGE A TRUST WEBB B MARSHALL 210 AABC STE G PO BOX 2238 PO BOX 216 ASPEN, CO 81611-3537 ASPEN, CO 81612 SHELBURNE, VT 05482 WOODS GEORGE B TRUST WESTER KEITH WHITTENBURG J A 111 80% WOODS GEORGE B AS TRUSTEE 900 E HOPKINS AVE #9 620 S TAYLOR PO BOX 1046 ASPEN, CO 81611 AMARILLO, TX 79109 ASPEN, CO 81612-1046 WOODY CREEK TRUST WYLY CHERYL R MARITAL TRUST ZACK ROBERT J JR PO BOX 350 300 CRESCENT CT #1000 PO BOX 1904 MAKAWELI, HI 96769 DALLAS, TX 75201 ASPEN, CO 81612 9 K Ac 6 (1<17<. GARFIELD & HEC-HT, P.C RONALD GARFIELD' 601 EAST HYMAN AVENUE ANDREW V. HECHT ATTORNEYS AT LAW ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 DAVID L. LENYO TELEPHONE MATTHEW C. FERGUSON' (970) 925-1936 E-mail: CHRISTOPHER J. LaCROIX'Â·2 atty@garfieldhecht.com FACSIMILE CHAD J. SCHMIT3 (970) 925-3008 Website: EDEN C. STEELE NATASHA SAYPOL www.garfieldhecht.com 110 MIDLAND AVENUE GREGORY S. GORDONt,4 SUITE 201 BASALT, COLORADO 81621 TELEPHONE (970) 927-1936 MICHAEL D. McCOLLUM FACSIMILE PARALEGAL CRAG E. BOGNER April 8, 2OO3 (970) 927-1783 IT MANAGER, PARALEGAL Via Hand Delivery Aspen Historic Preservation Commission Attention: Katie Ertmer 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: 819 E. Hopkins - Major Development (Conceptual) - Public Hearing, Continued from March 26,2003 Dear Katie: We represent the homeowners (the "Homeowners") who reside at 830 E. Hopkins, which is located directly across the street from 819 E. Hopkins. The purpose ofthis letter is to object to any approval of the current Conceptual Plan, On-Site Relocation, and Partial Demolition for 819 E. Hopkins. We did not submit a formal written objection for the March 26,2003 hearing because we were informed, pursuant to that certain Memorandum from you dated March 26, 2003 (the "March 26 Memorandum"), that the Applicant's proposal (the "Old Proposal") needed significant restudy and that the hearing on the application would be continued to a future date. However, it should be noted that the Homeowners did in fact attend the March 26 hearing and voiced many concerns with the Old Proposal. Since the March 26 hearing, it has been brought to our attention that the Applicant has submitted a new proposal (the "New Proposal") for the development of 819 E. Hopkins. Pursuant to your Memorandum dated April 9,2003 (the "April 9 Memorandum"), Staff is recommending approval ofthe New Proposal, though subject to thirteen conditions (the "Conditions"). We understand that the Applicant has made an effort to propose changes to address HPC and Staff concerns, as has been highlighted in the April 9 Memorandum. However, it is the position of the Homeowners that the New Proposal is still far from an excellent Historic Preservation project, and that HPC and Staff should not approve (even on a conceptual level) the New Proposal until such time as the proposal meets all of the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, and most importantly, those guidelines dealing with massing, density, scaling, and front elevation and entryways. 84333-1 1. also admitted to 2. also admitted to 3. also admitted to 4. also admitted to New York Bar Connecticut Bar Illinois Bar New Jersey Bar Â® Printed on recycled paper GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C. April 8,2003 HPC, Katie Ertmer Page 2 The Homeowners' opposition to the New Proposal is described in detail below. A. Design Guideline 11.3 Guideline 11.3: Construct a new building to appear similar in scale with the historic buildings on the parcel. â€¢ Subdivide larger masses into smaller "modules" that are similar in size to the historic buildings on the original site. Homeowners Response: The Homeowners recognize that under the New Proposal, the massing of the new construction has been broken up into two structures. There would be a freestanding, one-story structure (incorporating the historic shed) at the rear of the historic house and a new, two-story building to the east and south. However, in looking at the drawings for the New Proposal, it appears that the two-story building is still quite large in comparison with the historic structures, and that Staff' s concerns with the new building being "one large mass which surrounds and overwhelms the historic structure" [quoted from the March 26 Memorandum] has really not been ameliorated. Guideline 11.3 expressly states that a new building has to appear "similar in scale" with the "historical buildings on the parcel." The only difference between the Old Proposal and the New Proposal is that under the New Proposal, the two-story building overwhelms two smaller historic structures, instead of one smaller historic structure. The point to be emphasized here is that Guideline 11.3 does not permit anv "overwhelming" of any historic structures whatsoever. The Homeowners recognize that the Applicant has addressed Staffs concerns with the "Inflection standard," in that the one-story historic yellow house is being placed next to the neighboring one-story historic building, and the two-story portion of the New Proposal is adjacent to a neighboring two-story building. However, it must be emphasized that the Inflection standard is a different standard than Guideline 11.3. Guideline 11.3 specifically deals with the relationship ofthe buildings on the "original site" to eachother. Guideline 11.3 does not deal with the relationship of the on-site buildings as they compare to buildings on adjacent sites. 84333-1 GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C. April 8,2003 HPC, Katie Ertmer Page 3 The only place in the April 9 Memorandum that addresses the massing flaws of the New Proposal is the statement that the east fa~ade of the two story building is a "large, unbroken mass." The Homeowners contend that the entirety of the two-story building is massive and not just the east fa~ade, and that Applicant should be required to further reduce the massing ofthe New Proposal as a condition to Conceptual Approval, rather than Final Approval. B. Design Guideline 11.2 Guideline 11.2: In a residential context, clearly define the primary entrance to a new building by using a front porch. â€¢ A new porch should be similar in size and shape to those seen traditionally Homeowners Response: The Homeowners agree with Staffs concerns that the front porch under the New Proposal is much larger than the historic porch and has a deck above it, unlike the historic porch. Additionally, the front porch is a two-story element, which is not only incompatible with the one-story porch element of the historic house, but also violates Section 26.410.040(D)(2) of the Residential Design Standards. The Homeowners recognize that Staff has recommended a "restudf' o f the porch as one of the Conditions of Final Approval. However, the Homeowners believe that the porch is a significant element of the historic character o f the site and should be redesigned prior to Conceptual Approval. C. Design Guideline 11.4 Guideline 11.4: Design afront elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building. â€¢ Theprimary plane ofthefront should not appear tallerthan the historic structure. â€¢ The front should include a one-story element, such as a porch. Homeowners Response: In the March 26 Memorandum which addressed the Old Proposal, Staff focused on the scaling of the front elevation of the new building and how such elevation was "out of scale" with the one story historic structure. Under the New Proposal, the front fagade ofthe new building still contains a two-story element, and therefore is much taller than and overwhelms the one-story historic structure. However, 84333-1 GARFIELD & HECHL P.C. April 8,2003 HPC, Katie Ertmer Page 4 the April 9 Memorandum does not appear to address this problem with the front faGade at all. Issues with the front fagade should be rectified prior to any Conceptual Approval. D. Design Guideline 11.9 Guideline 11.9: Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those of the historic property. â€¢ These include windows, doors and porches. Homeowners Response: The Homeowners agree with Staff's concerns, as set forth in the April 9 Memorandum, that "the shape and size of some of the proposed vertical and horizontal windows are too narrow and are too different than those found on the historic building." The Homeowners believe that just as is the case with massing, scaling, and elevation, all issues with respect to building components that are not compatible with the historic structures should be resolved prior to Conceptual Approval. It is the understanding of the Homeowners that the very purpose of the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines is to ensure that when a historic site is developed, that any new construction is compatible with and highlights the existing historic structures on the site. The New Proposal does not focus on the historic yellow home and the historic shed, and make these structures prominent features of the development. Instead, the two-story building is a massive structure that envelops the site and overpowers the historic buildings. The Homeowners ask Staff and HPC to require the Applicant to revisit the Design Guidelines which have not been met prior to any Conceptual Approval being granted. Thank you in advance for your attention to and consideration of the concerns of the Homeowners. Individual Homeowners may submit letters addressing issues in addition to the issues emphasized herein. Very truly yours, GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C. It i 10,*44'4"85LRFL Byiâ€¢ Narasna baypol 84333-1 11 49 2 1 FELLMAN MU LTI - FAMI LY BUILDING 819 east hopkins st., aspen, colorado ( REVISED -HPC CONCEPTUAL 1-3 7-9\}15[08% APE APRIL 9,2003 5 vÂ© VU N *u Sh LED Â£11121Â£1211[1111LE111LL111_0_1111L1a1_LL_11-1- lk- lili L lili [1 111111 lilill lili L lill i 1111 LLULLUL-ILL-~L J - 11 1-~~ 0414Â»Ed--' .