Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20160727 AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING July 27, 2016 4:30 PM City Council Meeting Room 130 S Galena Street, Aspen I. 12:00 SITE VISITS A. MEET AT 232 E. MAIN II. 4:30 INTRODUCTION (15 MIN.) A. Roll call B. Approval of minutes July 13, 2016 minutes C. Public Comments D. Commissioner member comments E. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent) F. Project Monitoring G. Staff comments H. Certificate of No Negative Effect issued I. Submit public notice for agenda items J. Call-up reports K. HPC typical proceedings III. 4:45 OLD BUSINESS A. A. 627 W. Main- Substantial Amendment to Major Development Approval, PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM JUNE 22ND IV. 5:45 NEW BUSINESS A. A. 232 E. Main- Demolition, Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial Design Review, Special Review and Variations, PUBLIC HEARING V. 7:00 ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: Resolution #22, 2016 TYPICAL PROCEEDING- 1 HOUR, 10 MINUTES FOR MAJOR AGENDA ITEM, NEW BUSINESS Provide proof of legal notice (affidavit of notice for PH) Staff presentation (5 minutes) Board questions and clarifications (5 minutes) Applicant presentation (20 minutes) Board questions and clarifications (5 minutes) Public comments (close public comment portion of hearing) (5 minutes) Applicant Rebuttal Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed (5 minutes) HPC discussion (15 minutes) Motion (5 minutes) *Make sure the motion includes what criteria are met or not met. No meeting of the HPC shall be called to order without a quorum consisting of at least four (4) members being present. No meeting at which less than a quorum shall be present shall conduct any business other than to continue the agenda items to a date certain. All actions shall require the concurring vote of a simple majority, but in no event less than three (3) concurring votes of the members of the commission then present and voting. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 13, 2016 1 Chairperson, Willis Pember called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance were Nora Berko, Gretchen Greenwood, Jim DeFrancia, Michael Brown and Bob Blaich. John Whipple was absent. Jeffrey Halferty was seated at 5:00 p.m. Staff present: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Amy Simon, Preservation Planner Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk Suzannah Reid MOTION: Jim moved to approve the minutes of June 8, 2016 as amended; second by Bob. All in favor, motion carried. MOTION: Willis moved to approve the minutes of June 22, 2016 as amended; second by Jim. All in favor, motion carried. Jim will recuse himself on the Holden Marolt item. Holden Marolt Mining and Ranching Museum Planned Development – Minor Amendment, Major Development – Consolidated Review, Public Hearing Debbie commented that the public notices are in order – Exhibit I Amy said HPC determined that it would be appropriate to move three structures that are currently at 540 E. Main out to the Holden Marolt site for interpretative museum pieces. The structures are the Zupancis house which is the Victorian era home which is partially a log cabin and partially a frame structure. There is also a shed and a barn. HPC is asked to make findings that their landing locations on that property are appropriate and the techniques to get them there are appropriate. The restoration work should also meet HPC’s standards. Relocation: Amy said the applicant has provided detail information from Shaw construction how they are continuing to investigate the best way to move these buildings. The Victorian home does not have one continuous floor level and that will be a challenge. The applicant will be doing some P1 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 13, 2016 2 investigative work inside and remove some door jams and look at the framing. It is still up in the air whether it will be moved all in one piece or multiple pieces. Certain features will be protected, doors, windows, porches, roofing and the best plan will be ironed out. When the plan is finalized staff and monitor will look at it. When the buildings land at Holden Marolt which is an historic landmark we want to make sure that where they are placed they don’t destroy something that is important out there in the process. The applicant has done an archeological survey and it was determined that nothing of the Victorian era would be disturbed. There is a ranching irrigation pond nearby but nothing detrimental to the historic significance of that property. The site plan shows where the three buildings will be set. Staff has asked that the Victorian house be squared to the road that accesses it which is normal on Victorian houses. We also ask that the shed be placed to the rear of the house. Amendment to the Planned Development: Amy said at one time the Holden Marolt was planned for free market housing and instead we got the Marolt affordable housing project and the Historical Society Museum which is a much better community outcome. There were approvals in 1991 for the museum site which indicated the various activities. We feel this is a minor amendment to the plan to add these buildings to the functions at the Marolt site. Restoration: Amy said when the buildings get to the site we need to know how they will be treated in terms of restoration efforts. Right now the Zupancis house has vertical board and batten siding around a substantial part of the structure which doesn’t appear to be original. The applicant will restore the building back to the original state. The building will also be re- roofed and go back to wood shingles as it was originally. Staff and monitor will approve the lighting etc. There is also a letter of intent from the City to the Historical Society in terms of financing. The City will pay for all of the relocation costs and foundation preparation. The City will also pay $30,000 for a preservation consultant who is a specialist in historic interior finishes. Jeffrey was seated at 5:00 p.m. Applicant: Alan Richman, Planning Services; Richard Pryor, Police Chief, Jeff Pendarvis and Jack Wheeler, Asset, Rob Taylor, Darla Calaway, Design Workshop, Charles Cunniffe, Cunniffe architects, Rich Keller, Shaw Construction, Lisa Hancock, Aspen Historical Society P2 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 13, 2016 3 Alan described the adopted PUD for the Marolt property. In 1981 this property was proposed for a significant development, 100 unit project with affordable housing and free market development. Since the 1940’s the property was operated by the Marolt family as a ranch and as the Holden Lixiviation work in the 1890’s. In 1983 a deal was struck and the property came into public ownership. In 1989 the city took ownership and entered into a long term lease with the Historical Society for the central portion of the ranch which is 1.84 acre parcel. It covers where the barn is located but also goes to the pedestrian trail and the area north of it. A few years later the Historical Society submitted an application for the construction and maintenance of the museum building, a PUD plan. 25 years ago there was a thought that this would be a good location for additional exhibits to occur. Staff has concerns about archeological sites at the location and we had a Mountain States Historical and Archeological consultant visit the site and analyze whether any such features were present. There is a foundation where the barn is to be located and it was determined that it is a 1940’s era agriculture barn that no longer exists. We feel comfortable that the location is not part of the Lixiviation works. The other area is where a pond existed for the Marolt ranch site. We feel comfortable there were no archeological resources that were identified to be preserved. Relocation Plan: Shaw construction, Rich Keller Rich said he is leading the effort on the relocation and working with Amy and her staff to make sure all the bases are covered. The structure was built in three different pods and if they are moved in three different pods we need to make sure they are intact. The initial idea is to remove doors and frames after they have been initially documented by the preservation specialist. The building has been shored on the interior to keep the roof structures from collapsing. We will probably have to do some structural upgrades and we will look to see whether that is done before or after the move. As we move forward we will be able to determine the different layers that are on the structure. Charles said working with the specialist we will develop the final preservation plan onsite. Bill Baily house movers will be involved in moving the structures. With the relocation plan we will return it back to a ranching environment and how ranchers lived in the 1890’s. Over time the house has had additions and we desire to bring it back to what was original in materials. The end result is to be authentic as possible. P3 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 13, 2016 4 Lisa Hancock, Aspen Historical Society Lisa said with the addition of these assets it will be like a campus that tells the story of Aspen. This grouping will be a great interpretative opportunity for us and for the community. Alan said we are very excited about the opportunity to bring these structures back to an environment where they will be at home. Jeffrey said typically a diagonal bracing is done around the interior and exterior and the shoring up of the windows. A bond is also needed. Charles said it will all be done professionally by that standard. We will also record the existing conditions as they are should anything crack or move. Amy said Derek Skalko will on the site taking photographs of the interior of the building for a documentary so that they can be used to show the before and after the character of the house. Gretchen asked what parts of the building are requiring new materials. Charles said they are removing added materials that were done over time. We will try to find what the original was. Rich Keller said the vertical siding is not original. The original was a horizontal clapboard. We believe what is on the existing front where the porch is we believe is original. Chairperson, Willis Pember opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Willis identified the issues: Relocation, restoration, PUD amendment Willis said this is a great outcome and a great asset that synergize the Marolt and Aspen Historical Societies function to reach the public with a great story to tell. Michael said he is prepared to support the resolution as proposed and it is great that the City and Jack have been working with the Historical Society and they reached a resolution to move the structures and restore them. P4 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 13, 2016 5 Bob said this is a great project and I am totally in support and the resolution as drafted by staff meets all the requirements as necessary. Gretchen said she was initially in favor and there is a lot of erosion of historic buildings in downtown Aspen and through the excellent presentation and research and work with the Historical Society this will be a good asset at the Marolt property. Jeffrey said he has been paying attention to this project a lot and it is a fantastic project. On the original proposal having the historic building sandwiched between two other buildings made them not visible. My concern is about the mobilization of the historic buildings to make sure they are rigid and diagonally braced. MOTION: Willis made the motion to approve resolution #20 as proposed; second by Bob. Roll call vote: Jeffrey, yes; Gretchen, yes; Bob, yes; Nora, yes; Michael, yes, Willis, yes. Motion carried 6-0. 540 E. Main Street, Planned Development, Detailed Review, Major Development-Final Review, Final Commercial Design Review and Growth Management Review for the development of Affordable Housing, Public Hearing Jim was seated. Debbie said the affidavits of the public notice have been provided, Exhibit I Jennifer said the property has been conceptually approved to demolish two existing structures on the site and formally approved to relocate the three historic resources to the Holden Marolt property. The property will be redeveloped with a new police station with a subgrade garage and a new building at the rear of the property that will contain 8 affordable housing units. Part of the project is a relocated trail connection from Main Street to Obermeyer Place. Tonight’s review focuses on the final details of the project such as materials, landscaping and lighting. Some of the design objective for the commercial core are to promote creative contemporary design that respects the historic context; maintain the traditional scale of the buildings in the area and reflect the variety of building heights seen historically and accommodate outdoor public spaces where they respect the P5 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 13, 2016 6 historic context. With regard to materials the police station contains brick, sandstone, wood and glass. The affordable housing is located behind the police state is proposed to be brick, metal panel, wood and glass. Staff feels these materials provide a contemporary composition. The police station along Main Street promotes a contemporary design while maintaining a traditional scale of building from the downtown. With regard to landscape the site includes a public courtyard in front of the police station which is intended for public gatherings. There is a walkway ramp to tie the Main Street to Obermeyer Place as well as taking people through the site. The front or Main Street property provides a lawn like setting. There are heavier tree plantings toward the rear of the property indicating a more privatized housing portion of the project. Overall the landscape is a mix of trees shrubs, perennials and grasses. During the conceptual reviews the previous conditions were to review the garage elevation along Rio Grande Place and to work on the alley elevation to make sure it is softened as much as possible. Some planting is provided around the short term parking for the employee housing. Two designs are being proposed for the Hunter Street trail connection. The ramping portion is the same in both proposals but there are two options for a stair connection between the police station property and Obermeyer Place. One of the stairs is located on the police station property while the other one would be located both on the police station property and Obermeyer Place. Those designs will be finalized at the Building Permit stage. Jennifer said with regard to the housing APCHA reviewed the application and there are 8 units proposed onsite. They are all above grade. Each unit provides a private deck or balcony and there are exterior storage units for each unit. Overall staff feels the review criteria are met and recommends approval of the project with either of the stair designs. Alan Richman, Planning Services Alan said we are here to review materials, lighting plan, landscaping plan and the conditions of conceptual. There was a work session with city council on July 5th and at that point council was supportive of the basic design and having the project move forward into the construction process. We are seeking HPC approval so that it can be implemented. The elevations on the Rio Grande side of the property have been modified to reduce the height which was recommended by council and HPC. Richard Pryor, Police Chief P6 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 13, 2016 7 Richard thanked the public for coming to the meeting. We have had solid community support. This is an essential public facility and it is about improving our ability to provide professional and respectful police services to the members of our community. This building will enable us to do that more effectively. We would like to parallel the county building and have completion in 2018. Charles said the mass and fenestration of the building were previously approved. Regarding the stair connection we have two options. One stair is entirely on our property and the other one in hoping we have cooperation with Obermeyer is to replace the one that exists now with something that works better for the site. Regardless of that outcome we are prepared to move forward. Regarding materials the building is sheathed in brick, glazing, sandstone and wood. The police station and affordable housing are compatible but not identical. The police station has brick and stone and some wood siding and metal flashing details. There will also be wood columns and the benches would be a concrete with a wood top. The landscaping will create a real community gathering. The affordable housing has the same materials but with different variations. The brick from the police station would be mildly incorporated on the affordable housing units. There are raised planting beds and there is a green roof over the parking garage. The exposed garage level at the bottom was minimized with additional landscaping and trees were added. We were asked to soften the elevator and we did so by a detailed element of glass. Charles said there was one change made which is a stair that comes down from the second story meeting room. There was security concerns about exiting through the police station in the event of an emergency. There is an open brick wall that extends out from the stair which is more like a trellis rather than a solid wall. Darla Calaway, Design Workshop There will be a flush mount light integrated into the wall completely shielded to direct people to the employee housing area. One street light will need to be reconfigured as part of the improvements. There will be can down lights at the front of the police building on Main Street and at the rear of the building. They will also be in the soffit of the walkway and at the entry to the elevator below where the parking is. There will also be lighting near the bench. The public courtyard will facilitate interaction between the public and the police. We will also be doing right-of-way improvements on P7 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 13, 2016 8 Main Street. There is also an employee courtyard. The Hunter Street trail connection will also be realigned. We will also