~.I~.5- r####s 2----.-~~ lili It lili 11 lili 11 lili 11 111 1 11 11 1 â€¢ 1=29 6 0 = consortium architects I P.O.B. 3662, aspen colorado 81612 v: (970) 925 - 6797 f: (970) 925 - 6797 1 e-mail: rally@aspeninfo. com I 3L - 3% 00 ER al ~ 4 11 /3-0 N 'R -L___________-t-----1 Li 2-___________2_________3- / - \ NORTH ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-O" Â»393 - -tak -'- .- f>~~ . tpÂ«~1 9 0 ~'Â·â€¢d:% s&:,E ili 11--2 1 9 r 1 | | | | 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1-________--6 0 NORTH ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0" 11 9 1 f Ai U UN U U U 111 1 111 1 1 1 1 1 111 1 1__ -3 1 1 0 SOUTH ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-O" 12:3 LCHIAJEt Â¥496>E 4 32?3* ..a' ~:8Â·: 3 0 -- - r 11 1 11 1 1 9 111 11 1 1 11 11 1 1 11 11 1 1, A fl' 11 1 1 11 11 L_ -Ii- Ii-- ----- 1_____ _5_ 2_ _____33 EAST ELEVATION 0 1/4" = 1'-O" 00 H - f 11[ : C / - 1 I - U -- - 11 1 - 1-0:1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 lili 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1/4" = 1'-0" - 1/4" = 1'-0" UNIT 5 - EAST ELEVATION UNIT 3 - hIEST ELEVATION EAST HOPKINS AVENUE BEDROOM COMPONENTS: 3 FREE MARKET BEDROOMS 5 DEED RESTRICTED BEDROOMS 8 TOTAL BEDROOMS , 62.5% FM/AH DEED RESTRICTED BEDROOM COMPONENTS: a 1 ----â‚¬- 6 NEW BEPROOMS / 5 DEEP RESTRICTED BEDROOMS . 86% \#\[Â¢ UNIT 4 UNIT 2 r-------1 1~- - -- -- -- -- - - . 6 .1 9 BEORM~ pa~,-1 IT-O"X 13'-8. ~! AEDROOM ~ U - LIVING 111-6"x 16'-5 1 PHASE 2 42 LIVING Lt-U 0 41 1 1_~ BATH ~-| ~ KIT. |ED rein -1 A l,Q Q -C~ KIT. / DINING L.- - IC qi -1 r BATH (.7 1- 1 JON a U J GLOS. .---------------- Cl 1 UPT 6 i i 2-22]3 - 24<bi, 4 n ~ C[. 1 == LIVING KIT. Illl':PP PA_hth*~09_ VA 1 1 - D'AC U PO@L 1 - 74 7 M G.-9 ~ 1 1 TT~ ON -,<-,0.-D A)D ~ *[32 2 - rl [[ 3 Or' 0 MUD RM. \ *CAR \ / 1 \ /GAQAGE\ / 1 BIKES .L - - -------- ---- T.---r---- --- --I---I-----I--0- ----[l L L UNIT 3 UNIT I NORTH ALLE Y ~ /*~ SITE PLAN 8 MAIN LEVEL PLAN 4 1 1 UNIT I ' UNIT 4 i i lin I 4 - - MASTER 7 1 -ik ' t"BEPROAM L 1 1 - -- --- Â·J J U 1 ---- 1 1 1 i 1 DECK 1 3 6*321 EE=42[111111] Il ll Il l I A Il ll 11 H I /f lili 11111111111111%11 11 Jf-4~=1~~~ 1 E--=2~= ==!**ID JITII_lilli lilli lillill I E-21*f-01113 2121_Illi_I j[Iii Hil_ll f [3 i 11 lillit lilill lili U IlllII IllIlll ~ gicgÂ©* ~1 U lilli- 1111111111111111111| ~| , 1 1 4 ,Â« f ' =ZE===E =1===Pil'111 11.1111 111111111111[1'il Â» 1 =--EEE- EM==2%LI 11 li li l iT U l iT 11111 IIi i 0 ,/ I *E-ZE Â«432%1\11 L 1 1111111 lilli,- 1 1 1 -A--- 7 IN ec 90 3 1 1 1 1 1 HERS I 1 -tj- 1 MASTER 1 ~ i BATH HIS I 1 1 Q .4/0 1 1 ... . 1. 1 01 ON 1 1 1 1 11 1 944 1203& 4 1 ' ' L *1 \1 -=07 OFFICE I .1 1 1 1 - A CLO. POR. -74 7-- To_ I 12C 4 -Â» 0 (2[ hÂ»en.79-1~ , 1 â‚¬X' f HUP \ 1 ~ BEORM. ~ ~ ~~= 9/ J i Â» 03 -- ro i 7 1 - 70'u FINIK 1 2 2-1121 T DECK E} [CO I ==k-I-- -0.-3 47 E] 9 [3 j 1 - -1 1 --3- IM j LIVING El 01 1 1- 2 81 1 -1=ZE-z =- 1 - ===g Z -17- 3 N KITCHEN I B.FAST I 4 -n~ 0 #LA J UNIT 3 UNIT I NORTH UPPER LEVEL PLAN 1/10" = 1'-O" 11 70 Kill. 90 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -7 1 1 1 1 ' d_L ./ 9 U U - 1 1 1 -F-- 1 3 1 1 1 L __-3 I 1 - 1 .0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 Â»/6/ 1 0/? \ 14:U34/ 1 C -------- 1 / ~ 1 s/L--7 11 b.-2_Y -9 9 7 1(Â» 1 1 1 -01 1 Â«Si>P 1 1 1 1 11 \~ 1 1 1- 1 15Â»1--Â» 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 0/ I L-.- -4 -- f ROOF PLAN : eeal 1/10" = 1'-O" //4 ) LJ MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission 3ko THRU: Joyce Allgaier Ohlson, Deputy Planning Director FROM: Katie Ertmer, Assistant Historic Preservation Planner RE: 819 E. Hopkins- Major Development (Conceptual), On-Site Relocation, Variances, and FAR Bonus- Public Hearing, Continued from March 26,2003 DATE: April 9,2003 SUMMARY: This property is listed on the "Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures" and contains a Victorian home. The proposal before HPC involves major conceptual review, on-site relocation, and partial demolition. The applicant will be submitting a PUD application for review by P&Z and City Council to establish the dimensional and open space requirements of the project. The applicant has proposed changes to address HPC and Staff concerns. They have also withdrawn their request for the 500 square foot FAR bonus. This memo will discuss the changes proposed by the applicant. APPLICANT: Tom and Darlyn Fellman, represented by Rally Dupps, Consortium Architects. PARCEL ID: 2737-182-08-032. ADDRESS: 819 E. Hopkins St., Lots D-F, Block 31, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: IUMF (Residential Multi-Family) CURRENT LAND USE: 9,000 sq. ft. lot, single-family residence MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual level, is as follows. Staff reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that anab?zes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff anatysis 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 1 with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan unless agreed to by the applicant. Staff Response: A list of the design guidelines relevant to Conceptual Review is attached as "Exhibit B." This memo will discuss only those which staff finds are not met by the proposal. At previous reviews of this proposal, HPC and Staff had concerns regarding the massing of the building, the entry and street facing facade elements of the new building, and how the historic building related to the historic structure on the adjacent parcel. There were also concerns regarding the historic shed at the rear of the property. Members of the public had concerns about the massing, density, and preservation of the tree. Several changes have been proposed since earlier discussion on this application. The applicant has reduced the number of new units from four to three. The applicant has also changed the configuration of the buildings on the property so that the historic resource is now located to the west side, next to the adjacent historic structure, and the new construction is located to the east and south of the property. The massing of the new construction has been broken up into two structures. A freestanding, one-story structure that incorporates the historic shed is proposed at the rear of the historic structure and a two-story, two unit building is proposed to the east and south. The applicant is proposing to maintain the historic shed on-site and incorporate it into one of the structures. The proposal includes moving the structure on site and includes an "adaptive reuse" of the shed by turning it into one of the garage bays for one of the units. The proposal still addresses the Parks Department's concerns for the historic cottonwood tree by designing the new structure around this tree. Staff has evaluated the proposed changes to the building. Because the proposed new building is freestanding and is not an addition to a historic structure, on a Landmarked property, Chapter 11 provides the relevant guidelines. 11.2 In a residential context, clearly define the primary entrance to a new building by using a front porch. o A new porch should be similar in size and shape to those seen traditionally. 11.4 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building. 2 o The primary plane of the front should not appear taller than the historic structure. o The front should include a one-story element, such as a porch. The proposed entryway for the front-most unit is more defined than the previous proposal and staff finds the primary entrance to the building is more in context with the historic structure. The master bedroom on columns has been removed and a more appropriate entryway has been proposed. However, Staff has concerns that the proposed front porch is still a two-story element that is much larger than the historic porch and has a deck above it. Staff finds that a one-story porch that is more compatible in size with the historic porch would be more sympathetic to the historic resource. Staff finds the east fagade of the proposed two until building is a large, unbroken mass. While it has no direct affect on the historic property, staff recommends the applicant restudy the this portion of the building. This concern can be addressed at Final. Staff also has concerns that the shape and size of some of the proposed vertical and horizontal windows are too narrow and are too different than those found on the historic building. The guidelines talk about using windows that are similar in shape and size to those on the historic resource. This is also a concern that can be addressed at Final. ON-SITE RELOCATION The intent of the Historic Preservation ordinance is to preserve designated historic properties in their original locations as much of their significance is embodied in their setting and physical relationship to their surroundings as well as their association with events and people with ties to a particular site. However, it is recognized that occasionally the relocation of a property may be appropriate as it provides an alternative to demolition or because it only has a limited impact on the attributes that make it significant. 26.415.090.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; gr 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; gr 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: 3 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 applicant has addressed Staff concerns with the relocation of the historic structure. Moving the historic house to the west side of the property and next to the adjacent historically designated property is a more appropriate relocation of the historic resource. Chapter 8 of the Design Guidelines discusses Secondary Structures. The applicant is proposing to turn the historic shed so that it faces east instead of north. The proposal includes incorporating the shed into the garage that is to be located at the rear of the new one-unit building. The applicant is proposing to maintain the exterior and original roofline of the shed. Chapter 8 encourages the adaptive reuse of a secondary structure if it can be preserved and continue to serve a function. Because the applicant is proposing an "adaptive reuse" of the historic shed, rather than demolition Staff finds the relocation to be appropriate. DEMOLITION 26.415.080(A)(4)The HPC shall review the application, the staff report and hear evidence presented by the property owners, parties of interest and members of the general public to determine if the standards for demolition approval have been met. Demolition shall be approved i f it is demonstrated that 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, 21: b. The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure,or 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 ofihe area. 4 Staff Response: The applicant is no longer requesting to demolish the historic shed at the rear of the property. They are requesting to do a partial demolition of several sides of the shed in order that it may be adapted into use as a garage for one of the units. Staff finds this partial demolition to be appropriate. Staff finds the partial demolition of the small addition at the rear of the existing house is appropriate. COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER AREAS OF THE LAND USE CODE: The proposed changes to the project have addressed Staff' s concerns regarding some o f the Residential Design Standards. There is now a street oriented entrance on the new building which meets the standard. The proposed changes also address Staff concerns regarding inflection. The historic, one-story building is now adj acent to the neighboring one-story historic building and the two-story portion of the proposed new construction is adjacent to a neighboring two-story building. The proposed changes include the use of two non-orthogonal windows on the south facing fagade of the new two-unit building. The proposal also includes a two-story porch element. HPC is required to make a recommendation to the P&Z regarding variances from these standards. According to section 26.222.010 appeals for exemption from the Residential Design Standards should identify why the exception would "(1) yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan, and (2) more e#ectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to, or be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints." Section 26.410.040(D)(3)(b) Windows No more than one non-orthogonal windows shall be allowed on each fagade Of the building. A single non-orthogonal window in a gable end may be divided with mullions and still be considered one non-orthogonal window. Staff Response: While Staff does not recommend approval of variances from the Residential Design Standards, Staff finds the proposed use of a non-orthogonal window in each of two gable ends on the alley facing ftwade to be in the least visible location on the proposed building. Section 26.410.040(D)(2) One Story Element All residential buildings shall have a one-story streetjacing element the width of which comprises at least twenty (20) percent of the building's overall width. For example, a one-story element may be a porch roof, architectural projection, or living space. Staff Response: Staff finds that the proposed porch is a two-story element that does not meet the standard. Staff recommends the applicant restudy the front porch. Section 26.410.040(D)(4) Lightwells All areaways, lightwells and/or stairwells on the street facing fagade(s) of a building shall be entirely recessed behind the frontmost wail of the building. 5 Staff Response: Staff finds that the proposed lightwell on the north side of the new, two-unit building does not meet this standard and must be moved so that it is recessed behind the frontmost wall of the north faGade. Staff also finds that any sub-grade construction on the site must remain inside the property boundary and the City Engineer must approve any overhang encroachments. RECOMMENDATION: The proposed project has been successful in addressing the Parks Department' s requirement of retaining the large cottonwood tree on site. Staff finds the applicant has addressed Staff concerns regarding the massing, the front entry, the relationship of the street facing fagade to the historic building, and the inflection standard, as well as concerns regarding the shed at the rear of the property. Staff recommends approval of the Conceptual plan, On-Site Relocation, and Partial Demolition for 819 E. Hopkins with the following conditions: 1. The applicant will restudy the size of the front porch of the new, two-unit building in order to make it a one-story element. 2. For Final review, restudy the east fagade of the new, two-unit building to determine if the massing can be visually broken up. 3. For Final review, restudy the size and shape of some of the proposed narrow horizontal and vertical windows on the new buildings. 4. Finalization of exact window and door locations, sizes and the existence of original material on the historic resource will be determined through demolition and discovery by removing the siding, other exterior materials, and interior plaster to expose framing evidence. 5. A structural report demonstrating that the buildings can be moved and/or information about how the house will be stabilized from the housemover must be submitted with the building permit application. 6. A bond or letter of credit in the amount of $30,000 to insure the safe relocation of the structure must be submitted with the building permit application. 7. A relocation plan detailing how and where the buildings will be stored and protected during construction must be submitted with the building permit application. 8. The applicant will provide HPC staff and monitor with a plan for how the housemover proposes to lift the buildings, for review prior to submittal of a building permit. The approach chose, whether it be to move the house and shed with their original floor system, or without, must be demonstrated to result in the removal of the least amount of historic exterior materials, and the least damage to the buildings as possible. 