have employee housing internal circulation and some outdoor employee housing spaces. The site materials include brick veneer for the sight walls and linear paves in the front entry courtyard. Scored concrete sidewalks and retaining walls start to make the transition into the design language of the Obermeyer development. The landscape of the streetscape includes narrow cottonwoods and ornamental grass. Some elements of steel are brought into the landscaping including the thin perforated steel panel that wraps around the police station outdoor courtyard. Darla said there has been some question brought to us about what it feels like from out site to the Obermeyer Crescent building. There is a site wall and a fence that separates the Obermeyer sidewalk to an asphalt parking lot that exists there today. To create a uniform grade across our site there is about 5 feet of grade change that we need to accommodate. We will have to raise the back of the site to create a level pad over the parking structure and a level grade change between the police station and the employee housing building. What that means is a raised landscape that would be less than the height of the fence that exists there today. Two site plans are being considered. One is a wider stair connection which makes a clear urban design gesture to the lower north end of the Obermeyer Crescent development. These improvements are on Obermeyer property and at this time are not approved. The second option includes a staircase directly to the ramp that exists today. Carla said there were questions about the height of the retaining wall and the garage doors as you exit the police station garage. We have made design changes to mitigate the impact. The police garage doors have been narrowed from 20 feet to 16 feet in width and that allowed for planting pockets and trees at the highest point of the retaining walls. The treatment of the retaining walls will be a finer gesture of the Obermeyer walls which include scored concrete caps and vertical joints to break up the mass of the vertical panels and a sand blasted texture to improve aesthetics so it won’t feel like raw concrete. The railings and handrails are designed to be open and transparent to create a visible connection. Jeff Pendarvis said they are continually in negotiations with Obermeyer to come to a resolution that is satisfactory to both entities. P8 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 13, 2016 9 Willis said it looks like the police parking garage would create a lot of conflicts with one vehicle going into a police bay while a sheriff’s car is going in the opposite direction. Charles said they worked with the sheriff’s office in coordinating both buildings. In the event that the Rio Grande is blocked off then the sheriff’s vehicle could egress through our garage out to the alley. It is an emergency backup. Michael asked the applicant to explore “quiet” garage door openers which will be nicer for the employees living above. Jeffrey also mentioned the tight turning radius in an emergency when you have vehicles coming from two different departments. Jack Wheeler pointed out that the garage area width is two lanes wide. It is 48 feet wide. Charles pointed out that the turning radius is inside the garage. Bob asked about maintenance of the space and will it be heated for snow removal? Jack Wheeler said we are working on a maintenance plan and the snow melt will be addressed in that plan. Michael asked if the applicant had easements to access the garage? Jack said currently we have easements to access the road that is behind the jail and we are working together with the county on just about everything. Willis said in the rendering the windows are bricked in on the west façade of the police station. Charles said there is no glazing and we were asked at a previous meeting to put punches into the building to break up the mass. Willis pointed out that the signage is facing eastward and there should be signage presenting to the west also. P9 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 13, 2016 10 Jeff Pendarvis said the addition of the exterior stair is only for emergency purposes. We were faced with someone pulling the fire alarm and gaining access to the secure area and it wasn’t acceptable from a security standpoint. Charles said the screen wall in front of the steps reduces the mass. Chairperson, Willis Pember opened the public hearing. Jerome Simecek, Obermeyer Place Condominium Association We feel this is a good project and we have been working with everyone. There are concerns and one of the big concerns is the stair. Residential and commercial owners support the stairway into the property and we haven’t committed until all the issues are addressed at one time. The stairway connection was part of the overall Hunter Creek trail access design as Obermeyer went through its approval. We believe this is a key component to the Hunter Creek trail component as well as the adjoining properties. Michael said it seems like there is a lot of benefit in 3A.2 for Obermeyer Place. Jerome said 3A.2 is the open stairway. That is the existing condition right now. The ramp comes down from Main Street and exits onto the stairwell. We concur that the stairway does add value. Now the trail has to stay high above the garage door where currently its slopes down where the garage door is. We would like to keep a similar condition as existing. Charles said they worked in cooperation with Concept 600 to reconfigure the ramp to avoid conflict with Obermeyer Place and to keep it entirely off their property. Jerome said another concern is the maintenance of the ramp. Another concern is the garage use for the residential parking spaces which the full burden for maintenance falls on the Obermeyer place association. This goes back to a lease for a land swap and the association wants this resolved prior to signing agreements on this component whether the city necessarily agrees or not remains to be seen. Bridget Bielinski, practice administrator for Aspen Medical Care located in the Crescent building in Obermeyer place. We are supportive of the majority of this project. Our prime concern is the stair. We function as the P10 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 13, 2016 11 only urgent care clinic in town. We see a large number of visitors every day. Our location currently is very challenging to guide people in. 3A.2 is our preference. 3A.1 will make what is already a difficult job to get people into the office more difficult because the entrance will be more hidden than it already is from Main Street. Susan Welsch said the design is beautiful and it will probably enhance Obermeyer place. I live at Obermeyer place. My only complaint living at Obermeyer place is that there is absolutely no guest parking. Parking is important in this town. Possibly guest parking could be incorporated in the project. Steve Seifert, board member of Obermeyer Place We have been trying to initiate dialogue with the applicant. We are not opposed to the police department proposal. Richard Pryor has been absolutely great. The wrap around is a poor design. We were told that the grand stair will not be approved until we agree to the terms and conditions. There are other items that need addressed and are ignored. The access off Rio Grande is not shown. That access is shared with Obermeyer and a handful of parking spaces. It is also shared with the jail and county building. That access will have a significant impact and needs addressed. Right now the Hunter Creek trail connection doesn’t flow well when it comes out of Obermeyer Place and between the Crescent building and the other building. Once it hits Rio Grande it has to jog out toward the skate board park. I really believe there needs to be better flow in this design. A lot of people use the skateboard park and the recycle center. Traffic in that area does not flow and it is a poor pedestrian interflow. There are a lot of issues unresolved and council directed the applicant to work with the neighbor. Steve said there are 5 parking spaces for Obermeyer and a handicapped ramp that flows along that area as well and it is not illustrated. Jim commented that the parking spaces and ramp are on Obermeyer property and not part of this project. Steve said that driveway does share with Obermeyer and there is no discussion how that will impact Obermeyer so we can’t respond. Jim said the parking and driveway is on your property so therefore there is nothing they can do to impact you. P11 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 13, 2016 12 Steve said the driveway is shared with the jail and county building. I see a flat drop into the parking garages of the county and police department. That area ramps up to the existing parking spaces. Jim said there will probably be a grade change. Steve asked how that will impact the existing parking spaces that currently ramp up into the jail and county building and Obermeyer. Chairperson, Willis Pember closed the public comment portion of the public hearing. Rebuttal Jack said we have been in a process for the last two years that included public open houses and outreach meetings. We presented to Obermeyer specifically on a lot of these issues. We have been available and if they call we respond. That broke down about four months ago. There are lease negotiations between Obermeyer and the City of Aspen that have made it tenuous at best. The City Attorney can deal with those issues. We have 12 parking spaces in Obermeyer that we have a current 30 year lease. There will be no additional parking other than the two spaces for short term and ADA use. We have not addressed the parking at Obermeyer because we are not impacting that in any way. The civil engineers have devised a plan. The 5 spaces that they are referring to are not Obermeyer property, it is City of Aspen lease holdings that are reciprocal to the parking in the garage that we have with the agreement with Obermeyer. We are not touching the parking. The stair is an existing stair that may need some modification. We are not touching anything north of those two parking spaces. We are happy to build the grand staircase and in order to do this we need a letter form the property owner to build on their property. We have not been successful in getting that. We went to the design team to get an alternative so that we could submit a land use application that doesn’t require their approval. We have ADA access and have worked with the Parks Dept. to make sure the biking connection and pedestrian connection is maintained in a well manner. We have submitted both site plans in this application for approval and we would like HPC’s support. Jeff Pendarvis said there are 20 spaces in Obermeyer and 8 parking spaces will be allocated for the affordable housing. The lease goes for another 30 P12 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 13, 2016 13 years. We have a commitment through the City Manager’s office that the affordable housing parking will at the Obermeyer or Rio Grande parking garage. Willis identified the issues: Fenestration, materials, landscape, planned development and GMQS. Jim said this is a good project and makes good use of a difficult site. All the needs have been addressed. It is attractive to the public and has good public space. I would like to see the grand stair case but if the property owner in question doesn’t agree we can do the alternative proposal. Signage is also needed on Main Street. The material selections are compatible and I can support the project. I would encourage the applicant to pursue 3A.2 regarding the stair but it is out of our control and theirs. Gretchen said 3A.2 strengthens the relationship of the density of all the buildings. To go through this amount of building and not create a strong link among Obermeyer and the police department to Main Street would be amiss. I’m a little disappointed in the material selection that is hiding the stairs that are being required to put in. It just feels like an afterthought. Maybe there could be another solution such as a sandstone material. This is a great project and I am in favor of everything you are asking for. Bob said the applicant has listened to our concerns from the previous meeting and resolved most of those questions. 3A.2 is a better solution of the two and hopefully that can be resolved. I have no issue with the proposed screen. Jeffrey said he feels the applicant has done a good job responding to staff’s direction. It is a very important civic building. All of the conditions of approval have been met. The landscape and lighting plans are thoughtfully done. The affordable housing components are excellent. The Green certification is nicely done and the material plate is good with the mixture of sandstone, brick and metal. I do prefer the staircase 3A.2 and it would be a good improvement getting to the doctor’s office at that location etc. The applicant should continue working with the neighbor to work out the stair. Nora thanked the public for coming to the meeting and adding onto the conversation which was helpful. For the community and everybody 3A.2 is P13 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 13, 2016 14 a better solution. I would concur with Gretchen that the screening of the staircase is a concern and it should be looked at. Michael said overall I am supportive of the project and like the material choices. I also have the same reservations concerning the stair. It looks like an afterthought. There are a few things that should be developed more for a building that is going to be there a long time. The west wall above the garage doors could be addressed. The fake brick windows do not work. I also support 3A.2 for the grand staircase. Willis said he has no concern with the stair and likes the screen. The signage is not well thought out and it is facing the wrong direction. Incoming traffic needs addressed coming from Main and Mill. The signage should be legible from both directions. The bricked in windows are a blind window and I would suggest that you look at different materials to tone down the contrast. The concept is workable and maybe the use of the same materials would work. The elevator tower could also be addressed. Regarding the driveway you currently drive up to get to the garage bays and the jail and something seems off a little. Maybe a site survey that brings all the contours into proper alignment. Gretchen said the civil engineer should address that street elevation and explain it to Obermeyer place. The material infilling the blind windows should be looked at. Perhaps bringing in wood one story above the garage to break it up and have a strong linear line. Willis also said the elevator tower needs simplified. MOTION: Jim moved to approve resolution #21, 2016 granting final approval for 540 E. Main subject to the conditions and designation of a monitor to address the issues raised by the commission, Simplification of the north elevation flashing of the elevator tower and restudy the material infilling the blind windows on the west façade. Additional signage on Main Street. HPC recommends 3A.2 for the grand stair case. Restudy the screened wall for materials. Motion second by Jeffrey. Roll call vote: Michael, yes; Nora, yes; Willis, yes; Jim, yes; Bob, yes; Gretchen, yes; Jeffrey, yes. Motion carried 7-0. Jeffrey is the monitor. P14 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 13, 2016 15 533 W. Hallam Street – Conceptual Major Development, Relocation and Variations, Public Hearing Michael recused himself. Debbie said the public notice has been appropriately provided – Exhibit I Suzannah Reid presented Suzannah said conceptual is height, scale and massing. This is a small historic house with a lot of rambling piece meal additions on the back. The applicant is proposing to remove all of those and leaving a T shape of the historic house plus a gable that extends off the back that is presumable part of the original house. The removal of the additions will greatly improve the distinction of the historic house. During demolition any evidence that shows what was historic on the south side of the house that those areas be respected during demolition. The relocation is moving the historic resource forward 7 feet on the lot. On that block there isn’t a specific development pattern so moving the house forward doesn’t affect anything else that is happening on the block historically and will improve the ability to separate the historic house from the proposed new addition. They are including a one-story connector that complies with the 10 foot requirement of the guidelines. The variances requested are related to the rear yard on the alley. The garage is allowed to be at the five foot setback but the basement under the garage and the space above the garage would require a variance to occupy that space. This encroachment reduces on the setback on the rear yard from what is currently existing. Suzannah said the new addition is separated from the historic house by a one story linking element and there is a two story addition proposed with an increase of 711 square feet including the historic house. The area of the footprint is similar to what exists. The bulk of the addition is being moved to the back of the site creating more open space between the addition and the historic house that would be visible along the side, 5th Street. The main concern with the addition is the overall height and the wall that faces the 5th Street side. It appears to be an 8 foot plate height on the second floor and a 10.6 floor to floor on the main level. Overall the proposal complies with the majority of the design guidelines. The concern is the height and the tall vertical wall on the 5th Street side. They propose to reopen the porch on the north east corner of the historic house which is totally appropriate. There is a small garden shed that is currently on the side yard of the 5th Street side P15 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 13, 2016 16 and the applicant is proposing to move it to the east side. Staff is recommend that it would be more appropriately located on the alley which would require a setback variance. Suzannah pointed out that the application is under the old guidelines and it is on a corner lot. Patrick Leeds, architect presented Patrick said the minor cottage has two front porches. Our plan