9. Submit a demolition plan, as part of the building permit plan set, indicating exactly what areas of the existing house and shed are to be removed as part of the renovation. 10. All sub-grade construction must remain within the property boundary. 11. All overhang encroachments must be approved by the City Engineer. 12. The lightwell on the north side of the new, two-unit building must be moved so that it is recessed behind the frontmost wall of the street facing facade. 6 13. An application for Final review shall be submitted for review and approval by the HPC within one year of April 9,2003 or the conceptual approval shall be considered null and void per Section 26.415.070.D.3.c.3 ofthe Municipal Code. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution No. , Series of 2003, approving Major Development (Conceptual) for 819 E. Hopkins St., Lots D-F, Block 31, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado." Exhibits: A. Staff Memo Dated April 9,2003 B. Relevant guidelines C. Applicable Residential Design Standards D. Revised Drawings and Elevations 7 Exhibit B Relevant Design Guidelines for Conceptual Development Review, 819 E. Hopkins Priu ate Yard 1.11 Preserve and maintain mature landscaping on site, particularly landmark trees and shrubs. o Protect established vegetation during construction to avoid damage. Replacement of damaged, aged or diseased trees must be approved by the Parks Department. o If a tree must be removed as part of the addition or alteration, replace it with species of a large enough scale to have a visual impact in the early years of the project. Treatment of Windows 3.1 Preserve the functional and decorative features of a historic window. Features important to the character of a window include its frame, sash, muntins/mullions, sills, heads, jambs, moldings, operation and groupings of windows. Repair frames and sashes rather than replacing them, whenever conditions permit. Preserve the original glass, when feasible. 2 Preserve the position, number and arrangement of historic windows in a building wall. Enclosing a historic window opening in a key character-defining facade is inappropriate, as is adding a new window opening. This is especially important on primary facades where the historic ratio of solid-to-void is a character-defining feature. 1 Greater flexibility in installing new windows may be considered on rear walls. o Do not reduce an original opening to accommodate a smaller window or door or increase it to receive a larger window on primary facades. Replacement Windows 3.3 Preserve the historic ratio of window openings to solid wall on a facade. o Significantly increasing the amount of glass on a character-defining facade will negatively affect the integrity of a structure. 3.4 Match a replacement window to the original in its design. o If the original is double-hung, then the replacement window should also be double-hung, or at a minimum, appear to be so. Match the replacement also in the number and position of glassp anes. 0 - Matching the original design is particularly important on key character-defining facades. 3.5 In a replacement window, use materials that appear similar to the original. o Using the same material as the original is preferred, especially on character-defining facades. However, a substitute material may be considered if the appearance of the window components will match those of the original in dimension, profile and finish. 3.6 Preserve the size and proportion of a historic window opening. o Reducing an original opening to accommodate a smaller window or increasing it to receive a larger window is inappropriate. o Consider reopening and restoring an original window opening where altered. 8 09'00 0 3.7 Match, as closely as possible, the profile of the sash and its components to that of the original window. o A historic window often has a complex profile. Within the window's easing, the sash steps back to the plane of the glazing (glass) in several increments. These increments, which individually only measure in eighths or quarters of inches, are important details. They distinguish the actual window from the surrounding plane of the wall. Treatment of Existing Doors These guidelines for the treatment of doors apply primarily to front doors, although they do include secondary entrance doors and screen doors. Greater flexibility can be applied when replacing side and rear doors when they are not visible from the public right-of-way. 4.1 Preserve historically significant doors. o Maintain features important to the character of a historic doorway. These may include the door, door frame, screen door, threshold, glass panes, paneling, hardware, detailing, transoms and flanking sidelights. Do not change the position and function of original front doors and primary entrances. If a secondary entrance must be sealed shut, any work that is done must be reversible so that the door can be used at a later time, if necessary. Also, keep the door in place, in its historic position. D If the secondary entrance is sealed shut, the original entrance on the primary facade must remain operable. 4.2 Maintain the original size of a door and its opening. o Altering its size and shape is inappropriate. It should not be widened or raised in height. 4.3 When a historic door is damaged, repair it and maintain its general historic appearance. o For additional information see Chapter 14: General Guidelines "On-Going Maintenance of Historic Properties". 4.4 If a new screen door is used, it should be in character with the primary door. o Match the frame design and color of the primary door. If the entrance door is constructed of wood, the frame of the screen door should also be wood. Replacement Doors 5 When replacing a door, use a design that has an appearance similar to the original door or a door associated with the style of the house. A replica of the original, if evidence exists, is the preferred replacement. A historic door from a similar building also may be considered. Simple paneled doors were typical. Very ornate doors, including stained or leaded glass, are discouraged, unless photographic evidence can support their use. 9 0000 2 CO Energy Conservation 4.6 If energy conservation and heat loss are concerns, consider using a storm door instead of replacing a historic entry door. o Generally, wood storm doors are most appropriate when the original door is wood. o If a storm door is to be installed, match the frame design, character and color of the original door. Treatment of Porches 5.1 Preserve an original porch. o Replace missing posts and railings when necessary. Match the original proportions and spacing of balusters when replacing missing ones. o Unless used historically on the property, wrought iron, especially the "licorice stick" style that emerged in the 1950s and 1960s, is inappropriate. o Expanding the size of a historic porch is inappropriate. 5.2 Avoid removing or covering historic materials and details on a porch. Removing an original balustrade, for example, is inappropriate. 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. o 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. o 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. Porch Replacement 5.5 If porch replacement is necessary, reconstruct it to match the original in form and detail. o Use materials that appear similar to the original. o While matching original materials is preferred, when detailed correctly and painted appropriately, alternative materials may be considered. o Where no evidence of the appearance of the historic porch exists, a new porch may be considered that is similar in character to those found on comparable buildings. Keep the style and form simple. Also, avoid applying decorative elements that are not known to have been used on the house or others like it. When constructing a new porch, its depth should be in scale with the building. The scale of porch columns also should be similar to that of the trimwork. 10 00 00 DO 9,1 0 o The height of the railing and the spacing of balusters should appear similar to those used historically as well. Treatment of Architectural Features Preserve significant architectural features. Repair only those features that are deteriorated. Patch, piece-in, splice, consolidate or otherwise upgrade the existing material, using recognized preservation methods whenever possible. o Isolated areas of damage may be stabilized or fixed, using consolidants. Epoxies and resins may be considered for wood repair and special masonry repair components also may be used. o Removing a damaged feature when it can be repaired is inappropriate. 6.2 When disassembly of a historic element is necessary for its restoration, use methods that minimize damage to the original material. o Document its location so it may be repositioned accurately. Always devise methods of replacing the disassembled material in its original configuration. Remove only the portion of the detail that is deteriorated and must be replaced. Match the original in composition, scale, and finish when replacing materials or features. If the original detail was made of wood, for example, then the replacement material should be wood, when feasible. It should match the original in size and finish, which traditionally was a smooth painted finish. 6.4 Repair or replacement of missing or deteriorated features should be based on original designs. 3 The design should be substantiated by physical or pictorial evidence to avoid creating a misrepresentation of the building's heritage. o When reconstruction of an element is impossible because there is no historical evidence, develop a compatible new design that is a simplified interpretation of the original, and maintains similar scale, proportion and material. 6.5 Do not guess at "historic" designs for replacement parts. o Where "scars" on the exterior suggest that architectural features existed, but there is no other physical or photographic evidence, then new features may be designed that are similar in character to related buildings. o Using overly ornate materials on a building for which there is no documentation is inappropriate. o It is acceptable to use salvaged materials from other buildings only if they are similar in style and detailing to other features on the building where they are to be installed. Replacement of missing elements may be included in repair activities. Replace only those portions that are beyond repair. Replacement elements should be based on documented evidence. Use the same kind of material as the original when feasible. A substitute material may be acceptable if the form and design of the substitute itself conveys the visual appearance of the original material. For example, a fiberglass cornice may be considered at the top of a building. 11 [3OOOt 0 05 U Un Treatment of Roofs 7.1 Preserve the original form of a roof. o Do not alter the angle of a historic roof. Instead, maintain the perceived line and orientation of the roof as seen from the street. o Retain and repair roof detailing. 7.2 Preserve the original eave depth. o The shadows created by traditional overhangs contribute to one's perception of the building's historic scale and therefore, these overhangs should be preserved. Secondary Structures 8.1 If an existing secondary structure is historically significant, then it must be preserved. o When treating a historic secondary building, respect its character-defining features. These include its primary and roof materials, roof form, windows, doors and architectural details. If a secondary structure is not historically significant then its preservation is optional. If an existing secondary structure is beyond repair, then replacing it is encouraged. An exact reconstruction of the secondary structure may not be necessary in these cases. The replacement should be compatible with the overall character of the historic primary structure, while accommodating new uses. 8.5 Avoid moving a historic secondary structure from its original location. 3 A secondary structure may only be repositioned on its original site to preserve its historic integrity. See Chapter 9: Building Relocation and Foundations Preserving Building Locations and Foundations 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. A relocated building must be carefully rehabilitated to retain original architectural details and materials. o 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. o 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. 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. 12 00: 0 000 0 005 0 9.5 A new foundation should appear similar in design and materials to the historic foundation. o 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. o 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. o Raising the building slightly above its original elevation is acceptable. However, lifting it substantially above the ground level is inappropriate. o 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. Existing Additions 10.2 A more recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed. New Buildings on Landmarked Properties Building Orientation 11.1 Orient the primary entrance of a new building to the street. o 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. o The front porch should be "functional," in that it is used as a means of access to the entry. o A new porch should be similar in size and shape to -those seen traditionally. o 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. o 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. 13 00 0 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. o 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. o Exotic building and roof forms that would detract from the visual continuity of the street are discouraged. These include geodesic domes and A-frames. Architectural Details 11.9 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those of the historic property. o These include windows, doors and porches. o Overall, details should be modest in character. 11.10 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged. This bliirs 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. Driveways & Parking 14.18 Garages should not dominate the street scene. See Chapter 8: Secondary Structures. 14.22 Driveways leading to parking areas should be located to the side or rear of a primary structure. o Locating drives away from the primary facade will maintain the visual importance the structure has along a block. See Chapter 8: Secondary Structures. 14 00 000 00 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL), ON-SITE RELOCATION, AND PARTIAL DEMOLITION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 819 E. HOPKINS, LOTS D-F, BLOCK 31, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. SERIES OF 2003 Parcel ID #: 2737-182-08-032 WHEREAS, Tom and Darlyn Fellman, represented by Rally Dupps, Consortium Architects, and Mitch Hass, Hass Land Planning, LLC, have requested Major Development approval (Conceptual), On-Site Relocation, and Partial Demolition, for the property located at 819 E. Hopkins, Lots D-F, Block 31, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review; and WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, the application included a request for approval of on-site relocation of the historic house and barn. In order to approve Relocation of a historic structure, per Section 26.415.090.C, the HPC must find that the proposal 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; ur 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; and WHEREAS: the application included a request for partial demolition of a non-historic portions of the historic residence and portions of the historic shed. In order to approve partial demolition, per section 26.415.080(A)(4) the HPC must find 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, gr b. The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure,or 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; and WHEREAS, the HPC recommends to the Planning and Zoning Commission a variance from the Residential Design Standard in section 26.401.040(D)(3)(b) allowing two non- orthogonal windows on the alley facing faâ„¢le of the new building; and WHEREAS, Katie Ertmer, in her staff report dated April 9,2003 performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, and recommended the application be approved; and WHEREAS, at a regular meeting held on April 9, 2003, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application to meet the standards, and approved the application by a vote of to THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the HPC approves Major Development (Conceptual), On-Site Relocation, and Partial Demolition for the property located at 819 E. Hopkins, Lots D-F, Block 31, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado finding that the review standards are met, with the following conditions: 1. The applicant will restudy the size of the front porch of the new, two-unit building in order to make it a one-story element. 2. For Final review, restudy the east fagade of the new, two-unit building to determine if the massing can be visually broken up. 3. For Final review, restudy the size and shape of some of the proposed narrow horizontal and vertical windows on the new buildings. 