is to extract the additions and move it to the north which will bring it into better view on the street. We will take the pitched porch roofs off and restore them to flat roofs which is visible in the historic photograph. We will relocate the entrance that is currently on the west side to face Hallam. There is a lot of vegetation and it is difficult to see the front of the house. The historic asset will move forward with a one story linking element to link the two story structure at the back. The bulk of the two story structure is to the south east. Pulling the historic asset forward reveals it on the street. There are matching proportions in the gable ends and the fenestration matches. Volumetrically it is sympathetic to the Victorian cottage and others found in the West End. Materials will differentiate the different volumes. Gretchen is the lot is 60 x 100 and the historic house is 640 square feet. Patrick said in the design the second floor plate height is 7’6” and the ground floor is 10’6”. Patrick agreed that the shed is better on the alley. The verticality is well under the height limit by two to three feet. The connector has a 9 foot plate height and it tucks under the eave. Chairperson, Willis Pember opened the public hearing. Kristin Henry said she lives at 525 W. Hallam Street, the adjoining property owner. This project greatly impacts my property. Visually the height has an impact. The addition is much higher than my two story garage. In the staff memorandum my concerns are the same as staff’s. The north south ridge line is 4 feet higher than the existing ridge of the historic house. The east façade is a concern as it creates a very tall vertical wall. The addition dwarfs the historic structure. Maybe the scale and mass needs reduced to be more compatible with the neighborhood. The addition is very imposing and will impact my property. The out building is better on the alley. Kristin asked if there were plans for the fence line between my property and this property. P16 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 13, 2016 17 Kristin said she would support the project if a few changes could occur. Kristin also mentioned that her house is a landmark. Willis pointed out the fences and landscaping will be addressed at final. Patrick said a one story addition is not the programmatic interest of the client. The proposal fits pretty well on the site. Jim said staff is recommending an overall height reduction which is commensory with the neighbor’s comments. Willis identified the issues: variance request; location of the shed. Gretchen said she agrees with staff’s recommendation about the overall height. The whole building needs restudied as it doesn’t meet guideline 10.8. The roof forms need restudied to bring the building height down because it competes entirely with the historic resource. I do commend you on the restoration of the Victorian and the link is very important. It is nice to see that old building emerge in the plans. The height of the building with the narrow forms overwhelms the historic structure. I also feel we should not be giving variances when it is the new part of the building. This addition doesn’t have any kind of hardship and we should be scrutinizing variances that we give. I would not support the variance on the deck or the basement. The shed should be moved to the back of the property or removed altogether. Nora said the staff memo was very thorough and helpful. You look at the house coming down from Hallam to 5th Street. The addition is massive and I understand it fits within what is allowed but I am not sure that is the best solution for all the restoration work that is going into the house. The entire block is “low”. The design needs to feel more compatible and it is totally imposing as you move down Hallam Street toward the east. I concur with staff’s recommendations and am glad the porches are coming back. Jeffrey said this was an excellent presentation. The restoration effort on the Victorian is extremely well thought out. The link is extremely effective. The materials are a good selection. The shed seems like it just blocks the area and the better location would be in the rear. Because of the landscape the height doesn’t bother me that much. Maybe you could get six inches out of the plate height on the lower level. There is a great separation and the P17 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 13, 2016 18 forms are small and thin. It is commendable that the applicant has asked for any addition FAR bonuses. The decks are screened from the vegetation. Moving it closer to the street will only help the historic resource. The variance over the deck with the garage should be an accessible use. The architecture is very well defined. Maybe on the west there could be a material change. I could support this project with a couple minor tweaks. Bob said he agrees with Jeffrey’s analysis of the project. Bob said when you talk about scale immediately across the street to the west is a pretty big house. We aren’t imposing anything in the neighborhood. I do not have that big of a problem with the context. Jim concurred with Bob’s statements. Willis said he would prefer the outbuilding in the south west corner off the alley. The dialogue is based on the width of the bays and volume. With the decrease in height the relationship of the width to the historic structure wouldn’t be lost. How much reduction is up to the applicant. With the reduction in height you wouldn’t lose the handling of the volumes. Jim said he feels the height should be pulled down a little. Nora suggested stepping the height down. Gretchen said there needs a tweak of the breakdown of scale. Bob said he supports staff’s recommendation. MOTION: Gretchen moved to continue 533 W. Hallam Street to August 24th based on staff’s recommendations one and two. Jim second the motion. Willis added that the outbuilding should go to the south west corner. Amended motion: Gretchen accepted the amendment, second by Jim. Roll call vote: Jeffrey, no; Gretchen, yes; Jim, yes; Bob, yes; Nora, yes; Willis, no. Motion carried 4-2. MOTION: Jim moved to adjourn, second by Jeffrey. Adjourn 8:00 , Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk P18 II.B. C:\Program Files (x86)\Neevia.Com\Document Converter\temp\9487.doc 7/21/2016 HPC PROJECT MONITORS- projects in bold are under construction Nora Berko 332 W. Main 1102 Waters 100 E. Main 417/421 W. Hallam 602 E. Hyman 61 Meadows Road ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Bob Blaich Lot 2, 202 Monarch Subdivision 232 E. Bleeker 609 W. Smuggler 209 E. Bleeker 212 Lake ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Jim DeFrancia 435 W. Main, AJCC 420 E. Cooper 420 E. Hyman 407 E. Hyman 540 E. Main ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Gretchen Greenwood 28 Smuggler Grove 135 E. Cooper 1280 Ute 211 E. Hallam ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Willis Pember Aspen Core 101 E. Hallam 229 W. Smuggler 407 E. Hyman John Whipple Aspen Core 201 E. Hyman 549 Race 420 E. Cooper 602 E. Hyman Hotel Aspen 610 E. Hyman 301 Lake Michael Brown 223 E. Hallam 1102 Waters Avenue Jeff Halferty 540 E. Main and Holden Marolt Need: 530 W. Hallam, 333 W. Bleeker, 980 Gibson P19 II.F. TYPICAL PROCEEDING Provide proof of legal notice (affidavit of notice for PH) Staff presentation (5 minutes) Board questions and clarifications (5 minutes) Applicant presentation (20 minutes) Board questions and clarifications (5 minutes) Public comments (close public comment portion of hearing) (5 minutes) Applicant rebuttal (5 minutes) Chairperson identifies the issues to be discussed (5 minutes) HPC discussion (15 minutes) Motion (5 minutes) *Make sure the motion includes what criteria are met or not met. No meeting of the HPC shall be called to order without a quorum consisting of at least four (4) members being present. No meeting at which less than a quorum shall be present shall conduct any business other than to continue the agenda items to a date certain. All actions shall require the concurring vote of a simple majority, but in no event less than three (3) concurring votes of the members of the commission then present and voting. Procedure for amending motions: A “friendly amendment” to a Motion is a request by a commissioner to the commissioner who made the Motion and to the commissioner who seconded it, to amend their Motion. If either of these two do not accept the “friendly” amendment request, the requesting commissioner may make a formal motion to amend the Motion along the lines he/she previously requested. If there is no second to the motion to amend the Motion, there is no further discussion on the motion to amend, it dies for a lack of a second; discussion and voting on the Motion may then proceed. If there is a second to the motion to amend the Motion, it can be discussed and must be voted upon before any further discussion and voting on the Motion for which the amendment was requested. If the vote is in favor of amending the Motion, discussion and voting then proceeds on the Amended Motion. If the vote on the motion to amend fails, discussion and voting on the Motion as originally proposed may then proceed. P20 II.K. 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 627 W. Main Street- Substantial Amendment to Major Development, Public Hearing continued from June 22nd DATE: July 27, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY: 627 W. Main is a one and a half story brick home, constructed in 1892. The property is landmark designated and located in the Main Street Historic District. In 2008, HPC granted approval for a new addition behind this home, along with a 500 square foot floor area bonus as incentive to remove the paint that had been applied to the historic brick. The owner undertook construction of the project, including the paint removal, but did not build the second floor of the addition. The building permit remains valid due to continued construction progress and periodic inspections. The owner’s priorities for the design of the upper floor have changed and a Substantial Amendment approval is requested. HPC reviewed three options for the a revised second floor design on June 22nd. At staff’s recommendation, the Commission continued the application for restudy, finding that the design lacked a dialogue with the form, fenestration and materials of the historic structure. The June 22nd drawings are attached for HPC’s reference. A new option has been submitted. Staff finds it has not resolved the concerns. Continuation is recommended in order to provide another opportunity to meet the design guidelines. APPLICANT: Douglas Kelso, represented Forum Phi. PARCEL ID: 2735-1224-48-010 . ADDRESS: 627 W. Main Street, Lot B, Block 25, City and Townsite of Aspen. ZONING: MU, Mixed Use. P21 III.A. 2 MAJOR DEVELOPMENT- SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT Land Use Code Section 26.415.070.E.2: Substantial Amendment: All changes to approved plans that materially modify the location, size, shape, materials, design, detailing or appearance of the building elements as originally depicted must be approved by the HPC as a substantial amendment. Substantial Amendment review combines Conceptual and Final design into one discussion, so HPC is considering height, scale, massing, proportions, lighting, fenestration and materials. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project’s conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. Staff Response: The attached drawings provide a comparison of the approved vs. proposed design. The project involves only a small change to building footprint, in the form of a larger garage stall to accommodate mechanical equipment. The approved garage was 10’ wide; the proposal is 13’4”. The plan meets setback requirements and is within the floor area allowance. HPC’s primary focus is review of the second floor addition. As discussed at the previous meeting, the revised design may be seen as an improvement over the approved plan because in the approved version, a second floor closet/hallway was allowed to attach to the south facing gable end of the Victorian so that one could walk through to the new second floor master bedroom. The applicant is removing that space. There is no enclosed connection between the new second floor master and the rest of the home. No historic fabric is touched. In response to feedback on June 22nd, a new alternative has been provided. Previously, HPC saw three possible additions differentiated by whether they had a shed or gable roof. For this meeting, the applicant has submitted a design with a cross gable. The dialogue between the new and old has been strengthened by the selection of a gable roof and the decision to primarily install simple vertically oriented double hung windows. The ridge height of the addition is only slightly taller than that of the historic house. Staff finds the roof design of the addition is still lacking compatibility to the Victorian due to it having a less steep roof pitch (8:12 vs. 12:12), creating a more squatty character to the form rather than the vertical proportions of the Victorian. In addition, staff finds the cross gable placed close behind the rear of the Victorian makes the addition seem wide from the street, taking attention away from the historic resource. The images on the following page depict the addition as approved at the top, and the proposed condition on the bottom, as viewed from Main Street. P22 III.A. 3 P23 III.A. 4 This home is in a historic district, with another Victorian located to the west, as seen below. Staff recommends continuation of the project for additional study to meet guidelines 10.3 and 10.14. Staff does not currently have any concerns with the proposed materials or exterior lighting, however the architect has not called out the material for the windows or doors, or provided cut sheets for light fixtures. An approval resolution is attached, should HPC make that determination. The HPC may: • approve the application, • approve the application with conditions, • disapprove the application, or • continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. ______________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC continue this Substantial Amendment application. Exhibits: Resolution #__, Series of 2016. A. Relevant HPC Guidelines B. HPC minutes, June 22, 2016 C. June 22nd drawings D. Application text E. July 27th drawing P24 III.A. 5 Exhibit A: Relevant HPC Design Guidelines, Substantial Amendment 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the primary building is inappropriate. An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is inappropriate. An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style should be avoided. An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate. 10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining visually compatible with these earlier features. A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material or a differentiation between historic, and more current styles are all techniques that may be considered to help define a change from old to new construction. 10.5 When planning an addition to a building in a historic district, preserve historic alignments that may exist on the street. Some roof lines and porch eaves on historic buildings in the area may align at approximately the same height. An addition should not be placed in a location where these relationships would be altered or obscured. 10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building. An addition that is lower than or similar to the height of the primary building is preferred. 10.7 If it is necessary to design an addition that is taller than a historic building, set it back substantially from significant facades and use a "connector" to link it to the historic building. A 1-story connector is preferred. The connector should be a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition and the primary building. The connector also should be proportional to the primary building. 10.8 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate. Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not alter the exterior mass of a building. Set back an addition from primary facades in order to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. A minimum setback of 10 feet on primary structures is recommended. P25 III.A. 6 10.9 Roof forms should be similar to those of the historic building. Typically, gable, hip and shed roofs are appropriate. Flat roofs are generally inappropriate for additions on residential structures with sloped roofs. 10.11 On a new addition, use exterior materials that are compatible with the historic materials of the primary building. The new materials should be either similar or subordinate to the original materials. 10.14 The roof form and slope of a new addition should be in character with the historic building. If the roof of the historic building is symmetrically proportioned, the roof of the addition should be similar. Eave lines on the addition should be similar to those of the historic building or structure. 7.16 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those of the Victorian era residences seen traditionally on Main Street. T h e s e i n c l u d e w i n d o w s , d o o r s a n d porches. Overall, details should be modest in character. 7.17 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged. This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings. Highly complex and ornately detailed revival styles that were not a part of Aspen’s history are especially discouraged. 7.20 Use building materials that are similar to those used historically. When selecting materials, reflect the simple and modest character of historic materials and their placement. 7.21 Use roofing materials that are similar in appearance to those seen historically. 14.6 Exterior lights should be simple in character and similar in color and intensity to that used traditionally. The design of a fixture should be simple in form and detail. Exterior lighting must be approved by the HPC. All exterior light sources should have a low level of luminescence. 