4. Finalization of exact window and door locations, sizes and the existence of original material on the historic resource will be determined through demolition and discovery by removing the siding, other exterior materials, and interior plaster to expose framing evidence. 5. A structural report demonstrating that the buildings can be moved and/or information about how the house will be stabilized from the housemover must be submitted with the building permit application. 6. A bond or letter of credit in the amount of $30,000 to insure the safe relocation of the structure must be submitted with the building permit application. 7. A relocation plan detailing how and where the buildings will be stored and protected during construction must be submitted with the building permit application. 8. The applicant will provide HPC staff and monitor with a plan for how the housemover proposes to lift the buildings, for review prior to submittal of a building permit. The approach chose, whether it be to move the house and shed with their original floor system, or without, must be demonstrated to result in the removal of the least amount of historic exterior materials, and the least damage to the buildings as possible. 9. Submit a demolition plan, as part of the building permit plan set, indicating exactly what areas of the existing house and shed are to be removed as part of the renovation. 10. All sub-grade construction must remain within the property boundary. 11. All overhang encroachments must be approved by the City Engineer. 12. The lightwell on the north side of the new, two-unit building must be moved so that it is recessed behind the frontmost wall of the street facing facade. 13. An application for Final review shall be submitted for review and approval by the HPC within one year of April 9,2003 or the conceptual approval shall be considered null and void per Section 26.415.070.D.3.c.3 of the Municipal Code. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 9th day of April, 2003. Approved as to Form: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney Approved as to Content: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Jeffrey Halferty, Chair ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 5 24 lorlÂ· (_ 26.410.040 1. Street oriented entrance and principal window. All single-family homes, town, houses, and duplexes shall have a street-oriented entrance and a street facing principal window. In the case of townhouses and accessory units facing courtyards or gardens, entries and principal windows should face those features. On comer lots, entries and principal win- jificil l dows should face whichever street has a i I i i I i i i greater block length. Multiple unit residen- ijiflifil tial buildings shall have at least one street- 2 -3 1 if il_ iii oriented entrance for every four (4) units, Corner Lot i i ! i i l ! ! 1 P 11 r-~3~ ! and front units must have a street-facing L-'f Iii ill' principal window. This standard shall be lililii-ii satisfied if all of the following conditions - Block Length are met: /1/ a. The entry door shall face the street and be no more than ten feet (10'0") back from the frontmost wall >11 of the building. Entry doors \\ 1 -=b shall not be taller than eight 124 4 b. A covered entry porch of fifty (50) or more . 359. 2*a.%2 Â» I Â· square feet, with a minimum \P' >18 /hl~ 44>' depth of six feet (6'), shall Â».44.f/' -44 / -/V be part of the front facade. Entry Dorches and canopies 1 - shall not be more than one story in height. C. A street-facing prin- /8 cipal window requires that a One ./ significant window or group StOI'y rr-:mrrmrf ~ ~1 ~ 1441 of windows face street. Elemen t-> {!. 9 Mi ICI 1 1,91,41 111 li,ii 49 1 4 "*M,11'li~imGZ#.0 41=1 /41eili,Al *-principai 2. ne storv element. All residential buildings shall have a one-story street facing element the width of which comprises at least twenty (20) percent of the building's overall width. For example, a .one story element may be a porch roof, architectural projection, or living space. 527 (Aspen 4/00) 26.410.040 3. Windows. a. Street facing windows shall not ~ - span through the area where a second -- 111 111 floor level wouId typically exist, ~ .. - : Â·.'Â»~Rb window which is between nine (9) and twelve t Â· ~ . zone"Â· feet (12) above the finished first floor. For interior staircases, this measure- ment will be made from the first land- ing if one exists. A transom window above the main entry is exempt from i iill this standard. All street facing areas with an exterior expression of plate height greater than ten (10) feet shall be counted as two (2) square feet for each one (1) square foot of floor area. Exterior expression shall be defined as facade penetrations between nine (9) and twelve (12) feet above the level of finished floor. X- el T=7 C b. 2Â¢0 more than one non-orthogonal window Orthogonal ; 11 11'~~2 1=7~'- 'IL.-3 \.shift beallowed oneach facade ofthe building. A single non-orthogonal window in a gable end may be divided with mullions and still be consid- Non-Orthogonal ti~.4~ El f La ered one non-orthogonal window. ~ 4.7 Lightwells. All \-efeaways, lightwells and/or stairwells on the street facing facade(s) of a building shall be entirely recessed behind fili Yes the frontmost wall of the building. , T Street 4- No (Aspen 4/00) 528 Haas Land Planning, LLC Memo TO: The Aspen Historic Preservation Commission From: Mitch Haas, Haas Land Planning, LLC Rally Dupps, Consortium Architects CC: Katie Ertmer, Aspen Historic Preservation Planner Date: April 9,2003 Re: 819 East Hopkins Conceptual Hearing At the March 26,2003 conceptual hearing, staff, HPC commissioners, and neighbors of the project site voiced a number of concerns that required the bringing forward of a new design for the April 9,2003 meeting. While other specific concerns were voiced by individuals, the concerns common to staff, many commissioners, and several neighbors may be summarized to include the following: (1) massing and scale of the new structure on the front elevation (along E. Hopkins), especially with regard to its relationship with the historic structures on either side; (2) front entry of the new structure, including the lack of an "additive," traditional front porch and front door oriented toward the street; (3) the relationship of the street-facing fagade and porch area to the historic buildings (inflection); (4) the question of historic significance relative to the livestock shed/outbuilding; (5) appropriate placement of the historic structure for relocation (to the east or to the west); and, (6) project density in relation to affects on the prominence of the historic structure(s). The project architect has demonstrated a great deal of creative flexibility in responding to these concerns by reworking and redesigning the proposal. Drawings i for this redesign were submitted to Katie Ertmer, and this memo will serve to illuminate the many positive changes resulting from this collaborative HPC process. A. We have reduced the density, size and mass of the project. The new proposal includes just four total dwelling units (where the previous design included five). In the redesign, the master bedroom on columns component of the previous proposal has been removed altogether. The ratio of free market to 201 NORTH MILL STREET, SUITE 108 â€¢ ASPEN, CO 81611 â€¢ (970) 925-7819 â€¢ FAX (970) 925-7395 Page 1 affordable housing (API) bedrooms has been improved from 4:5 to 3:5. The FAR floor area used in the new proposal has been reduced by hundreds of square feet. The API component which was previously attached to the main building, is now separate and provided within two completely detached structures. The new designs honor the scale of the historic building in width and height. Unit 4, directly behind the historic house, will be one story in height and will not be at all visible from East Hopkins Avenue. This provides separation from the historic house while reinforcing a clear distinction between the structures. It allows the historic house "room to breathe," so to speak. B. The new plan better provides for preservation of the cottonwood tree. The amount of sub-grade space in the plans has been significantly reduced in an effort to make further allowances for sub-surface tree roots. In a similar vein, slab-on-grade construction is proposed for that portion of the structure located closest to the most important area of root growth (the easterly side of the tree's drip line). The new buildings are set back to the property line or near to it in an effort