14.7 Minimize the visual impacts of site and architectural lighting. Unshielded, high intensity light sources and those which direct light upward will not be permitted. Shield lighting associated with service areas, parking lots and parking structures. Timers or activity switches may be required to prevent unnecessary sources of light by controlling the length of time that exterior lights are in use late at night. Do not wash an entire building facade in light. Avoid placing exposed light fixtures in highly visible locations, such as on the upper walls of buildings. Avoid duplicating fixtures. For example, do not use two fixtures that light the same area. P26 III.A. 627 W. Main Street HPC Resolution #_, Series of 2016 Page 1 of 1 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) GRANTING A SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT TO MAJOR DEVELOPMENT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 627 W. MAIN STREET, LOT B, BLOCK 25, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION #__, SERIES OF 2016 PARCEL ID: 2735-1224-48-010 WHEREAS, the applicant, Douglas Kelso, represented by Forum Phi, has requested a Substantial Amendment to Major Development for the property located at 627 W. Main Street, Lot B, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, for approval of a Substantial Amendment, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine that Section 26.415.070.E.2 of the Municipal Code, is met; and WHEREAS, Amy Simon, in her staff reports dated June 22, 2016 and July 27, 2016, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, found that the review standards were not met, and recommended restudy; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on July 27, 2016, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application was consistent with the review standards and approved the application with conditions by a vote of __ to __. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby grants a Substantial Amendment to Major Development for the property located at 627 W. Main, Lot B, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado as proposed. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 27th day of July, 2016. ______________________ Willis Pember, Chair Approved as to Form: ___________________________________ Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney ATTEST: ___________________________ Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk P27 III.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 22, 2016 1 Chairperson, Willis Pember called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance were Patrick Sagal, Bob Blaich, John Whipple, Gretchen Greenwood and Jim DeFrancia. Absent were Nora Berko and Michael Brown. Staff present: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Planner Justin Barker, Senior Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk MOTION: Bob made the motion to approve the minutes of May 25, 2016, second by Jim. All in favor, motion carried. John will recuse himself on 627 W. Main. John said he discussed 834 W. Hopkins with the assistant attorney and at one point years ago we looked at possibly purchasing it. John said he can be fair and impartial. Amy said Michael was noticed on both items and cannot participate. 627 W. Main Street Debbie said one affidavit was appropriately provided and the second one will be submitted to the clerk’s office tomorrow. A few members of the public contacted Amy regarding the second notice - Exhibit I Amy said the proposal is for a substantial amendment to a previously approval that was granted in 2008. This is a Victorian Era brick house that is on the far west end of Main Street. In 2008 HPC approved an addition behind the building and two TDR’s were sold off the site and they received a FAR bonus and had a total of 2,400 square feet that could be developed. The owner went ahead a built the ground floor and they also did some restoration work that they represented primarily removing paint to expose the brick. The upper floor addition was never built. Now you are being asked to review three possible versions for the upper floor. In the approval one could walk from the upper floor of the Victorian into the new addition. In this project the connector piece is gone so the south façade will remain exposed to view and there won’t be anything destroying that. The second floor addition is more free standing. There is only one change to the ground P28 III.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 22, 2016 2 floor which is a mechanical room on the east side of the one story addition that exists now. Staff has concerns with all three versions mostly because the addition that was approved was discrete and it would be hard to see from the street. The pitch of the roof followed the shape of the historic resource and there were advantages to the design that got HPC approval. All three designs are more visible from the front of the property which is a concern. We are excited about the elimination of the link to the back of the Victorian house. Options 2 and 3 have the best merits and with some alternations could be approved. Staff recommends continuation until all the issues are ironed out. The project is within the allowed square footage. This is mostly about roof shapes on the upper floor of the addition. Stev Wilson, Forum Phi We are looking at three options for the upper floor, primarily the roof forms. We are looking at the corner of 6th Street and Main Street. On the previous approval we used to have a basement that went down underneath the project but that has since been eliminated. We are adding a small wall for the mechanical room totally hidden behind the historic resource. Other than that the main floor level will remain the same. Stev said on the previous design there was a deck and we had a den which is now a bedroom and a connector through another bedroom with a sitting room. There was a roof form that tucked in and you couldn’t see it from the street and then hit the larger roof form at the back and then a wrap-around deck. Steve said looking at the revision the mechanical room is accessed from the exterior and the garage being the only change on the lower level. As you come up there is a segregated bedroom and Mother in law suite. It has a connecting deck to the main house and the historic resource would be exposed and then limiting the deck to a smaller space and have stairs come up to access the bedroom and bathroom. Stev said regarding the roof options it is a single shed roof and the low side being toward the historic property and then letting the roof rise as it goes toward the alley which faces south toward Aspen Mountain. One of the perks for the first roof option is that the shed roof stays below the peak of the historic resource. We are looking at stucco for the base and a vertical wood siding above. P29 III.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 22, 2016 3 Stev said the next option the floor plan remains the same. We are chasing a sloping ridge which creates a lower roof height between the historic resource and what we are proposing. We have a little higher roof than the existing. Because the roof isn’t flat it doesn’t read quite as massively. Stev said we are looking at a shed roof that goes from the low side up across and it is a simple roof form with a little more coverage on the entry area. We are still lower than the ridge of the historic structure. Any of these options are a good direction for us to proceed with. Amy said nothing on the ground floor changes except the mechanical room. The connector is the same. Gretchen asked what is not built. Stev said the entire first floor is constructed. The upper floor is not constructed. Willis asked what the width of the mechanical room is. Stev said 2 x 6 wide. Willis said we are looking at fenestration, materials etc. Stev said we have a 4 inch horizontal wood siding that is intended to be painted. Above would be an increased width wood done vertical also painted. Standing seam roof. Rather than emulating the double hung windows from the historic house we have gone to casement windows with awning windows below. We will have a fixed panel on either side of the operable door with a wedge shaped window above. The soffit material would match the siding material which would be a painted six inch wood. The lighting is minimal at the exit doors. Chairperson, Willis opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Willis identified the issues: Mass and scale Materials Fenestration P30 III.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 22, 2016 4 Lighting Landscape plan Jim said he would favor staff’s recommendation and study options #2 and #3 more closely. Willis also agreed. The applicant needs to submit a lighting plan, material samples and lighting cut sheets. Gretchen said the clean simple building looks like there is a 70’s addition on the back with all different kinds of windows. There is no sensitivity to this clean pristine building and to me it doesn’t meet the guidelines. The roof lines detract from the historic building. I also have a problem with all the different kind of windows from vertical to horizontal, to sloping, to square, to punched out openings. I would agree with staff that it needs a lot more study. I could not in good conscience vote for any of the designs. Jim commented that he feels the addition is scattered and busy. Patrick said the windows should be more of a Victorian style and more vertical to fit in and more uniform to continue the flow of the historic resource. All three roof designs do not fit. We also need material samples and a lighting plan. Willis and Bob said everything has been stated. MOTION: Jim moved to continue 627 W. Main to July 27th; secondo by Gretchen. Will said he sees a lack of a dialogue between the new and existing. Gretchen said when you walk down the street and see a Victorian you are looking up at these buildings and I don’t have a problem with the addition being taller if it a sensitive addition to the Victorian and doesn’t overwhelm it. The roof line needs to be more sympathetic to the Victorian. Willis said he doesn’t mind the exploration of a roof form of a gable. I wouldn’t ask the applicant to come back with a gable the same as the historic resource but to come back with a better dialogue between the two if they are going to depart from the gable. P31 III.A. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 22, 2016 5 Roll call vote: Patrick, yes; Gretchen, yes; Bob, yes; Jim, yes; Willis, yes. 834 W. Hallam – Major Development, Conceptual Demolition, Relocation, Residential Design Standard Review, Setback Variances, Public Hearing John was seated. Debbie said the public notice has been appropriately provided – Exhibit I Stan Clausen, Clausen and Associates Matt Brown, owner Justin stated that the property is at the northeast corner of the intersection of Hallam and 8th Street. This is a landmark lot, 6,000 square feet in size and is zoned as Mixed Use. The underlying zoning for a normal property for Mixed Use outside of the Main Street historic district would be 12,000 square feet. For this particular property there is an allowable FAR of 4,000 square feet. That was set by an ordinance in 1994 in which the property was rezoned from R-6 to the office zone district which was later turned into Mixed Use. The purpose for that was to legalize the restaurant use that was in the building at the time as well as to obtain additional FAR for a proposed residential addition on the building. HPC said the project was reviewed by HPC in March of 2015 and that project included 11 affordable housing units and two detached structures similar to this proposal and 7,180 square feet of FAR with 7 parking spaces. At that meeting direction was given to reduce the mass and scale of the project as well as to restudy the parking and try to accommodate the parking onsite. Several designs were submitted to the Community development to relate the architecture to the historic landmark. The proposed project is to remove the non-historic additions on the existing building, relocate the historic structure from the middle of the lot toward the southwest corner and construct two new buildings. It is entirely an affordable housing project. We are down to 9 affordable housing units which would house 18.75 FTE’s and there approximately 5,300 square feet of FAR proposed and six parking spaces. There are two variances being requested one for the east side yard setback, 5 feet is required and 3 feet are being proposed. This is to accommodate a large setback for the large cottonwood trees along 8th street and their root structure. The other variance is for the distance between buildings. There is a ten foot required by the zone district and 7 feet proposed. The applicant is also requesting special P32 III.A. 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM HPC COVER CVR 001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019 020 021 022 023 024 025 026 027 028 029 030 031 032 033 034 035 036 037 038 SITE PLAN FAR CALCS EXISTING MAIN LEVEL EXISTING UPPER LEVEL EXISTING ROOF PLAN MAIN LEVEL OPT 1 UPPER LEVEL OPT 1 ROOF PLAN OPT 1 ELEVATIONS OPT 1 ELEVATIONS OPT 1 ELEVATIONS OPT 1 SECTIONS OPT 1 3D VIEW OPT 1 3D VIEW OPT 1 3D VIEW OPT 1 3D VIEW OPT 1 MAIN LEVEL OPT 2 UPPER LEVEL OPT 2 ROOF PLAN OPT 2 ELEVATIONS OPT 2 ELEVATIONS OPT 2 ELEVATIONS OPT 2 SECTIONS OPT 2 3D VIEW OPT 2 3D VIEW OPT 2 3D VIEW OPT 2 3D VIEW OPT 2 MAIN LEVEL OPT 3 UPPER LEVEL OPT 3 ROOF PLAN OPT 3 ELEVATIONS OPT 3 ELEVATIONS OPT 3 ELEVATIONS OPT 3 SECTIONS OPT 3 3D VIEW OPT 3 3D VIEW OPT 3 3D VIEW OPT 3 3D VIEW OPT 3 LAND USE APPROVALS LAND USE APPROVALS SURVEY 627 W MAIN ST ASPEN CO 81611 USA 627 W MAIN ST. SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT TO RESOLUTION #9, SERIES 2008 FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM: NFPA 13D (EXISTING TO BE REVISED PER PLANS) CODE EDITIONS: 2009 IRC, 2009 IMC, 2009 IECC, 2009 IPC, 2009 IFGC, 2011 NEC, CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 8 MASTER BUILDING PERMIT NUMBER 0085.2008.ARBK SCOPE OF WORK INCLUDES: RECONFIGURATION OF UPPER LEVEL BEDROOM/BATH ADDITION, DECKS AND ROOF LAYOUTS HPC PRESENTATION SHEET INDEX P 3 3 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM LAND USE APPROVALS ORDINANCE N0 2 SERIES OF 2008 AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ESTABLISHING ONE 1 250 SQUARE FEET OF FLOOR AREA HISTORIC TRANSERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHT CERTIFICATE FOR THE SENDING SITE OF 627 W MAIN STREET LOT B BLOCK 25 CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN PITKIN COUNTY COLORADO PARCEL NO 273512448010 WHEREAS the Community Development Department received an application from Douglas Kelso owner hereinafter the Applicant represented by Steev Wilson Forum Phi requesting the establishment of one 1 Historic Transferable Development Right Certificate for the property located at 627 W Main Street Lot B Block 25 City And Townsite Of Aspen Pitkin County Colorado and WHEREAS the subject property is zoned MU Mixed Use and contains asingle family home and WHEREAS 627 W Main Street Lot B Block 25 City And Townsite Of Aspen Pitkin County Colorado is listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures and WHEREAS in order to establish a Historic Transferable Development Right Certificate the applicant shall meet the following requirements of Aspen Municipal Code Section 26535070which is as follows 26535070 Review Criteria for the Establishment of Historic Transferable Development Right A Historic TDR Certificate for 250 square feet of Floor Area may be established by the Mayor of the City of Aspen if the City Council pursuant to adoption of an ordinance finding all the following standards met A The Sending Site is a Historic Landmark on which the development of a single family or duplex residence is a permitted use pursuant to Chapter 26710 Properties on which such development is a conditional use shall not be eligible B It is demonstrated that the Sending Site has permitted unbuilt development rights for either a singlefamily or duplex home equaling or exceeding two hundred and fifty 250 square feet of Floor Area multiplied by the number ofHistoric TDR Certificates requested C It is demonstrated that the establishment of TDR Certificates will not create a nonconformity In cases where nonconformity already exists the action shall not increase the specific nonconformity D The analysis of unbuilt development right shall not only include the actual built development any approved development order the allowable development right prescribed by zoning and shall not include the potential of the Sending Site to gain Floor Area bonuses exemptions or similar potential development incentives E Any development order to develop Floor Area beyond that remaining legally connected to the property after establishment of TDR Certificates shall be considered null and void F The proposed deed restriction permanently restricts the development of the property the Sending Site to an allowable Floor Area not exceeding the allowance for a singlefamily or duplex residence minus two hundred and fifty 250 square feet of Floor Area multiplied by the number of Historic TDR Certificates established The deed restriction shall not stipulate an absolute Floor Area but shall stipulate a square footage reduction from the allowable Floor Area as may be amended from time to time The Sending Site shall remain eligible far certain Floor Area incentives andor exemptions as may be authorized by the Ciry of Aspen Land Use Code as maybe amendedfrom time to time Theform of the deed restriction shall be acceptable to the City Attorney G A real estate closing has been scheduled at which upon satisfaction of all relevant requirements the Ciry shall execute and deliver the applicable number ofHistoric TDR Certificates to the Sending Siteproperty owner and that property owner shall execute and deliver a deed restriction lessening the available development right of the subject property together with the appropriate fee for recording the deed restriction with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorders Office H It shall be the responsibility of the Sending Site property owner to provide building plans and a zoning analysis of the Sending Site to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director Certain review fees may be requiredfor the confirmation of bullt Floor Area and WHEREAS upon review of the application and the applicable code standards the Community Development Deparhnent recommended approval