to give the tree's root as much room as possible. To make up for the ground level and subgrade space lost to tree root preservation efforts, there are some limited spaces that overhang past the main level footprint leaving the tree's roots undisturbed. C. The new designs better comply with the Residential Design Standards. There are one-story elements, street-facing front doors and principal windows, and covered porches which are more in character with the historic houses. By moving the historic house to the west and providing one-story elements and two street-oriented entrances (26.410.040(D)(1* the massing and scale relationship with the historic house to the west is treated in a substantially better and overall appropriate manner. D. Based on the majority of commissioner and staff comments, the historic yellow house has been placed next to 811 E. Hopkins, immediately to the west. This improves compliance with the letter and spirit of the so-called Inflection standard while substantially furthering consistency with the massing and scale goals of the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines (Guidelines 11.3 and 11.4). This change also meets the requirements for standard 4 regarding on-site relocation. E. All required parking will be provided on-site and off the street. F. The redesign better provides for preservation of the site's historic buildings. There will still be no above-grade additions or connecting elements onto the Page 2 -4 historic yellow house. Its adjacency to the neighboring historic house will be preserved and enhanced. Additionally, the livestock shed outbuilding will be restored and reused after relocation as a garage for Unit 4. G. HPC guidelines which were of concern in the previous design, are now met. Guideline 11.2 will be met by the addition and reorientation of both Units 1 and 2 with functional and "additive" front porches, and with a front door parallel to the street. Guideline 11.3 is met by dividing larger masses into smaller, separate buildings and smaller modules, and eliminating the massiveness of the building from the previous proposal. The new proposal provides an appropriate transition between the multi-family structure on the adjacent lot to the east and the two historic structures on the subject property. Guideline 11.4 is satisfactorily addressed by providing a one-story front on Unit 2 that inflects toward the historic house with a lower overall height than that of the historic structure. Also, porch elements have been provided to ensure similarity in scale to the historic building. Unit 1, although completely behind the historic house, also has traditional porch/entry elements. Guideline 11.9 is met by the new project with the addition of building ' components such as front doors, windows and porches that are similar in size to those of the historic house. H. We have eliminated several requests. We are now seeking the following from the HPC: 1. On-site relocation of the miner's cottage and freestanding livestock shed; 2. Partial demolition of a non-historic shed addition to the yellow house, and partial demolition of a non-historic addition to the livestock shed; 3. A variance from Residential Design Standard 26.410.040(D)(3)(b) to allow more than one non-orthogonal window on the alley-facing elevation; and 4. Conceptual approval of the proposal, as a whole. In addition, a recommendation from the HPC to the Planning and Zoning Commission with regard to the standards of Section 26.470.070(D)(2), and in turn (D)(5)(a-d), of the Code is requested. The standards applicable to that review are those of Section 26.470.070(D)(5). Said standards are provided below in indented and italicized print and each is followed by a response demonstrating consistency and/ or compliance therewith, as applicable. It must be demonstrated that, as a result of the development mitigation of the project's community impacts will be addressed as follows: Page 3 (a) Affordable Housing (1) For an enlargement to the maximum floor area permitted under the external floor area ratio for the applicable zone district (excluding any bonus floor area permitted by special review), the applicant shall provide qgordable housing at one-hundred (100) percent of the level that would meet the threshold required in Section 26.470.080(C)(5) fincorrect citation, should instead refer to Section 26.470.100Â©(3)Jfor the applicable use. For each one percent reduction in floor area below the maximum permitted under the external floor are ratio for the applicable zone district (excluding any bonus floor area permitted by special review), the affordable housing requirement shall be reduced by one percent. (2) The applicant shall place a restriction on the property, to the satisfaction of the City Attorney, requiring that if, in the future, additional floor area is requested, the owner shall provide affordable housing mitigation at the then current standards. (3) Any affordable housing provided by the applicant shall be restricted to the housing designee's Category 3 price Â·and income guidelines, as setforth in the Affordable Housing Guidelines established by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. (4) Any affordable housing shall comply with the standards for a#ordable housing set forth in the Aspen/Pitkin County Affordable Housing Guidelines. The proposal will not exceed the maximum floor area permitted under the 1:1 external floor area ratio of the R/MF zone district. No bonus floor area that would be permitted by special review is requested. Thus, the applicant is required to provide one-hundred (100) percent of the affordable housing that would ordinarily be required pursuant to the City's residential GMQS regulations. The relevant requirement therefore, is sixty (60) percent of the additional bedrooms generated by the expansion. There are three (3) existing bedrooms on the subject site, and all three are free market. At build-out the proposal includes a total of eight (8) bedrooms, of which three (3) will be in free market units and five (5) will be in deed restricted employee housing units. As such, 100% of the net new bedrooms will be affordable housing. This far exceeds the 60% requirement. If the City chooses to take the more conservative approach in reviewing the proposal (i.e., looking at the total project as opposed to the net new impacts), then the fact that five (5) out of eight (8) total bedrooms will be within deed restricted employee housing more than satisfies the 60% requirement (5 is 62.5% of 8). The applicant will be amenable to a condition requiring a restriction be placed on the property, to the satisfaction of the City Attorney, requiring that any future requests for additional floor area beyond the 1:1 FAR allowed in the R/MF zone Page 4 district will include affordable housing mitigation at the then current standards. The additional housing required as a result of this application will be provided on-site in two separate, detached uhits. The units will be deed restricted at a level consistent with the Category 3 price and income parameters set forth in the Housing Guidelines. Actual terms of the deed restrictions with regard to sale versus rental and choice of qualified occupants will be negotiated between the applicant and the Housing Office. (b) Parking. Parking shall be provided according to the standards of Chapter 26.515, if the Historical Preservation Commission determines that parking can be provided on the site's surface and be consistent with the review standards of Chapter 26.415, ifapplicable. Any parkingthatcannotbelocatedon-site andthat -would therefore be required to be provided via a cash-in-lieu payment shall be waived The proposal includes a one-bedroom free market unit and three units with more than one bedroom each (one of which is free market and the other two are affordable housing). Each one-bedroom unit requires one off-street parking space while each of the other units requires two off-street parking spaces. Thus, a total of seven off-street parking spaces are required. The proposal includes seven off-street parking requirements. (c) Off Site Impacts. The development's water supply, sewage treatment, solid waste disposal, drainage control, transportation and fire protection impacts shall be mitigated to the.satisfaction of the Growth Management Commission. The site maintains existing development and is surrounded by mutli-family residential development. All utilities and services needed for the development are in place. Drainage improvements will be undertaken in a manner which complies with the standards of the City Engineering and Building Departments. No adverse impacts to the adjacent street system are anticipated, especially in consideration of the property's proximity to downtown, shopping, and other amenities. The cost of any necessary utility upgrades or extensions will be borne by the applicant. (d) Compatibility. The compatibility of the project's site design with surrounding projects and its appropriateness for the site shall be demonstrated, including but not limited to consideration to the quality and character ofproposed landscaping and open space, the amount of site coverage by buildings, any amenities provided for users and residents of the site, and the diciency and effectiveness of the service delivery area. Page 5 Surrounding developments are all multi-family residential in nature, and all include densities in excess of that proposed herein. The surrounding developments include single multi-family structures while this proposal splits the four proposed units amongst three detached structures, two of which are only one story in height. With regard to landscaping, a specific plan has not yet been developed but the community resource cottonwood tree will be preserved on-site and the two large pines in the right-of-way will be maintained. Service/delivery will be provided from the alley or East Hopkins Avenue, in a manner consistent with all surrounding development. The preservation of three historic structures and all significant trees, as well as the provision of two affordable housing units (five bedrooms) all represent community amenities. To the extent that the project is found to be consistent with the EIPC Design Guidelines and, subsequently, the PUD review standards, satisfaction of this standard will be inherently guaranteed. Please note: Although the address for this project is 819 E. Hopkins Avenue, the lot owned by Tom Fellman (the Applicant) also includes the adjacent property, 811 E. Hopkins Avenue. Through the PUD process, architectural specifications, dimensional requirements, FAR limits, and the like will be established for both addresses. The current application does not anticipate any alterations to 811 E. Hopkins, rather 811 E. Hopkins will be considered "Phase 2" of the PUD, subject to development approvals to be applied for under separate cover. In any case, development of 811 E. Hopkins will require consistency with the approved PUD as well as conceptual and final HPC approvals. Page 6 FELLMAN MULTI - FAMI LY BUILDING 819 east hopkins st., aspen, colorado ELLE(Â©31*itiELL] APRIL 9,2003 O 4004 consortium 1 [-archlt-e-4*] P.O.B. 3662, aspen colorado 81612 v: (970) 925 - 6797 f: (970) 925 - 6797 1 e-mail: rally@aspeninfo. com I P [-1, El N L-In 1GV' <41 -1 IEE' # =Ph, U â‚¬3~ - - -H :'UffiriT'1'li'll'fr 6 'Irill""11'1'1'i "' d n n n 1-1 n 23[51]F 111[*-%113 ? 1 111 lil li 11111'i. lilli 1!1 1 1111" lilli 11 lilli lili!Â·11111, I 11. lilli -2. 11 1 11 11 111111 11 11 11 ,=My All Ellm' bl~,1 Et'119 0 -~ __22 - ID - - 1 = I lim Em 117.- f - F. ELE = 00 .1Â¤22233Â¤~0 E. HOPKINS STREET FLIP FLOP ELEVATION - NORTH 1/4" â€¢ 1 '-O" 11-f 6 3 -il-- A T.O. PLATe - iv- 7 ELEV. IleÂ·-4- 1 U li lill I ll Il ll Illi li 11 lili l illi 11 lili 11 1111, all 111111111 1 JIll [Ililli[ 1 111-1111 0 111 1] lilli]/ Illit[Il I-1111Ill lili 11 IT111111 Ill 11 84 11111111 1111 ..i E N 11 ' 1111111111111111--pe- -1 - Mil""lizzill'll'MUZI"""loil"""Iti ~ ILII]lITI 111 1 111111 lillill lilli_j.*'- IJ 1 . 1- 111.11,[111111]1111 111,1111[1111 1111111111 11.2Â«977 -8257 -26 - 1 4~4<==# [3 u u'El EL- 3 -r * 7-0. "Â· . MMI - Â»=22 00 3 *21 I Ld=1 â€¢k T.o. p, e MAIN el-Ev.M,OUOÂ· 1 - - n , m.ev. vO'-O 11]=:1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ill 1 1 . 1 1 1 1 --1 I lili lili 1 1 1 1 6 70. Pr. 0 LD'â‚¬R * TO // / LOI1ER 7 m.zv. 'OÂ·-O- 1=LEV. 6.1.-0. 0 NORTH ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-O" EnvkB H 11 - 91 il -Â«1 1P .............................. I - -- Â« ZA rÂ« I 000 J .7 J n. ELI L -1 3 2 U [3 * * fr -1 1- -1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r 1 ~ hIEST ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-O" 4 09Â« 3. r-1 Ir- 11 1 1 1 1 r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1------ 2___________3 - NORTH ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0" ~fi_ Â» - 2=1 12 =J- I Ly -.- = - 4 -1 [1 U 1-1 U UN 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 SOUTH ELEVATION 1/4" = 1 LO" - 1 1 1 Eli I i 12]1010 1010-G 7= -=-= 0 0100 P 3 323 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - EAST ELEVATION 1/4" = I'-O" 0 - .'Ell L V- 1 L Ll 1 1 11 11 1 1 11 11 1 11 11 11 1 1 11 11 0 EAST ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0" F ~U 1=- U=4 U U U L U ~ ~ 1 11 ----- 11 E- Ll 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1, 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 UNIT 3 - EAST ELEVATION UNIT 5 - hIEST ELEVATION 0 1/4" = 1'-0" 1/4" = 1'-0" LEE] 8 0 00 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 11 1 - EAST ELEVATION - HISTORIC BLDe. E-1/4"=l'-a" H H =113 1 1 1 1 1 UN 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SOUTH ELEVATION - HISTORIC BLDS. /-\ PNEST ELEVATION - HISTORIC BLDe. 1/411 = 1 ,-OIl 93-7--3/4"=l~--B" 11.1.1.1.1.1.1/=e'. 1..%=: 111.152.~ r - UNIT 4 UNIT 2 1 j .O 6 1 L 4 m 177 *-- BATH 9 9 L 4, AA OLO. TN //-1 CL. 1 BEDROOM 1 1 lu 1 fj7- - BEDROOM - /BEDROOM 0 019 0 15'-5"x 13'-10"X BATH L~ 15'-0" ~ 11'-4." 1 , E - 3 -3 fl,314 L LIGHT ~ OFFICE 4 lir L. 1 MELL LIGHT_1 I r-p--- E-1 ~ . MEÂ¢L 1 1 1 1 L-1 1 AS Â¤ BATH ~ 1 0 U 1 cE 1 CLO. 1 E-------1 O/N \ 1/ 1 1 -1. i 0\\ \(/7-...V, \Â£ 1 1 21---L] 1 1 1 1 1.1,1\ P L li--E- 1 1 BEDRM. 7-71Â· 0&01/ L V. 7 1 -J r GLO, 1. M/0. 4-[ 1 110 07-7,04*9 ~ 1 1 1 11'UP - 1 0 1 1 :INE 2-v F 1 ~ 94 n 7 1 -7#ATH 09Â· .1 E lF 7 ~ MEDIA /JED "1 PLAYROOM BEDRM. ~ LAUNDRY Â¤ 1 EXERCISE 30+TH = 1 n-1-11 _7BATL_i~r ~1/1 BATH lilli L__1 ./ Q A/,1 JA 5 4 0 L UNIT 3 UNIT I NORTH 08 (33 LOWER LEVEL PLAN 1/10" = 1'-O" EAST HOPKINS AVENUE - BEDROOM COMPONENTS: 3 FREE MARKET BEPROOMS 0--413------ --6- --------------- 5 DEED RESTRICTED SECROOMS 8 TOTAL BEDROOMSâ€¢ 62.5% FM/AH DEED RESTRICTED BEDROOM COMPONENTS, 6 NER BEDROOMS / 3 DEEP RESTRICTED BED>ROOMS â€¢ 86% â€žArt UNIT 4 UNI T 2 - rrUAL.3-1-_----- 0 e r-ImmiFI 1 BEORM. PORCH 11'42'X , 1 , BEDROOM ~ ~ 13'-8. 1-7 1 1\ LIVING ~ EL 1 ~ PHASE 2 Ron m ~ ~ CL. th 111-6.X 16'-3. LIVINe ~ lie 44 11 -44 Aâ„¢ U 1 11 1 ~-410-9--8~ KIT. / DINING - - f 11 'ON ~ 1\ LIT- '1 Ill ur Wil 1 -+1*9(IÂ°/01, DN Tr LIVING ENTRUL 49=9 4 ic[ ADJACENT U 121 81.11LpiNe LÂ¥ ||||ToN -7,Â·-SrtrL a \ 1 - -a,ir:51 Ng y int-i POOL i - ~ y KIT. 1 , -1 1 - 'fS/<LO A 10 1 1 0 11' -1 1 NUD 1 RM. 1 / \ /6*0462\~ \V/ ____ f 1/ LA -- 4- -1\ BIKES =E / 1 / \ 1 m----1 1 UNIT 3 UNIT I NORTH ALLEY 00 1/10. = 1'-O. 3 SITE PLAN â€¢ MAIN LEVEL PLAN 1 1 ' UNIT I Â»CA UNIT 4 1 VJ-M~i ---94~ 1 --_ __ .1 U u U 1 2--7---- =9---------7 1 L_11 1 - 1 ~ MASTER [-1 1 3 BEDROOM L I 1 ----4231 1 11 L-1 1 DECK ~ i - ===yl IT Il Il IT Il Ill] Il 11 IT Il [1-1 3 3 211 L il li li li ll N IT II H IT 117[UT =- -- )# Tril 11 Il Illili illl I li li li illili. I -=E=== 2%4 Il H H II N U II Il l]~ 11 Il l.I ll 11 T E==22 ==>4 l i l i T U l i l l i] 111 I U li l i U I 10 1 1 ZE==i EE==3*11111 U lil li 11111111 LIE I) ) 1 --a--3 LUEE*>LIN Il ITI Il I ll JITil I 1 1 Vy -Â»10 A A 1 1 1 1 1 1--7 HERS 1 1 1 1 1 I MASTER 1 ' BATH HIS 1 1 0 /17 1 1 101 DN 1 1 1 . - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 1 OFFICE I 1 - 1 â‚¬ UlÂ«r 1 1 I 111 3 7*LE Er- TO_ 1 1 - 1 1 11 bN -7Â»4-Lzoi ' 1 = - Filillk U X A // 1 J 1 1-..1----- F1 1 70) 7 -.00# li \-9 El - [2= 1 1 - - 1 1 1 -Â»-_. D )~D 2 +IN'140 2 1 Ilf . O P b\/' U 07 61 -- 1 A PDAN DECK El {3 1 1 --- .. 1 = 1 -n-- B.FAST I 1 - -- -- D Ell 1 - I LIVING 10< DJ 31 1 [D 1 1 -- l 322 i j~=41--~ KITCHEN I 1 - DECK I 1 ~ -- -- -- -- n n UNIT 3 UNIT I NORTH 60 UPPER LEVEL PLAN 1/10" = 1'-O" 'J-Jitftttliff" 21~ l i l li ~ 1111111111[ 1 '[1111~111119 4111111111 'll ' I~ 11~ ~ 11'TI' l l ''l l'~1111111~~1111111 Y l l'11111~111111111!~1111111 '~bl 'll{ 1111111 'J I ' ll 'I]l i li ~ 11'J i 11111~111~ 111~ l i ll il . r -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -7 1 1 1 ! 11 /1 6 1- 1 U U U 1 1 1 1 3 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 lil I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 1 1 1 A ly 0 1 .0/ 11 1/01-/ \ \ \\r/--/076! 1 1 1 1 / 01 1 1 1 1 24 9-Â» 1 1 1 7~70~ ' <1 yrj *i' ,U L 1 1 LI l' I 1 - 1 1 1 1 1 -1 - 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 J I 1 1 1 1 1 r-------77 1 1 r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~_ __ __ _~ __ __ __ __ I linn eeal ROOF PLAN 1/10" = 1'-O"