with conditions of the proposed establishment of one 1 Historic Transferable Development Right and WHEREAS the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing and WHEREAS the City Council finds that the request to establish one 1 Historic Transferable Development Rights meets the intent of the Aspen Historic Preservation Program and is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan and WHEREAS the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health safety and welfare NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN AS FOLLOWS Section 1 The City Council finds that the application meets all required standards and eligibility as stated in Section 26535030 and Section 26535070 and applicants submission is complete and sufficient to afford review and evaluation for approval and Section 2 The City Council does hereby establish one 1 Historic Transferable Development Right of 250 square feet of Floor Area to the sending site located at 627 W Main Street Lot B Block 25 City And Townsite Of Aspen Pitkin County Colorado with the following conditions 1 Upon satisfaction of all requirements the city and the applicant shall establish a date on which the Historic TDR Certificate shall be validated and issued by the City and a deed restriction on the property shall be accepted by the City and Filed with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder 2 On the mutually agreed upon date the Mayor of the City of Aspen shall execute and deliver the Historic TDR Certificate to the property owner and the property owner shall execute and deliver a deed restriction lessening the available development rights of the Sending Site 627 W Main Street Lot B Block 25 City And Townsite Of Aspen Pitkin County Colorado by 250 square feet together with the appropriate fee for recording the deed restriction with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorders Office Section 3 This Ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided and the same shall be construed and concluded under such prior ordinances Section 4 If any section subsection sentence clause phrase or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction such portion shall be deemed a separate distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity ofthe remaining portions thereof Section 5 A public hearing on the ordinance will be held on the 10h day of March 2008 in the City Council Chambers Aspen City Hall Aspen Colorado Section 7 This ordinance shall become effective thirty 30 days following final passage INTRODUCED READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by the City Council of the City ofAspen on the 11 February 2008 Michael C Ireland Mayor Attes C thryn S K City Jerk FINALLY adopted passed and approved this 10hday ofMarch 2008 Michael C Ireland Mayor Approved as to form 3z n orcester City Attorney cc.ord.002-08 cc.ord.002-08 cc.ord.002-08 cc.ord.002-08 P 3 4 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM LAND USE APPROVALS A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION HPC APPROVING MAJOR DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTUAL AND AN FAR BONUS FOR 627 W MAIN STREET LOT B BLOCK 25 CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN PITKIN COUNTY COLORADO RESOLUTION N09SERIES OF 2008 PARCEL ID 273707330010 WHEREAS the applicant Doug Kelso represented by Steev Wilson Forum Phi has requested approval for Major Development Conceptual and an FAR bonus in order to make an addition to his residence at 627 W Main Street Lot B Block 25 City and Townsite of Aspen Pitkin County Colorado and WHEREAS Section 26415070of the Municipal Code states that no building or structure shall be erected constructed enlazged altered repaired relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review and WHEREAS for Conceptual Major Development Review the HPC must review the application a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the projects conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26415070D3b2and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections The HPC may approve disapprove approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny and WHEREAS for approval of an FAR bonus the HPC must review the application a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at ahearing to determine per Section 264151100of the Municipal Code that a The design of the project meets all applicable design guidelines and b The historic building is the key element ofthe property and the addition is incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic building andor c The work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appeazance andor d The new construction is reflective of the proportional patterns found in the historic buildings form materials or openings andor e The construction materials are of the highest quality andor An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions ofthe building andor g The project retains a historic outbuilding andor h Notable historic site and landscape features aze retained and WHEREAS Amy Guthrie in her staff report dated May 14 2008 performed an analysis of the application based on the review standazds and the City of Asnen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines and recommended HPC approve the project an RECEPTION 550529 061262008 at 092529AM 1 OF 2 R 1100Doc Code RESOLUTION Janice K Vos Caudill Pitkin County CO WHEREAS at their regulaz meeting on May 14 2008 the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application found that it was consistent with the review standards and City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines and granted approval by a vote of 4 to 2 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED That HPC grants Major Development Conceptual and a 500 squaze foot FAR bonus for the property located at 627 W Main Street Lot B Block 25 City and Townsite of Aspen Colorado as proposed APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION on the 14th day ofMay 2008 Approved as to Form Jim True Assistty AtAttorney Approved as to content HISTORIC PRESERVA ION COMMISSION Michael Hoffman Chair ATTEST Kathy Strickland Chief Deputy Clerk A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION HPC APPROVING MAJOR DEVELOPMENT FINAL FOR 627 W MAIN STREET LOT B BLOCK 25 CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN PITKIN COUNTY COLORADO RESOLUTION NO 16 SERIES OF 2008 PARCEL ID 273707330010 WHEREAS the applicant Doug Kelso represented by Steev Wilson Forum Phi has requested approval for Major Development Final in order to make an addition to his residence at 627 W Main Street Lot B Block 25 City and Townsite of Aspen Pitkin County Colorado and WHEREAS Section 26415070of the Municipal Code states that no building or structure shall be erected constructed enlarged altered repaired relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review and WHEREAS for Final Major Development Review the HPC must review the application a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the projects conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26415070D3b2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections The HPC may approve disapprove approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny and WHEREAS Amy Guthrie in her staff report dated July 9 2008 performed an analysis of the application based on the review standards and the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines and recommended HPC approve the project and WHEREAS at their regular meeting on July 9 2008 the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application found that it was consistent with the review standards and City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines and granted approval by a vote of 4 to 1 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED That HPC grants Major Development Final for the property located at 627 W Main Street Lot B Block 25 City and Townsite of Aspen Colorado with the following conditions 1 HPC granted a 500 square foot FAR bonus as part of the Conceptual review of the project 2 Staff will review and approve test patches of the brick restoration to ensure proper preservation ofthe masonry 3 HPC staff and monitor must approve any changes with regard to the type and location of exterior lighting fixtures by reviewing a plan prior to wiring purchasing or installing the fixtures 4 Information on all venting locations and meter locations not described in the approved drawings shall be provided for review and annroval by staff and monitor when the information is available RECEPTION 553881 10302008at 091841AM t OF 3 R 1600Doc Code RESOLUTION Janice K Vos Caudill Pitkin County CO 5 There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor or the full board 6 The conditions of approval will be required to be printed on the cover sheet of the building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction 7 The applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of the HPC resolution applicable to this project The contractor must submit a letter addressed to HPC staff as part of the building permit application indicating that all conditions of approval are known and understood and must meet with the Historic Preservation Officer prior to applying for the building permit 8 The development approvals granted herein shall constitute asitespecific development plan vested for a period of three 3 years from the date of issuance of a development order However any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights Unless otherwise exempted or extended failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded as specified herein within 180 days of the effective date of the development order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the development order void within the meaning of Section 26104050 Void permits Zoning that is not part of the approved sitespecific development plan shall not result in the creation of a vested property right No later than fourteen 14 days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain adevelopment order as set forth in this Ordinance the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title Such notice shall be substantially in the following form Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and the creation of a vested property right valid for a period of three 3 yeazs pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24 Article 68 Colorado Revised Statutes pertaining to the following described property 604 West Main Street Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews and approvals required by this approval of the general rules regulations and ordinances or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this approval The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required under Section 26304070AThe rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION on the 9th day ofJuly 2008 Approved as to Form ATTEST im True Assistant City Attorney Kathy Stric and Chief Deputy Clerk Approved as to content HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Michael Hoffman air 5 There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor or the full board 6 The conditions of approval will be required to be printed on the cover sheet of the building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction 7 The applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of the HPC resolution applicable to this project The contractor must submit a letter addressed to HPC staff as part of the building permit application indicating that all conditions of approval are known and understood and must meet with the Historic Preservation Officer prior to applying for the building permit 8 The development approvals granted herein shall constitute asitespecific development plan vested for a period of three 3 years from the date of issuance of a development order However any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights Unless otherwise exempted or extended failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded as specified herein within 180 days of the effective date of the development order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the development order void within the meaning of Section 26104050 Void permits Zoning that is not part of the approved sitespecific development plan shall not result in the creation of a vested property right No later than fourteen 14 days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain adevelopment order as set forth in this Ordinance the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title Such notice shall be substantially in the following form Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and the creation of a vested property right valid for a period of three 3 yeazs pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24 Article 68 Colorado Revised Statutes pertaining to the following described property 604 West Main Street Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews and approvals required by this approval of the general rules regulations and ordinances or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this approval The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required under Section 26304070AThe rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter coa.hpc.res.009-08 coa.hpc.res.016-08 coa.hpc.res.016-08 ASPEN HISTORICAL DISTRICT - VICINITY PLAN SITE: 627 WEST MAIN STREET P 3 5 I I I . A . P 3 6 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM SITE PLAN 001 8" ASPEN 10" ASPEN PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE EXISTING STRUCTURE 1 2 3 A1.1 SHEET TITLE STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS MECHANICAL SURVEYOR GEOTECH COPYRIGHT FORUM PHI PROJECT NO:0608 DRAWN BY:SMW CIVIL CONTRACTOR DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL HPC 5/1/08 CD 6/13/08 CONSULTANTS HPC 7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL 10/23/08 REVISIONS 5/7/09 REVISIONS 08/18/10 REVISIONS SITE PLAN 627 W. MAIN ST ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 FORUM PHI 174 Midland Ave, Suite 201 P.O. Box 1606 Basalt, Colorado 81621 PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585 DOUGLAS KELSO #### KELSO ADDITION Rocky Mountain Surveying 4133 Crystal Springs Rd. Carbondale, CO 81623 Phone: (970) 379-1919 Fax: (970) 963-5873 Yeh and Associates, Inc. 170 Mel Ray Road Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: (970) 384-1500 Fax: (970) 384-1501 Efficiency In Mind, LLC P.O. Box 1481 Carbondale, CO 81623 Phone: (970) 274-6336 Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd. P.O. Box 978 Avon, CO 81620 Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221 Fax: (970) 949-9339 Mozer-Renn Structural Service 8573 E. Napa Place Denver, CO 80237 Phone: (720) 212-0727 Fax: (303) 484-8958 DATE OF PUBLICATION8/31/2010 SD SD 1 9 R @ 7 " = 1 1 ' - 1 " 1 8 T @ 1 1 3 / 8 " = 1 7 ' - 0 5 / 8 " U P 12345678910111213141516171819 3 5 ' - 3 1 / 8 " 5 ' - 6 1 / 1 6 " 1 1 5 / 1 6 " 10' 5' 5' 5' 3' - 2 " RADON MITIGATION VENT LOCATION FINAL LOCATION T.B.D. AREA TO BE DEMOLISHED EXTERIOR WALLS TO BE COMPLETELY REMOVED STONE WALK 28.08'13.82' x x x x 952.29' N09°03'13"E P . O . B . D 8 " D L 1 1 ' D 5 " D L 5 ' D 1 0 " D L 7 ' D 8 " D L 1 3 ' D 7 " D L 8 ' L O T B 0 . 0 6 8 A C ± 3 0 . 0 0 ' N 7 5 ° 0 9 ' 1 1 " W 100.00'S14°50'49"W 3 0 . 0 0 ' S 7 5 ° 0 9 ' 1 1 " E 100.00'N14°50'49"E WM S T O N E W A L L C O N C . . P A T I O CONC.. WALK P A T I O S T O N E S H E D W O O D CONC.. WALK O.H. T Y P . CONC.. WALK C U R B D I T C H REBAR AN D Y P C LS# 1 6 1 2 9 ELEV=79 2 4 . 5 8 R E B A R A N D R P C L S # 2 5 9 4 7 REBA R A N D RPC L S # 2 5 9 4 7 9 1 8 4 E L E V = 7 9 2 6 . 8 4 S I N G L E F A M I L Y R E S I D E N C E 2 2 . 3 25.0 1 . 4 1.61 . 4 31.5 2 2 . 3 58.1 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x xxxxxxxxxxxxxx x xxx x x x x x x x x x x EM G M 792 5 7925 7 9 2 6 SETBACK SE T B A C K SETBACK SE T B A C K KITCHEN 02 BEDROOM 05 CLOSET 07 GARAGE 08 PDR 19 BATHROOM 06 ENTRY 04 LIVING ROOM 01 EXISTING - 1,276 SF 256.30 sq ft EXISTING - 640.5 SF DECK - 270.98 sq ft DECK - 85.36 sq ft 476.5 SF 2 3 3 A SITE PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0" 0 BASEMENT FAR 1" = 10'1 MAIN FLOOR FAR 1" = 10'2 UPPER FLOOR FAR 1" = 10' 0 SF 0 SF TOTAL FAR TOTAL UPPER FLOOR FAR F.A.R. CALCULATION - TOTAL MAIN FLOOR AREA - EXISTING BASEMENT FLOOR AREA - EXISTING TOTAL MAIN FLOOR FAR 0 SF UPPER FLOOR AREA - EXISTING TOTAL EXISTING FAR UPPER FLOOR AREA - EXISTING MAIN FLOOR AREA - EXISTING ALLOWABLE DECKS (15%)360 SF 2,150 SF F.A.R. CALCULATION - EXISTING ALLOWABLE FAR (2,400 - 250 = 2,150) 0 SF % EXPOSED (0%) 0 SF 0 SF 0% 3.15 SF 3.15 SF 3.15 SF F.A.R. CALCULATION - APPROVED MAIN FLOOR AREA - APPROVED GARAGE AREA - APPROVED (256.30 - 250 = 6.30/2 = 3.15) TOTAL MAIN FLOOR FAR - APPROVED UPPER FLOOR AREA - APPROVED TOTAL UPPER FLOOR FAR - APPROVED BASEMENT FLOOR AREA - APPROVED TOTAL BASEMENT FAR - APPROVED MAIN FLOOR AREA - APPROVED UPPER FLOOR AREA - APPROVED BASEMENT FLOOR AREA - APPROVED TOTAL BASEMENT FAR - APPROVED 1,276 SF 640.5 SF 1,916.5 SF 1916.5 DECK AREA - APPROVED (271+85.5 - 360) 493.45 1,276 SF 1279.15 SF 640.5 SF TOTAL FAR AFTER DEMO ( 1916.5 - 370 = 1546.5)1,546.5 SF 1117 SF 2,396.15 SF 2,396.15 476.5 SF 476.5 SF 476.5 SF 0 SF N PROPOSED SITE PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0" CHANGE ORDER 3 APPROVED SITE PLAN P 3 7 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM FAR CALCS 002 1 2 3 A1.1 SHEET TITLE STRUCTURALCONSULTANTSMECHANICALSURVEYORGEOTECH COPYRIGHT FORUM PHI PROJECT NO:0608 DRAWN BY:SMW CIVIL CONTRACTOR DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL HPC 5/1/08 CD 6/13/08 CONSULTANTS HPC 7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL 10/23/08 REVISIONS 5/7/09 REVISIONS 08/18/10 REVISIONS SITE PLAN 627 W. MAIN STASPEN, COLORADO 81611FORUM PHI174 Midland Ave, Suite 201P.O. Box 1606Basalt, Colorado 81621PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585DOUGLAS KELSO #### KELSO ADDITIONRocky Mountain Surveying4133 Crystal Springs Rd.Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 379-1919Fax: (970) 963-5873Yeh and Associates, Inc.170 Mel Ray RoadGlenwood Springs, CO 81601Phone: (970) 384-1500Fax: (970) 384-1501Efficiency In Mind, LLCP.O. Box 1481Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 274-6336 Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd. P.O. Box 978 Avon, CO 81620 Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221 Fax: (970) 949-9339 Mozer-Renn Structural Service8573 E. Napa PlaceDenver, CO 80237Phone: (720) 212-0727Fax: (303) 484-8958 DATE OF PUBLICATION8/31/2010 SD SD 19 R @ 7" = 1 1'-1"18 T @ 1 1 3/8" = 17'-0 5/8"UP12345678910111213141516171819 35'-3 1/8"5'-6 1/16"11 5/16"10'5'5'5'3'-2"RADON MITIGATION VENT LOCATIONFINAL LOCATION T.B.D.AREA TO BE DEMOLISHEDEXTERIOR WALLS TO BE COMPLETELY REMOVEDSTONE WALK 28.08'13.82'xxxx952.29'N09°03'13"E P.O.B.D8"DL11'D5"DL5'D10"DL7'D8"DL13'D7"DL8'LOT B0.068 AC±30.00'N75°09'11"W100.00'S14°50'49"W30.00'S75°09'11"E 100.00'N14°50'49"E WM STONE WALLCONC.. PATIOCONC.. WALKPATIOSTONE S H E D W O O D CONC.. WALKO.H. TYP.CONC.. WALKCURBDITCH REBAR AND YPCLS# 16129ELEV=7924.58REBAR A N D RPC LS# 2 5 9 4 7 REBAR ANDRPC LS# 25947 9 1 8 4 ELEV= 7 9 2 6 . 8 4 SINGLE FAMILYRESIDENCE 22.325.01.41.61.431.522.3 58.1 x x x x x x x x xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxEMGM792579257926SETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKKITCHEN02BEDROOM05CLOSET07GARAGE08PDR19BATHROOM06ENTRY04LIVING ROOM01 EXISTING - 1,276 SF 256.30 sq ft EXISTING - 640.5 SF DECK - 270.98 sq ft DECK - 85.36 sq ft 476.5 SF 2 3 3 A SITE PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0" 0 BASEMENT FAR 1" = 10'1 MAIN FLOOR FAR 1" = 10'2 UPPER FLOOR FAR 1" = 10' 0 SF 0 SF TOTAL FAR TOTAL UPPER FLOOR FAR F.A.R. CALCULATION - TOTAL MAIN FLOOR AREA - EXISTING BASEMENT FLOOR AREA - EXISTING TOTAL MAIN FLOOR FAR 0 SF UPPER FLOOR AREA - EXISTING TOTAL EXISTING FAR UPPER FLOOR AREA - EXISTING MAIN FLOOR AREA - EXISTING ALLOWABLE DECKS (15%)360 SF 2,150 SF F.A.R. CALCULATION - EXISTING ALLOWABLE FAR (2,400 - 250 = 2,150) 0 SF % EXPOSED (0%) 0 SF 0 SF 0% 3.15 SF 3.15 SF 3.15 SF F.A.R. CALCULATION - APPROVED MAIN FLOOR AREA - APPROVED GARAGE AREA - APPROVED (256.30 - 250 = 6.30/2 = 3.15) TOTAL MAIN FLOOR FAR - APPROVED UPPER FLOOR AREA - APPROVED TOTAL UPPER FLOOR FAR - APPROVED BASEMENT FLOOR AREA - APPROVED TOTAL BASEMENT FAR - APPROVED MAIN FLOOR AREA - APPROVED UPPER FLOOR AREA - APPROVED BASEMENT FLOOR AREA - APPROVED TOTAL BASEMENT FAR - APPROVED 1,276 SF 640.5 SF 1,916.5 SF 1916.5 DECK AREA - APPROVED (271+85.5 - 360) 493.45 1,276 SF 1279.15 SF 640.5 SF TOTAL FAR AFTER DEMO ( 1916.5 - 370 = 1546.5)1,546.5 SF 1117 SF 2,396.15 SF 2,396.15 476.5 SF 476.5 SF 476.5 SF 0 SF 126.75 sq ft 1,307.00 sq ft 41.75 sq ft 2.00 sq ft @ 50% = 1 SF 250.00 sq ft PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE 148.25 sq ft 112.00 sq ft 104.50 sq ft CDW 445.00 sq ft 33'-0"9'-73/4"28'-43/4" 4 '-1 1 1 /2 " 1 '-5 " 1 4 '-1 1 1 /2 " 24'-111/2"5'-8"9'-11"9'-6" 2 '-1 1 1 /2 " 8 '-2 1 /4 " 8 '-0 3 /8 " 3 '-1 3 /8 " 1 2 '-3 " 15'-33/4" 640.00 sq ft PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE SETBACK LINE 18.00 sq ft 18.00 sq ft 18.00 sq ft 18.00 sq ft COUNTABLE FAR FILLS GARAGE DECK EXEMPT Lower Level Floor Area Calculations 627 W Main St. Proposed Lower Level Floor Area Calculations Lower Level Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft)126.75 Lower Level Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)0.00 Total Lower Level Countable Area (Sq Ft)0.00 Total Proposed Floor Area Calculations Lower Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)0.00 Main Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)1308.00 Upper Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)1085.00 Deck/Porch Floor Area (Sq Ft)4.75 Total Proposed Floor Area (Sq Ft)2,397.75 Main Level Floor Area Calculations 627 W Main St. Proposed Main Level Floor Area Calculations Main Level Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft)1307.00 Garage Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft)252.00 Main Level Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)1307.00 Garage Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)1.00 Exemption (0-250 @ 0% 250-500 @ 50% Total Main Level Countable Area (Sq Ft)1308.00 Proposed Deck/Porch Floor Area Calculations Front Porch Floor Area (Sq Ft)41.75 Deck Floor Area (Sq Ft)0.00 Exempt Deck Floor Area (Sq Ft)0.00 Deck/Porch Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)0.00 Total Proposed Floor Area Calculations Lower Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)0.00 Main Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)1308.00 Upper Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)1085.00 Deck/Porch Floor Area (Sq Ft)4.75 Total Proposed Floor Area (Sq Ft)2,397.75 Upper Level Floor Area Calculations 627 W Main St. Proposed Upper Level Floor Area Calculations Upper Level Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft)1085.00 Upper Level Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)1085.00 Total Upper Level Countable Area (Sq Ft)1085.00 Proposed Deck/Porch Floor Area Calculations Deck Floor Area (Sq Ft)364.75 148.25 + 104.50 + 112 Exempt Deck Floor Area (Sq Ft)360.00 360 Sq Ft Exempt (15% of 2,400) Deck/Porch Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)4.75 Total Proposed Floor Area Calculations Lower Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)0.00 Main Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)1308.00 Upper Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)1085.00 Deck/Porch Floor Area (Sq Ft)4.75 Total Proposed Floor Area (Sq Ft)2,397.75 CHANGE ORDER 3 FAR CALCULATIONS 1' = 1'-0" PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL FAR 1" = 10'PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL FAR 1" = 10'PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL FAR 1" = 10' P 3 8 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM EXISTING MAIN LEVEL 003 1 2 3 A2.2 SHEET TITLE STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS MECHANICAL SURVEYOR GEOTECH COPYRIGHT FORUM PHI PROJECT NO:0608 DRAWN BY:SMW CIVIL CONTRACTOR DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL HPC 5/1/08 CD 6/13/08 CONSULTANTS HPC 7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL 10/23/08 REVISIONS 5/7/09 REVISIONS 08/18/10 REVISIONS MAIN FLOOR PLAN 627 W. MAIN ST ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 FORUM PHI 174 Midland Ave, Suite 201 P.O. Box 1606 Basalt, Colorado 81621 PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585 DOUGLAS KELSO #### KELSO ADDITION Rocky Mountain Surveying 4133 Crystal Springs Rd. Carbondale, CO 81623 Phone: (970) 379-1919 Fax: (970) 963-5873 Yeh and Associates, Inc. 170 Mel Ray Road Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: (970) 384-1500 Fax: (970) 384-1501 Efficiency In Mind, LLC P.O. Box 1481 Carbondale, CO 81623 Phone: (970) 274-6336 Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd. P.O. Box 978 Avon, CO 81620 Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221 Fax: (970) 949-9339 Mozer-Renn Structural Service 8573 E. Napa Place Denver, CO 80237 Phone: (720) 212-0727 Fax: (303) 484-8958 DATE OF PUBLICATION1/5/2016 01 D106 W101 W102 W105W104W103 D101 D104 D105 D102 SD SD 1 9 R @ 7 " = 1 1 ' - 1 " 1 8 T @ 1 1 3 / 8 " = 1 7 ' - 0 5 / 8 " U P 12345678910111213141516171819 3 3 3 22 ' - 3 1/ 2 " ORIGINAL 1888 ADDITION 2000 PROPOSED ADDITION 33'-1 1/2"24'-11 1/2"22'-6 1/2" 1' - 9 " 80'-7 1/2" 80'-7 1/2" 10 ' 22'-1" 33'-1 1/2"24'-11 1/2"22'-6 1/2" 33'-1 1/2"24'-11 1/2"1'-11"20'-7 1/2" 6'-7"5 1/2" 7'-1/2" 6' - 1 " 5 1/ 2 " 6' - 6 1/ 2 " 33'-1 1/2"1'-7 1/2"1'-3 1/2"2'-10 1/2"2'-10 1/2"2'-10"3'-6"3'-6"3'-6"2'-11 1/2"1'-11"20'-7 1/2" 33'-1 1/2"24'-11 1/2"22'-6 1/2" 10 ' - 1 1 " 6' - 5 1/ 2 " 5' - 5 1/ 2 " 5' - 5 1/ 2 " 6' - 5 1/ 2 " 1 A3.1 4 A3.2 2 A3.2 RADON MITIGATION VENT LOCATION FINAL LOCATION T.B.D. EXISTING CLOSET TO REMAIN EXISTING WINDOW TO BE REMOVED FILL TO MATCH EXISTING KITCHEN 02 BEDROOM 05 CLOSET 07 GARAGE 08 PDR 19 BATHROOM 06 ENTRY 04 LIVING ROOM 01 3 A3.1 SD 3 1) 3) 2) SURFACE MOUNTED SCONCE LIGHTING AS REQUIRED AT EXITS. FINAL LOCATIONS T.B.D. 4) SMOKE DETECTOR EXTERIOR CAN LIGHT HANDRAILS AND GUARDRAILS PER CODE. 5) BUILDING REFERENCE ELEVATION : 100'-0" = 7,926.38' SURVEYED ELEV. V.I.F. TO CONFIRM EXISTING BASEMENT OMITTED SLAB ON GRADE 6) 1 MAIN FLOOR PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0" GENERAL NOTES NCHANGE ORDER 3 MAIN LEVEL PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0" P 3 9 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM EXISTING UPPER LEVEL 004 1 2 3 A2.3 SHEET TITLE STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS MECHANICAL SURVEYOR GEOTECH COPYRIGHT FORUM PHI PROJECT NO:0608 DRAWN BY:SMW CIVIL CONTRACTOR DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL HPC 5/1/08 CD 6/13/08 CONSULTANTS HPC 7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL 10/23/08 REVISIONS 5/7/09 REVISIONS 08/18/10 REVISIONS UPPER FLOOR PLAN 627 W. MAIN ST ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 FORUM PHI 174 Midland Ave, Suite 201 P.O. Box 1606 Basalt, Colorado 81621 PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585 DOUGLAS KELSO #### KELSO ADDITION Rocky Mountain Surveying 4133 Crystal Springs Rd. Carbondale, CO 81623 Phone: (970) 379-1919 Fax: (970) 963-5873 Yeh and Associates, Inc. 170 Mel Ray Road Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: (970) 384-1500 Fax: (970) 384-1501 Efficiency In Mind, LLC P.O. Box 1481 Carbondale, CO 81623 Phone: (970) 274-6336 Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd. P.O. Box 978 Avon, CO 81620 Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221 Fax: (970) 949-9339 Mozer-Renn Structural Service 8573 E. Napa Place Denver, CO 80237 Phone: (720) 212-0727 Fax: (303) 484-8958 DATE OF PUBLICATION1/5/2016 D207 D208 D206 D204 D205 D201 D202 1 9 R @ 7 " = 1 1 ' - 1 " 1 8 T @ 1 1 3 / 8 " = 1 7 ' - 0 5 / 8 " U P 12345678910111213141516171819 SD SD SD SD SD SD 1 2 1 A3.1 4 A3.2 2 A3.2 6' - 4 13 / 1 6 " 22 ' - 3 5/ 8 " ORIGINAL 1888 PROPOSED ADDITION OVER 2000 ADDITION PROPOSED ADDITION 1' - 6 " 10 ' 5'-8 3/8"5'-3 5/8"5 1/2"11'-10" 5'-8 3/8"5'-3 5/8"5 1/2"11'-10" 2' - 3 1/ 2 " 1' - 9 " 2' - 3 " 2' - 3 1/ 2 " 1'-8"3'-4" 8' 3' 1' - 5 " 1' - 3 " 2' - 4 " 1' 1' - 5 1/ 2 " 2' - 6 " 1' - 8 1/ 2 " 33'-1 1/2"15'-10 1/16"3'-5/16"4'-6 1/8"2'-8 1/2"3'-2 1/2"3"3'-8 3/8"3'-5/16"13'-2 9/16" 5' 4' - 8 13 / 1 6 " 6' - 2 1/ 2 " 10 ' - 1 1/ 1 6 " 11'-6 1/2" 5' - 9 " 5' - 9 " 33'-1 1/2"11'13'-11 11/16"15'-10 13/16"8'-7 1/4" 3' - 1 1 5/ 1 6 " 1' 12 ' - 5 " 3' - 1 0 9/ 1 6 " 33'-1 1/2"11'12'-1 1/2"17'-9"8'-7 1/4" 33'-1 1/2"11'4'-10 3/8"3'7'-2 3/8"7'-2 7/16"3'4'-7 1/4"8'-7 1/4" RADON MITIGATION VENT LOCATION FINAL LOCATION T.B.D. BEDROOM 10 BATHROOM 12 BEDROOM 16 CLOSET 11 CLOSET 20 DEN 14 BATH 17 SITTING ROOM 18 D212 3 A3.1 W211 W202 W204W203 W212W213W214 W201 W207W205W206 W210 W208W209 SD 3 1) 3) 2) SURFACE MOUNTED SCONCE LIGHTING AS REQUIRED AT EXITS. FINAL LOCATIONS T.B.D. 4) SMOKE DETECTOR EXTERIOR CAN LIGHT HANDRAILS AND GUARDRAILS PER CODE. 5) BUILDING REFERENCE ELEVATION : 100'-0" = 7,926.38' SURVEYED ELEV. V.I.F. TO CONFIRM EXISTING BASEMENT OMITTED SLAB ON GRADE 6) 2 UPPER FLOOR PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0" GENERAL NOTES NCHANGE ORDER 3 UPPER LEVEL PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0" P 4 0 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM EXISTING ROOF PLAN 005 1 2 3 A2.4 SHEET TITLE STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS MECHANICAL SURVEYOR GEOTECH COPYRIGHT FORUM PHI PROJECT NO:0608 DRAWN BY:SMW CIVIL CONTRACTOR DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL HPC 5/1/08 CD 6/13/08 CONSULTANTS HPC 7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL 10/23/08 REVISIONS 5/7/09 REVISIONS 08/18/10 REVISIONS ROOF PLAN 627 W. MAIN ST ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 FORUM PHI 174 Midland Ave, Suite 201 P.O. Box 1606 Basalt, Colorado 81621 PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585 DOUGLAS KELSO #### KELSO ADDITION Rocky Mountain Surveying 4133 Crystal Springs Rd. Carbondale, CO 81623 Phone: (970) 379-1919 Fax: (970) 963-5873 Yeh and Associates, Inc. 170 Mel Ray Road Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: (970) 384-1500 Fax: (970) 384-1501 Efficiency In Mind, LLC P.O. Box 1481 Carbondale, CO 81623 Phone: (970) 274-6336 Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd. P.O. Box 978 Avon, CO 81620 Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221 Fax: (970) 949-9339 Mozer-Renn Structural Service 8573 E. Napa Place Denver, CO 80237 Phone: (720) 212-0727 Fax: (303) 484-8958 DATE OF PUBLICATION1/5/2016 1 A3.1 4 A3.2 2 A3.2 ORIGINAL 1888 PROPOSED ADDITION OVER 2000 ADDITION PROPOSED ADDITION DECK DECK 3 A3.1 6:12 8:12 6:12 16:12 2:12 6:12 12:12 12:12 8:12 3:12 12:12 16:12 2:12 6:12 12:12 12:12 12:12 12:12 12:12 12:12 12:12 RADON MITIGATION VENT LOCATION FINAL LOCATION T.B.D. 6:126:12 6:126:12 SD 3 1) 3) 2) SURFACE MOUNTED SCONCE LIGHTING AS REQUIRED AT EXITS. FINAL LOCATIONS T.B.D. 4) SMOKE DETECTOR EXTERIOR CAN LIGHT HANDRAILS AND GUARDRAILS PER CODE. 5) BUILDING REFERENCE ELEVATION : 100'-0" = 7,926.38' SURVEYED ELEV. V.I.F. TO CONFIRM EXISTING BASEMENT OMITTED SLAB ON GRADE 6) 3 ROOF PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0" GENERAL NOTES NCHANGE ORDER 3 ROOF PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0" P 4 1 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM MAIN LEVEL OPT 1 006 1 1 A A B B C C 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 9 9 2 2 '-3 1 /2 " 33'-0"24'-111/2"22'-7" 1 0 '-0 1 /2 " 1 2 '-3 " 6'-0"3'-71/2"1'-11"3'-61/2"3'-61/2"3'-61/2" 4 '-1 1 1 /2 " 1 1 '-2 " 6 '-2 " 5'-5" 2 '-0 1 /2 " 1'-81/2" 33'-0"24'-111/2"22'-7" 2 2 '-3 1 /2 " 1 '-1 " 9 '-0 " 1 '-1 " 1 '-2 " 8 '-1 0 1 /2 " 6 " 5 1 /2 " 6 '-1 0 " 5 1 /2 " 2 '-1 0 " 1 '-2 " 1'-81/2" 14'-8"9'-8"8'-8"9'-71/2"15'-4"11'-31/2"11'-31/2" 4 '-1 1 1 /2 " 5 '-1 " 6 '-1 " 6 '-2 " 5'-0"51/2" 5 '-0 " 5 1 /2 " 1 012 1 012 2 012 2 012 4 012 4 012 3 012 3 012 3 011 2 010 1 009 4 010 PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE MECH ROOM 001 6 6 EXISTING WALLS TO REMAIN PROPOSED REMODEL ADDITION WALL TYPE LEGEND NPROPOSED MAIN LEVEL 1/4" = 1'-0" P 4 2 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM UPPER LEVEL OPT 1 007 1 1 A A B B C C 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 9 9 CDW 1 012 1 012 2 012 2 012 4 012 4 012 3 012 3 012 3 011 2 010 1 009 4 010 9'-73/4"15'-33/4"15'-7" 33'-0" 4 '-4 1 /2 " 7 " 1 2 '-3 " 2 '-1 1 /2 " 2 '-1 1 1 /2 " 14'-8"9'-8"8'-8"24'-111/2"5'-8"9'-11"9'-6" 33'-0"47'-61/2"2'-6" 51/2"14'-21/2"51/2"3'-21/2"51/2"13'-9"51/2" 2 2 '-3 1 /2 " 1 0 '-0 1 /2 " 1 2 '-3 " 7'-103/8"7'-53/8" 2 '-1 1 1 /2 " 4'-81/2"5'-103/4"4'-81/2"7'-1"3'-0"3'-0"2'-6" 51/2"14'-43/4"51/2" 2 '-1 1 /2 " 80'-61/2"2'-6" 9'-73/4"7'-103/8"7'-53/8"2'-10"2'-10"4'-111/2"4'-111/2" 6 '-1 1 /2 " 6 '-1 1 /2 " 1 0 1 /2 " 9 1 /2 " 5 1 /2 " 2 '-1 1 1 /2 " 4'-81/2"3'-17/8"7'-53/8" 2 '-1 1 /4 " 2'-21/2" 6 1 /2 " PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE EXIST. BEDROOM EXIST. BEDROOM DECK BATH 110 DRESSING RM 111 BEDROOM 112 DECK EXT. STAIR STAIR BATH 5 '-0 1 /8 " 5 1 /2 " 6 6 EXISTING WALLS TO REMAIN PROPOSED REMODEL ADDITION WALL TYPE LEGEND NPROPOSED UPPER LEVEL 1/4" = 1'-0" P 4 3 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM ROOF PLAN OPT 1 008 1 1 A A B B C C 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 9 9 1 012 1 012 2 012 2 012 4 012 4 012 3 012 3 012 3 011 2 010 1 009 4 010 1:12 1:12 12:1212:12 12:12 12:12 12:12 12:12 12:12 12:12 DECK BELOW DECK BELOW PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE 6 6 NPROPOSED ROOF PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0" P 4 4 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM ELEVATIONS OPT 1 009 1 2 3 A3.1 SHEET TITLE STRUCTURALCONSULTANTSMECHANICALSURVEYORGEOTECH COPYRIGHT FORUM PHI PROJECT NO:0608 DRAWN BY:SMW CIVIL CONTRACTOR DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL HPC 5/1/08 CD 6/13/08 CONSULTANTS HPC 7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL 10/23/08 REVISIONS 5/7/09 REVISIONS 08/18/10 REVISIONS ELEVATIONS 627 W. MAIN STASPEN, COLORADO 81611FORUM PHI174 Midland Ave, Suite 201P.O. Box 1606Basalt, Colorado 81621PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585DOUGLAS KELSO #### KELSO ADDITIONRocky Mountain Surveying4133 Crystal Springs Rd.Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 379-1919Fax: (970) 963-5873Yeh and Associates, Inc.170 Mel Ray RoadGlenwood Springs, CO 81601Phone: (970) 384-1500Fax: (970) 384-1501 Efficiency In Mind, LLC P.O. Box 1481 Carbondale, CO 81623 Phone: (970) 274-6336 Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd. P.O. Box 978 Avon, CO 81620 Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221 Fax: (970) 949-9339 Mozer-Renn Structural Service8573 E. Napa PlaceDenver, CO 80237Phone: (720) 212-0727Fax: (303) 484-8958 DATE OF PUBLICATION8/31/2010 23PROPOSED ADDITIONORIGINAL1888 ADDITION 200011'25'100'100'-9"109'-9"111'-1"118'-7"32 764519 T.O. PLATET.O.F.F.EXISTING V.I.F.EXISTING V.I.F.25' HEIGHT LIMITEXISTING GRADE T.O. SLAB ADDITION 2000 PROPOSED ADDITION ORIGINAL 1888 25 ' 11 ' 100' 100'-9" 109'-9" 111'-1" 118'-7" 3'-4 1/2" 3' - 8 " 2' - 7 " 5 7 3 9 1 T.O. PLATE T.O.F.F. EXISTING V.I.F. EXISTING V.I.F. 25' HEIGHT LIMIT EXISTING GRADE T.O. SLAB 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISITING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISITING BRICK STANDING SEAM 8" WOOD FASCIA TIMBER COLUMN HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 1 WEST 1/4" = 1'-0" 3 EAST 1/4" = 1'-0" PROPOSED ADDITION ORIGINAL 1888 1 6 1 5 T.O. EXISTING RIDGE 124'-3" UPPER LEVEL T.O. FF 111'-1" 9 6 6 5 4 3 2 1 10 12 9 11 7 12 11 9 6 8 7 MAIN LEVEL T.O. FF 100'-0" LOWER LEVEL T.O. FF 95'-0" 123 A3.1SHEET TITLESTRUCTURALCONSULTANTSMECHANICALSURVEYORGEOTECHCOPYRIGHTFORUM PHIPROJECT NO:0608DRAWN BY:SMWCIVILCONTRACTORDESCRIPTIONMARKDATECONCEPTUALAPPROVALHPC5/1/08CD6/13/08 CONSULTANTSHPC7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL10/23/08 REVISIONS5/7/09 REVISIONS08/18/10 REVISIONS ELEVAT IONS 627 W. MAIN STASPEN, COLORADO 81611FORUM PHI174 Midland Ave, Suite 201P.O. Box 1606Basalt, Colorado 81621PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585DOUGLAS KELSO####KELSO ADDITIONRocky Mountain Surveying4133 Crystal Springs Rd.Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 379-1919Fax: (970) 963-5873Yeh and Associates, Inc.170 Mel Ray RoadGlenwood Springs, CO 81601Phone: (970) 384-1500Fax: (970) 384-1501Efficiency In Mind, LLCP.O. Box 1481Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 274-6336Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd.P.O. Box 978Avon, CO 81620Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221Fax: (970) 949-9339Mozer-Renn Structural Service8573 E. Napa PlaceDenver, CO 80237Phone: (720) 212-0727Fax: (303) 484-8958DATE OF PUBLICATION8/31/201023PROPOSED ADDITIONORIGINAL1888 ADDITION 200011'25'100'100'-9"109'-9"111'-1"118'-7"32 764519 T.O. PLATET.O.F.F.EXISTING V.I.F.EXISTING V.I.F.25' HEIGHT LIMITEXISTING GRADE T.O. SLABADDITION 2000PROPOSED ADDITION ORIGINAL 1888 25'11'100'100'-9"109'-9"111'-1"118'-7"3'-4 1/2"3'-8"2'-7"57 391 T.O. PLATET.O.F.F.EXISTING V.I.F.EXISTING V.I.F.25' HEIGHT LIMITEXISTING GRADE T.O. SLAB 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISITING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISITING BRICK STANDING SEAM 8" WOOD FASCIA TIMBER COLUMN HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 1 WEST 1/4" = 1'-0" 3 EAST 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 2 3 ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISTING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING BRICK 4 EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE 5 EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 6 PROPOSED VERTICAL SIDING 7 PROPSED STUCCO SIDING 8 PROPOSED STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF 9 PROPOSED RAILING 10 25' HEIGHT LIMIT 11 LINE OF ADDITION PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PER CHANGE ORDER 3 12 LINE OF PROPOSED DESIGN CHANGES TO THE REAR ADDITION KEYNOTE LEGEND CHANGE ORDER 3 EAST ELEVATION 1' = 1'-0" 1 PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0" P 4 5 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM ELEVATIONS OPT 1 010 1 4 3 8 4 6 5 5 12 11 T.O. EXISTING RIDGE 124'-3" UPPER LEVEL T.O. FF 111'-1" C B A MAIN LEVEL T.O. FF 100'-0" LOWER LEVEL T.O. FF 95'-0" 6 8 7 6 9 9 1 12 T.O. EXISTING RIDGE 124'-3" UPPER LEVEL T.O. FF 111'-1" A B C MAIN LEVEL T.O. FF 100'-0" LOWER LEVEL T.O. FF 95'-0" 1 2 3 A3.2 SHEET TITLE STRUCTURALCONSULTANTS MECHANICAL SURVEYORGEOTECH COPYRIGHT FORUM PHI PROJECT NO:0608 DRAWN BY:SMW CIVIL CONTRACTOR DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL HPC 5/1/08 CD 6/13/08 CONSULTANTS HPC 7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL 10/23/08 REVISIONS 5/7/09 REVISIONS 08/18/10 REVISIONS ELEVATIONS 627 W. MAIN STASPEN, COLORADO 81611FORUM PHI174 Midland Ave, Suite 201P.O. Box 1606Basalt, Colorado 81621PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585DOUGLAS KELSO #### KELSO ADDITIONRocky Mountain Surveying4133 Crystal Springs Rd.Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 379-1919Fax: (970) 963-5873Yeh and Associates, Inc.170 Mel Ray RoadGlenwood Springs, CO 81601Phone: (970) 384-1500Fax: (970) 384-1501 Efficiency In Mind, LLC P.O. Box 1481 Carbondale, CO 81623 Phone: (970) 274-6336 Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd. P.O. Box 978 Avon, CO 81620 Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221 Fax: (970) 949-9339 Mozer-Renn Structural Service8573 E. Napa Place Denver, CO 80237 Phone: (720) 212-0727 Fax: (303) 484-8958 DATE OF PUBLICATION1/5/2016 3 18'-10 11/16"18'-10 11/16"25'100'100'-9"111'-1"118'-7"6 87POINT 3 POINT 4 15 T.O. PLATET.O.F.F.T.O. SLAB25' HEIGHT LIMITEXISTING GRADE T.O. SLAB 100' 109'-9" 111'-7 3/16" 25 ' 14 ' - 9 9/ 1 6 " 14 ' - 9 9/ 1 6 " 3 8 2 1 7 POINT 1POINT 2 5 EXISTING V.I.F. EXISTING V.I.F. EXISTING V.I.F. 25' HEIGHT LIMIT EXISTING GRADE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISITING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISITING BRICK STANDING SEAM 8" WOOD FASCIA TIMBER COLUMN HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 2 SOUTH 1/4" = 1'-0" 4 NORTH 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 2 3 A3.2 SHEET TITLE STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS MECHANICAL SURVEYOR GEOTECH COPYRIGHT FORUM PHI PROJECT NO:0608 DRAWN BY:SMW CIVIL CONTRACTOR DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL HPC 5/1/08 CD 6/13/08 CONSULTANTS HPC 7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL 10/23/08 REVISIONS 5/7/09 REVISIONS 08/18/10 REVISIONS ELEVATIONS 627 W. MAIN ST ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 FORUM PHI 174 Midland Ave, Suite 201 P.O. Box 1606 Basalt, Colorado 81621 PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585 DOUGLAS KELSO #### KELSO ADDITION Rocky Mountain Surveying 4133 Crystal Springs Rd. Carbondale, CO 81623 Phone: (970) 379-1919 Fax: (970) 963-5873 Yeh and Associates, Inc. 170 Mel Ray Road Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: (970) 384-1500 Fax: (970) 384-1501 Efficiency In Mind, LLC P.O. Box 1481 Carbondale, CO 81623 Phone: (970) 274-6336 Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd. P.O. Box 978 Avon, CO 81620 Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221 Fax: (970) 949-9339 Mozer-Renn Structural Service 8573 E. Napa Place Denver, CO 80237 Phone: (720) 212-0727 Fax: (303) 484-8958 DATE OF PUBLICATION1/5/2016 3 18 ' - 1 0 11 / 1 6 " 18 ' - 1 0 11 / 1 6 " 25 ' 100' 100'-9" 111'-1" 118'-7" 6 8 7 POINT 3 POINT 4 1 5 T.O. PLATE T.O.F.F. T.O. SLAB 25' HEIGHT LIMIT EXISTING GRADE T.O. SLAB 100' 109'-9" 111'-7 3/16" 25 ' 14 ' - 9 9/ 1 6 " 14 ' - 9 9/ 1 6 " 3 8 2 1 7 POINT 1POINT 2 5 EXISTING V.I.F. EXISTING V.I.F. EXISTING V.I.F. 25' HEIGHT LIMIT EXISTING GRADE 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9ASPHALT SHINGLEEXISITING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISITING BRICK STANDING SEAM 8" WOOD FASCIA TIMBER COLUMN HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 2 SOUTH 1/4" = 1'-0" 4 NORTH 1/4" = 1'-0" 123 A3.1SHEET TITLESTRUCTURALCONSULTANTSMECHANICALSURVEYORGEOTECHCOPYRIGHTFORUM PHIPROJECT NO:0608DRAWN BY:SMWCIVILCONTRACTORDESCRIPTIONMARKDATECONCEPTUALAPPROVALHPC5/1/08CD6/13/08 CONSULTANTSHPC7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL10/23/08 REVISIONS5/7/09 REVISIONS08/18/10 REVISIONS ELEVATIONS 627 W. MAIN STASPEN, COLORADO 81611FORUM PHI174 Midland Ave, Suite 201P.O. Box 1606Basalt, Colorado 81621PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585DOUGLAS KELSO####KELSO ADDITIONRocky Mountain Surveying4133 Crystal Springs Rd.Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 379-1919Fax: (970) 963-5873Yeh and Associates, Inc.170 Mel Ray RoadGlenwood Springs, CO 81601Phone: (970) 384-1500Fax: (970) 384-1501Efficiency In Mind, LLCP.O. Box 1481Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 274-6336Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd.P.O. Box 978Avon, CO 81620Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221Fax: (970) 949-9339Mozer-Renn Structural Service8573 E. Napa PlaceDenver, CO 80237Phone: (720) 212-0727Fax: (303) 484-8958DATE OF PUBLICATION8/31/201023PROPOSED ADDITIONORIGINAL1888 ADDITION 200011'25'100'100'-9"109'-9"111'-1"118'-7"32 764519 T.O. PLATET.O.F.F.EXISTING V.I.F.EXISTING V.I.F.25' HEIGHT LIMITEXISTING GRADE T.O. SLABADDITION 2000PROPOSED ADDITION ORIGINAL 1888 25'11 '100'100'-9"109'-9"111'-1"118'-7"3'-4 1/2"3'-8"2'-7"57 391 T.O. PLATET.O.F.F.EXISTING V.I.F.EXISTING V.I.F.25' HEIGHT LIMITEXISTING GRADE T.O. SLAB 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISITING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISITING BRICK STANDING SEAM 8" WOOD FASCIA TIMBER COLUMN HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 1 WEST 1/4" = 1'-0" 3 EAST 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 2 3 ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISTING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING BRICK 4 EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE 5 EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 6 PROPOSED VERTICAL SIDING 7 PROPSED STUCCO SIDING 8 PROPOSED STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF 9 PROPOSED RAILING 10 25' HEIGHT LIMIT 11 LINE OF ADDITION PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PER CHANGE ORDER 3 12 LINE OF PROPOSED DESIGN CHANGES TO THE REAR ADDITION KEYNOTE LEGEND 4 PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0"2 PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0" CHANGE ORDER 3 NORTH ELEVATION 1' = 1'-0"CHANGE ORDER 3 SOUTH ELEVATION 1' = 1'-0" HEIGHT OF ROOF IS INACCURATELY SHOWN IN THE CHANGE ORDER 3 DRAWINGS VERIFICATION IN FIELD CONFIRMS THAT THIS ROOF IS 24'-3" ABOVE PROJECT 100' P 4 6 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM ELEVATIONS OPT 1 011 1 2 3 A3.1 SHEET TITLE STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS MECHANICAL SURVEYOR GEOTECH COPYRIGHT FORUM PHI PROJECT NO:0608 DRAWN BY:SMW CIVIL CONTRACTOR DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL HPC 5/1/08 CD 6/13/08 CONSULTANTS HPC 7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL 10/23/08 REVISIONS 5/7/09 REVISIONS 08/18/10 REVISIONS ELEVATIONS 627 W. MAIN ST ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 FORUM PHI 174 Midland Ave, Suite 201 P.O. Box 1606 Basalt, Colorado 81621 PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585 DOUGLAS KELSO #### KELSO ADDITION Rocky Mountain Surveying 4133 Crystal Springs Rd. Carbondale, CO 81623 Phone: (970) 379-1919 Fax: (970) 963-5873 Yeh and Associates, Inc. 170 Mel Ray Road Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: (970) 384-1500 Fax: (970) 384-1501 Efficiency In Mind, LLC P.O. Box 1481 Carbondale, CO 81623 Phone: (970) 274-6336 Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd. P.O. Box 978 Avon, CO 81620 Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221 Fax: (970) 949-9339 Mozer-Renn Structural Service 8573 E. Napa Place Denver, CO 80237 Phone: (720) 212-0727 Fax: (303) 484-8958 DATE OF PUBLICATION8/31/2010 2 3 PROPOSED ADDITIONORIGINAL1888 ADDITION 2000 11' 25 ' 100' 100'-9" 109'-9" 111'-1" 118'-7" 3 2 7 6 4 5 1 9 T.O. PLATE T.O.F.F. EXISTING V.I.F. EXISTING V.I.F. 25' HEIGHT LIMIT EXISTING GRADE T.O. SLAB ADDITION 2000 PROPOSED ADDITION ORIGINAL 1888 25 ' 11' 100' 100'-9" 109'-9" 111'-1" 118'-7" 3'-4 1/2" 3' - 8 " 2' - 7 " 5 7 3 9 1 T.O. PLATE T.O.F.F. EXISTING V.I.F. EXISTING V.I.F. 25' HEIGHT LIMIT EXISTING GRADE T.O. SLAB 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISITING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISITING BRICK STANDING SEAM 8" WOOD FASCIA TIMBER COLUMN HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 1 WEST 1/4" = 1'-0" 3 EAST 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 2 3 4 5 6 9 9'-71/2" ORIGINAL 1888 PROPOSED ADDITION 3 1 1 8 6 2 9 7 6 9 10 12 T.O. EXISTING RIDGE 124'-3" UPPER LEVEL T.O. FF 111'-1" 6 7 11 MAIN LEVEL T.O. FF 100'-0" LOWER LEVEL T.O. FF 95'-0" 123 A3.1SHEET TITLESTRUCTURALCONSULTANTSMECHANICALSURVEYORGEOTECHCOPYRIGHTFORUM PHIPROJECT NO:0608DRAWN BY:SMWCIVILCONTRACTORDESCRIPTIONMARKDATECONCEPTUALAPPROVALHPC5/1/08CD6/13/08 CONSULTANTSHPC7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL10/23/08 REVISIONS5/7/09 REVISIONS08/18/10 REVISIONS ELEVATIONS 627 W. MAIN STASPEN, COLORADO 81611FORUM PHI174 Midland Ave, Suite 201P.O. Box 1606Basalt, Colorado 81621PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585DOUGLAS KELSO####KELSO ADDITIONRocky Mountain Surveying4133 Crystal Springs Rd.Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 379-1919Fax: (970) 963-5873Yeh and Associates, Inc.170 Mel Ray RoadGlenwood Springs, CO 81601Phone: (970) 384-1500Fax: (970) 384-1501Efficiency In Mind, LLCP.O. Box 1481Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 274-6336Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd.P.O. Box 978Avon, CO 81620Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221Fax: (970) 949-9339Mozer-Renn Structural Service8573 E. Napa PlaceDenver, CO 80237Phone: (720) 212-0727Fax: (303) 484-8958DATE OF PUBLICATION8/31/201023PROPOSED ADDITIONORIGINAL1888 ADDITION 200011'25'100'100'-9"109'-9"111'-1"118'-7"32 764519 T.O. PLATET.O.F.F.EXISTING V.I.F.EXISTING V.I.F.25' HEIGHT LIMITEXISTING GRADE T.O. SLABADDITION 2000PROPOSED ADDITION ORIGINAL 1888 25'11'100'100'-9"109'-9"111'-1"118'-7"3'-4 1/2"3'-8"2'-7"57 391 T.O. PLATET.O.F.F.EXISTING V.I.F.EXISTING V.I.F.25' HEIGHT LIMITEXISTING GRADE T.O. SLAB 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISITING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISITING BRICK STANDING SEAM 8" WOOD FASCIA TIMBER COLUMN HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 1 WEST 1/4" = 1'-0" 3 EAST 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 2 3 ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISTING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING BRICK 4 EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE 5 EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 6 PROPOSED VERTICAL SIDING 7 PROPSED STUCCO SIDING 8 PROPOSED STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF 9 PROPOSED RAILING 10 25' HEIGHT LIMIT 11 LINE OF ADDITION PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PER CHANGE ORDER 3 12 LINE OF PROPOSED DESIGN CHANGES TO THE REAR ADDITION KEYNOTE LEGEND CHANGE ORDER 3 WEST ELEVATION 1' = 1'-0" 3 PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0" HEIGHT OF ROOF IS INACCURATELY SHOWN IN THE CHANGE ORDER 3 DRAWINGS VERIFICATION IN FIELD CONFIRMS THAT THIS ROOF IS 24'-3" ABOVE PROJECT 100' P 4 7 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM SECTIONS OPT 1 012 DRESSING RM 111 BEDROOM 112 DECKDECK 1 2 3 4 5 6 6 9 T.O. EXISTING RIDGE 124'-3" UPPER LEVEL T.O. FF 111'-1" MAIN LEVEL T.O. FF 100'-0" LOWER LEVEL T.O. FF 95'-0" BATH 110 ABC T.O. EXISTING RIDGE 124'-3" UPPER LEVEL T.O. FF 111'-1" DRESSING RM 111 MAIN LEVEL T.O. FF 100'-0" BATH 110 A B C T.O. EXISTING RIDGE 124'-3" UPPER LEVEL T.O. FF 111'-1" DRESSING RM 111 MAIN LEVEL T.O. FF 100'-0" 112 C B A T.O. EXISTING RIDGE 124'-3" UPPER LEVEL T.O. FF 111'-1" BEDROOM MAIN LEVEL T.O. FF 100'-0" EXISTING WALLS TO REMAIN PROPOSED REMODEL ADDITION WALL TYPE LEGEND 1 SECTION 1/4" = 1'-0" 2 SECTION 1/4" = 1'-0"3 SECTION 1/4" = 1'-0"4 SECTION 1/4" = 1'-0" P 4 8 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM 3D VIEW OPT 1 013 1 2 3 ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISTING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING BRICK 4 EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE 5 EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 6 PROPOSED VERTICAL SIDING 7 PROPSED STUCCO SIDING 8 PROPOSED STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF 9 PROPOSED RAILING 10 25' HEIGHT LIMIT 11 LINE OF ADDITION PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PER CHANGE ORDER 3 12 LINE OF PROPOSED DESIGN CHANGES TO THE REAR ADDITION KEYNOTE LEGEND SOUTHWEST PERSPECTIVE 1 9 8 3 6 7 5 7 9 8 6 9 2 P 4 9 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM 3D VIEW OPT 1 014 1 2 3 ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISTING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING BRICK 4 EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE 5 EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 6 PROPOSED VERTICAL SIDING 7 PROPSED STUCCO SIDING 8 PROPOSED STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF 9 PROPOSED RAILING 10 25' HEIGHT LIMIT 11 LINE OF ADDITION PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PER CHANGE ORDER 3 12 LINE OF PROPOSED DESIGN CHANGES TO THE REAR ADDITION KEYNOTE LEGEND SOUTHEAST PERSPECTIVE 8 9 6 1 2 3 7 5 6 8 6 7 P 5 0 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM 3D VIEW OPT 1 015 1 2 3 ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISTING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING BRICK 4 EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE 5 EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 6 PROPOSED VERTICAL SIDING 7 PROPSED STUCCO SIDING 8 PROPOSED STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF 9 PROPOSED RAILING 10 25' HEIGHT LIMIT 11 LINE OF ADDITION PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PER CHANGE ORDER 3 12 LINE OF PROPOSED DESIGN CHANGES TO THE REAR ADDITION KEYNOTE LEGEND NORTHEAST PERSPECTIVE 4 5 1 8 6 3 7 6 1 4 P 5 1 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM 3D VIEW OPT 1 016 1 2 3 ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISTING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING BRICK 4 EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE 5 EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 6 PROPOSED VERTICAL SIDING 7 PROPSED STUCCO SIDING 8 PROPOSED STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF 9 PROPOSED RAILING 10 25' HEIGHT LIMIT 11 LINE OF ADDITION PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PER CHANGE ORDER 3 12 LINE OF PROPOSED DESIGN CHANGES TO THE REAR ADDITION KEYNOTE LEGEND NORTHWEST PERSPECTIVE 5 4 3 2 6 9 9 1 9 4 9 P 5 2 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM MAIN LEVEL OPT 2 017 1 1 A A B B C C 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 9 9 2 2 '-3 1 /2 " 33'-0"24'-111/2"22'-7" 1 0 '-0 1 /2 " 1 2 '-3 " 6'-0"3'-71/2"1'-11"3'-61/2"3'-61/2"3'-61/2" 4 '-1 1 1 /2 " 1 1 '-2 " 6 '-2 " 5'-5" 2 '-0 1 /2 " 1'-81/2" 33'-0"24'-111/2"22'-7" 2 2 '-3 1 /2 " 1 '-1 " 9 '-0 " 1 '-1 " 1 '-2 " 8 '-1 0 1 /2 " 6 " 5 1 /2 " 6 '-1 0 " 5 1 /2 " 2 '-1 0 " 1 '-2 " 1'-81/2" 14'-8"9'-8"8'-8"9'-71/2"15'-4"11'-31/2"11'-31/2" 4 '-1 1 1 /2 " 5 '-1 " 6 '-1 " 6 '-2 " 5'-0"51/2" 5 '-0 " 5 1 /2 " 1 023 1 023 2 023 2 023 4 023 4 023 3 023 3 023 3 022 2 021 1 020 4 021 PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE MECH ROOM 001 6 6 EXISTING WALLS TO REMAIN PROPOSED REMODEL ADDITION WALL TYPE LEGEND NPROPOSED MAIN LEVEL 1/4" = 1'-0" P 5 3 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM UPPER LEVEL OPT 2 018 1 1 A A B B C C 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 9 9 CDW 1 023 1 023 2 023 2 023 4 023 4 023 3 023 3 023 3 022 2 021 1 020 4 021 9'-73/4"15'-33/4"15'-7" 33'-0" 4 '-4 1 /2 " 7 " 1 2 '-3 " 2 '-1 1 /2 " 2 '-1 1 1 /2 " 14'-8"9'-8"8'-8"24'-111/2"5'-8"9'-11"9'-6" 33'-0"47'-61/2"2'-6" 51/2"14'-21/2"51/2"3'-21/2"51/2"13'-9"51/2" 2 2 '-3 1 /2 " 1 0 '-0 1 /2 " 1 2 '-3 " 7'-103/8"7'-53/8" 2 '-1 1 1 /2 " 4'-81/2"5'-103/4"4'-81/2"7'-1"3'-0"3'-0"2'-6" 51/2"14'-43/4"51/2" 2 '-1 1 /2 " 80'-61/2"2'-6" 9'-73/4"7'-103/8"7'-53/8"2'-10"2'-10"4'-111/2"4'-111/2" 6 '-1 1 /2 " 6 '-1 1 /2 " 1 0 1 /2 " 9 1 /2 " 5 1 /2 " 2 '-1 1 1 /2 " 4'-81/2"3'-17/8"7'-53/8" 2 '-6 3 /4 " 2'-21/2" 6 1 /2 " PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE EXIST. BEDROOM EXIST. BEDROOM DECK BATH 110 DRESSING RM 111 BEDROOM 112 DECK EXT. STAIR STAIR BATH 5 '-0 1 /8 " 5 1 /2 " 6 6 EXISTING WALLS TO REMAIN PROPOSED REMODEL ADDITION WALL TYPE LEGEND NPROPOSED UPPER LEVEL 1/4" = 1'-0" P 5 4 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM ROOF PLAN OPT 2 019 1 1 A A B B C C 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 9 9 1 023 1 023 2 023 2 023 4 023 4 023 3 023 3 023 3 022 2 021 1 020 4 021 4 3/8:12 4 3/8:124 3/8:12 4 3/8:12 DECK BELOW DECK BELOW PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE 6 6 NPROPOSED ROOF PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0" P 5 5 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM ELEVATIONS OPT 2 020 1 2 3 A3.1 SHEET TITLE STRUCTURALCONSULTANTSMECHANICALSURVEYORGEOTECH COPYRIGHT FORUM PHI PROJECT NO:0608 DRAWN BY:SMW CIVIL CONTRACTOR DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL HPC 5/1/08 CD 6/13/08 CONSULTANTS HPC 7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL 10/23/08 REVISIONS 5/7/09 REVISIONS 08/18/10 REVISIONS ELEVATIONS 627 W. MAIN STASPEN, COLORADO 81611FORUM PHI174 Midland Ave, Suite 201P.O. Box 1606Basalt, Colorado 81621PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585DOUGLAS KELSO #### KELSO ADDITIONRocky Mountain Surveying4133 Crystal Springs Rd.Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 379-1919Fax: (970) 963-5873Yeh and Associates, Inc.170 Mel Ray RoadGlenwood Springs, CO 81601Phone: (970) 384-1500Fax: (970) 384-1501 Efficiency In Mind, LLC P.O. Box 1481 Carbondale, CO 81623 Phone: (970) 274-6336 Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd. P.O. Box 978 Avon, CO 81620 Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221 Fax: (970) 949-9339 Mozer-Renn Structural Service8573 E. Napa PlaceDenver, CO 80237Phone: (720) 212-0727Fax: (303) 484-8958 DATE OF PUBLICATION8/31/2010 23PROPOSED ADDITIONORIGINAL1888 ADDITION 200011'25'100'100'-9"109'-9"111'-1"118'-7"32 764519 T.O. PLATET.O.F.F.EXISTING V.I.F.EXISTING V.I.F.25' HEIGHT LIMITEXISTING GRADE T.O. SLAB ADDITION 2000 PROPOSED ADDITION ORIGINAL 1888 25 ' 11 ' 100' 100'-9" 109'-9" 111'-1" 118'-7" 3'-4 1/2" 3' - 8 " 2' - 7 " 5 7 3 9 1 T.O. PLATE T.O.F.F. EXISTING V.I.F. EXISTING V.I.F. 25' HEIGHT LIMIT EXISTING GRADE T.O. SLAB 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISITING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISITING BRICK STANDING SEAM 8" WOOD FASCIA TIMBER COLUMN HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 1 WEST 1/4" = 1'-0" 3 EAST 1/4" = 1'-0" PROPOSED ADDITION ORIGINAL 1888 1 6 1 5 T.O. EXISTING RIDGE 124'-3" UPPER LEVEL T.O. FF 111'-1" 9 6 6 5 4 3 2 1 10 12 11 7 12 11 9 6 8 7 9 MAIN LEVEL T.O. FF 100'-0" LOWER LEVEL T.O. FF 95'-0" 123 A3.1SHEET TITLESTRUCTURALCONSULTANTSMECHANICALSURVEYORGEOTECHCOPYRIGHTFORUM PHIPROJECT NO:0608DRAWN BY:SMWCIVILCONTRACTORDESCRIPTIONMARKDATECONCEPTUALAPPROVALHPC5/1/08CD6/13/08 CONSULTANTSHPC7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL10/23/08 REVISIONS5/7/09 REVISIONS08/18/10 REVISIONS ELEVAT IONS 627 W. MAIN STASPEN, COLORADO 81611FORUM PHI174 Midland Ave, Suite 201P.O. Box 1606Basalt, Colorado 81621PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585DOUGLAS KELSO####KELSO ADDITIONRocky Mountain Surveying4133 Crystal Springs Rd.Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 379-1919Fax: (970) 963-5873Yeh and Associates, Inc.170 Mel Ray RoadGlenwood Springs, CO 81601Phone: (970) 384-1500Fax: (970) 384-1501Efficiency In Mind, LLCP.O. Box 1481Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 274-6336Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd.P.O. Box 978Avon, CO 81620Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221Fax: (970) 949-9339Mozer-Renn Structural Service8573 E. Napa PlaceDenver, CO 80237Phone: (720) 212-0727Fax: (303) 484-8958DATE OF PUBLICATION8/31/201023PROPOSED ADDITIONORIGINAL1888 ADDITION 200011'25'100'100'-9"109'-9"111'-1"118'-7"32 764519 T.O. PLATET.O.F.F.EXISTING V.I.F.EXISTING V.I.F.25' HEIGHT LIMITEXISTING GRADE T.O. SLABADDITION 2000PROPOSED ADDITION ORIGINAL 1888 25'11'100'100'-9"109'-9"111'-1"118'-7"3'-4 1/2"3'-8"2'-7"57 391 T.O. PLATET.O.F.F.EXISTING V.I.F.EXISTING V.I.F.25' HEIGHT LIMITEXISTING GRADE T.O. SLAB 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISITING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISITING BRICK STANDING SEAM 8" WOOD FASCIA TIMBER COLUMN HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 1 WEST 1/4" = 1'-0" 3 EAST 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 2 3 ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISTING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING BRICK 4 EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE 5 EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 6 PROPOSED VERTICAL SIDING 7 PROPSED HORIZONTAL SIDING 8 PROPOSED STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF 9 PROPOSED RAILING 10 25' HEIGHT LIMIT 11 LINE OF ADDITION PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PER CHANGE ORDER 3 12 LINE OF PROPOSED DESIGN CHANGES TO THE REAR ADDITION KEYNOTE LEGEND CHANGE ORDER 3 EAST ELEVATION 1' = 1'-0" 1 PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0" P 5 6 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM ELEVATIONS OPT 2 021 4 3 1 8 4 6 5 5 12 11 T.O. EXISTING RIDGE 124'-3" UPPER LEVEL T.O. FF 111'-1" C B A MAIN LEVEL T.O. FF 100'-0" LOWER LEVEL T.O. FF 95'-0" 6 8 7 6 9 9 1 12 T.O. EXISTING RIDGE 124'-3" UPPER LEVEL T.O. FF 111'-1" A B C MAIN LEVEL T.O. FF 100'-0" LOWER LEVEL T.O. FF 95'-0" 1 2 3 A3.2 SHEET TITLE STRUCTURALCONSULTANTS MECHANICAL SURVEYORGEOTECH COPYRIGHT FORUM PHI PROJECT NO:0608 DRAWN BY:SMW CIVIL CONTRACTOR DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL HPC 5/1/08 CD 6/13/08 CONSULTANTS HPC 7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL 10/23/08 REVISIONS 5/7/09 REVISIONS 08/18/10 REVISIONS ELEVATIONS 627 W. MAIN STASPEN, COLORADO 81611FORUM PHI174 Midland Ave, Suite 201P.O. Box 1606Basalt, Colorado 81621PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585DOUGLAS KELSO #### KELSO ADDITIONRocky Mountain Surveying4133 Crystal Springs Rd.Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 379-1919Fax: (970) 963-5873Yeh and Associates, Inc.170 Mel Ray RoadGlenwood Springs, CO 81601Phone: (970) 384-1500Fax: (970) 384-1501 Efficiency In Mind, LLC P.O. Box 1481 Carbondale, CO 81623 Phone: (970) 274-6336 Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd. P.O. Box 978 Avon, CO 81620 Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221 Fax: (970) 949-9339 Mozer-Renn Structural Service8573 E. Napa Place Denver, CO 80237 Phone: (720) 212-0727 Fax: (303) 484-8958 DATE OF PUBLICATION1/5/2016 3 18'-10 11/16"18'-10 11/16"25'100'100'-9"111'-1"118'-7"6 87POINT 3 POINT 4 15 T.O. PLATET.O.F.F.T.O. SLAB25' HEIGHT LIMITEXISTING GRADE T.O. SLAB 100' 109'-9" 111'-7 3/16" 25 ' 14 ' - 9 9/ 1 6 " 14 ' - 9 9/ 1 6 " 3 8 2 1 7 POINT 1POINT 2 5 EXISTING V.I.F. EXISTING V.I.F. EXISTING V.I.F. 25' HEIGHT LIMIT EXISTING GRADE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISITING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISITING BRICK STANDING SEAM 8" WOOD FASCIA TIMBER COLUMN HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 2 SOUTH 1/4" = 1'-0" 4 NORTH 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 2 3 A3.2 SHEET TITLE STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS MECHANICAL SURVEYOR GEOTECH COPYRIGHT FORUM PHI PROJECT NO:0608 DRAWN BY:SMW CIVIL CONTRACTOR DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL HPC 5/1/08 CD 6/13/08 CONSULTANTS HPC 7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL 10/23/08 REVISIONS 5/7/09 REVISIONS 08/18/10 REVISIONS ELEVATIONS 627 W. MAIN ST ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 FORUM PHI 174 Midland Ave, Suite 201 P.O. Box 1606 Basalt, Colorado 81621 PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585 DOUGLAS KELSO #### KELSO ADDITION Rocky Mountain Surveying 4133 Crystal Springs Rd. Carbondale, CO 81623 Phone: (970) 379-1919 Fax: (970) 963-5873 Yeh and Associates, Inc. 170 Mel Ray Road Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: (970) 384-1500 Fax: (970) 384-1501 Efficiency In Mind, LLC P.O. Box 1481 Carbondale, CO 81623 Phone: (970) 274-6336 Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd. P.O. Box 978 Avon, CO 81620 Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221 Fax: (970) 949-9339 Mozer-Renn Structural Service 8573 E. Napa Place Denver, CO 80237 Phone: (720) 212-0727 Fax: (303) 484-8958 DATE OF PUBLICATION1/5/2016 3 18 ' - 1 0 11 / 1 6 " 18 ' - 1 0 11 / 1 6 " 25 ' 100' 100'-9" 111'-1" 118'-7" 6 8 7 POINT 3 POINT 4 1 5 T.O. PLATE T.O.F.F. T.O. SLAB 25' HEIGHT LIMIT EXISTING GRADE T.O. SLAB 100' 109'-9" 111'-7 3/16" 25 ' 14 ' - 9 9/ 1 6 " 14 ' - 9 9/ 1 6 " 3 8 2 1 7 POINT 1POINT 2 5 EXISTING V.I.F. EXISTING V.I.F. EXISTING V.I.F. 25' HEIGHT LIMIT EXISTING GRADE 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9ASPHALT SHINGLEEXISITING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISITING BRICK STANDING SEAM 8" WOOD FASCIA TIMBER COLUMN HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 2 SOUTH 1/4" = 1'-0" 4 NORTH 1/4" = 1'-0" 123 A3.1SHEET TITLESTRUCTURALCONSULTANTSMECHANICALSURVEYORGEOTECHCOPYRIGHTFORUM PHIPROJECT NO:0608DRAWN BY:SMWCIVILCONTRACTORDESCRIPTIONMARKDATECONCEPTUALAPPROVALHPC5/1/08CD6/13/08 CONSULTANTSHPC7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL10/23/08 REVISIONS5/7/09 REVISIONS08/18/10 REVISIONS ELEVATIONS 627 W. MAIN STASPEN, COLORADO 81611FORUM PHI174 Midland Ave, Suite 201P.O. Box 1606Basalt, Colorado 81621PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585DOUGLAS KELSO####KELSO ADDITIONRocky Mountain Surveying4133 Crystal Springs Rd.Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 379-1919Fax: (970) 963-5873Yeh and Associates, Inc.170 Mel Ray RoadGlenwood Springs, CO 81601Phone: (970) 384-1500Fax: (970) 384-1501Efficiency In Mind, LLCP.O. Box 1481Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 274-6336Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd.P.O. Box 978Avon, CO 81620Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221Fax: (970) 949-9339Mozer-Renn Structural Service8573 E. Napa PlaceDenver, CO 80237Phone: (720) 212-0727Fax: (303) 484-8958DATE OF PUBLICATION8/31/201023PROPOSED ADDITIONORIGINAL1888 ADDITION 200011'25'100'100'-9"109'-9"111'-1"118'-7"32 764519 T.O. PLATET.O.F.F.EXISTING V.I.F.EXISTING V.I.F.25' HEIGHT LIMITEXISTING GRADE T.O. SLABADDITION 2000PROPOSED ADDITION ORIGINAL 1888 25'11 '100'100'-9"109'-9"111'-1"118'-7"3'-4 1/2"3'-8"2'-7"57 391 T.O. PLATET.O.F.F.EXISTING V.I.F.EXISTING V.I.F.25' HEIGHT LIMITEXISTING GRADE T.O. SLAB 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISITING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISITING BRICK STANDING SEAM 8" WOOD FASCIA TIMBER COLUMN HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 1 WEST 1/4" = 1'-0" 3 EAST 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 2 3 ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISTING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING BRICK 4 EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE 5 EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 6 PROPOSED VERTICAL SIDING 7 PROPSED HORIZONTAL SIDING 8 PROPOSED STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF 9 PROPOSED RAILING 10 25' HEIGHT LIMIT 11 LINE OF ADDITION PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PER CHANGE ORDER 3 12 LINE OF PROPOSED DESIGN CHANGES TO THE REAR ADDITION KEYNOTE LEGEND 4 PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0"2 PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0" CHANGE ORDER 3 NORTH ELEVATION 1' = 1'-0"CHANGE ORDER 3 SOUTH ELEVATION 1' = 1'-0" HEIGHT OF ROOF IS INACCURATELY SHOWN IN THE CHANGE ORDER 3 DRAWINGS VERIFICATION IN FIELD CONFIRMS THAT THIS ROOF IS 24'-3" ABOVE PROJECT 100' P 5 7 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM ELEVATIONS OPT 2 022 1 2 3 A3.1 SHEET TITLE STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS MECHANICAL SURVEYOR GEOTECH COPYRIGHT FORUM PHI PROJECT NO:0608 DRAWN BY:SMW CIVIL CONTRACTOR DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL HPC 5/1/08 CD 6/13/08 CONSULTANTS HPC 7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL 10/23/08 REVISIONS 5/7/09 REVISIONS 08/18/10 REVISIONS ELEVATIONS 627 W. MAIN ST ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 FORUM PHI 174 Midland Ave, Suite 201 P.O. Box 1606 Basalt, Colorado 81621 PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585 DOUGLAS KELSO #### KELSO ADDITION Rocky Mountain Surveying 4133 Crystal Springs Rd. Carbondale, CO 81623 Phone: (970) 379-1919 Fax: (970) 963-5873 Yeh and Associates, Inc. 170 Mel Ray Road Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: (970) 384-1500 Fax: (970) 384-1501 Efficiency In Mind, LLC P.O. Box 1481 Carbondale, CO 81623 Phone: (970) 274-6336 Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd. P.O. Box 978 Avon, CO 81620 Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221 Fax: (970) 949-9339 Mozer-Renn Structural Service 8573 E. Napa Place Denver, CO 80237 Phone: (720) 212-0727 Fax: (303) 484-8958 DATE OF PUBLICATION8/31/2010 2 3 PROPOSED ADDITIONORIGINAL1888 ADDITION 2000 11' 25 ' 100' 100'-9" 109'-9" 111'-1" 118'-7" 3 2 7 6 4 5 1 9 T.O. PLATE T.O.F.F. EXISTING V.I.F. EXISTING V.I.F. 25' HEIGHT LIMIT EXISTING GRADE T.O. SLAB ADDITION 2000 PROPOSED ADDITION ORIGINAL 1888 25 ' 11' 100' 100'-9" 109'-9" 111'-1" 118'-7" 3'-4 1/2" 3' - 8 " 2' - 7 " 5 7 3 9 1 T.O. PLATE T.O.F.F. EXISTING V.I.F. EXISTING V.I.F. 25' HEIGHT LIMIT EXISTING GRADE T.O. SLAB 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISITING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISITING BRICK STANDING SEAM 8" WOOD FASCIA TIMBER COLUMN HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 1 WEST 1/4" = 1'-0" 3 EAST 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 2 3 4 5 6 9 9'-71/2" ORIGINAL 1888 PROPOSED ADDITION 3 1 1 2 8 6 9 7 6 10 12 9 T.O. EXISTING RIDGE 124'-3" UPPER LEVEL T.O. FF 111'-1" 6 7 11 MAIN LEVEL T.O. FF 100'-0" LOWER LEVEL T.O. FF 95'-0" 123 A3.1SHEET TITLESTRUCTURALCONSULTANTSMECHANICALSURVEYORGEOTECHCOPYRIGHTFORUM PHIPROJECT NO:0608DRAWN BY:SMWCIVILCONTRACTORDESCRIPTIONMARKDATECONCEPTUALAPPROVALHPC5/1/08CD6/13/08 CONSULTANTSHPC7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL10/23/08 REVISIONS5/7/09 REVISIONS08/18/10 REVISIONS ELEVATIONS 627 W. MAIN STASPEN, COLORADO 81611FORUM PHI174 Midland Ave, Suite 201P.O. Box 1606Basalt, Colorado 81621PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585DOUGLAS KELSO####KELSO ADDITIONRocky Mountain Surveying4133 Crystal Springs Rd.Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 379-1919Fax: (970) 963-5873Yeh and Associates, Inc.170 Mel Ray RoadGlenwood Springs, CO 81601Phone: (970) 384-1500Fax: (970) 384-1501Efficiency In Mind, LLCP.O. Box 1481Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 274-6336Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd.P.O. Box 978Avon, CO 81620Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221Fax: (970) 949-9339Mozer-Renn Structural Service8573 E. Napa PlaceDenver, CO 80237Phone: (720) 212-0727Fax: (303) 484-8958DATE OF PUBLICATION8/31/201023PROPOSED ADDITIONORIGINAL1888 ADDITION 200011'25'100'100'-9"109'-9"111'-1"118'-7"32 764519 T.O. PLATET.O.F.F.EXISTING V.I.F.EXISTING V.I.F.25' HEIGHT LIMITEXISTING GRADE T.O. SLABADDITION 2000PROPOSED ADDITION ORIGINAL 1888 25'11'100'100'-9"109'-9"111'-1"118'-7"3'-4 1/2"3'-8"2'-7"57 391 T.O. PLATET.O.F.F.EXISTING V.I.F.EXISTING V.I.F.25' HEIGHT LIMITEXISTING GRADE T.O. SLAB 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISITING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISITING BRICK STANDING SEAM 8" WOOD FASCIA TIMBER COLUMN HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 1 WEST 1/4" = 1'-0" 3 EAST 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 2 3 ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISTING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING BRICK 4 EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE 5 EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 6 PROPOSED VERTICAL SIDING 7 PROPSED HORIZONTAL SIDING 8 PROPOSED STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF 9 PROPOSED RAILING 10 25' HEIGHT LIMIT 11 LINE OF ADDITION PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PER CHANGE ORDER 3 12 LINE OF PROPOSED DESIGN CHANGES TO THE REAR ADDITION KEYNOTE LEGEND CHANGE ORDER 3 WEST ELEVATION 1' = 1'-0" 3 PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0" HEIGHT OF ROOF IS INACCURATELY SHOWN IN THE CHANGE ORDER 3 DRAWINGS VERIFICATION IN FIELD CONFIRMS THAT THIS ROOF IS 24'-3" ABOVE PROJECT 100' P 5 8 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM SECTIONS OPT 2 023 DRESSING RM 111 BEDROOM 112 DECKDECK 1 2 3 4 5 6 6 9 T.O. EXISTING RIDGE 124'-3" UPPER LEVEL T.O. FF 111'-1" MAIN LEVEL T.O. FF 100'-0" LOWER LEVEL T.O. FF 95'-0" BATH 110 ABC T.O. EXISTING RIDGE 124'-3" UPPER LEVEL T.O. FF 111'-1" DRESSING RM 111 MAIN LEVEL T.O. FF 100'-0" BATH 110 A B C T.O. EXISTING RIDGE 124'-3" UPPER LEVEL T.O. FF 111'-1" DRESSING RM 111 MAIN LEVEL T.O. FF 100'-0" 112 C B A T.O. EXISTING RIDGE 124'-3" UPPER LEVEL T.O. FF 111'-1" BEDROOM MAIN LEVEL T.O. FF 100'-0" EXISTING WALLS TO REMAIN PROPOSED REMODEL ADDITION WALL TYPE LEGEND 1 SECTION SD 2 1/4" = 1'-0" 2 SECTION SD 2 1/4" = 1'-0"3 SECTION SD 2 1/4" = 1'-0"4 SECTION SD 2 1/4" = 1'-0" P 5 9 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM 3D VIEW OPT 2 024 1 2 3 ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISTING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING BRICK 4 EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE 5 EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 6 PROPOSED VERTICAL SIDING 7 PROPSED HORIZONTAL SIDING 8 PROPOSED STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF 9 PROPOSED RAILING 10 25' HEIGHT LIMIT 11 LINE OF ADDITION PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PER CHANGE ORDER 3 12 LINE OF PROPOSED DESIGN CHANGES TO THE REAR ADDITION KEYNOTE LEGEND SOUTHWEST PERSPECTIVE 1 9 8 3 6 7 5 7 9 8 6 9 2 P 6 0 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM 3D VIEW OPT 2 025 1 2 3 ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISTING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING BRICK 4 EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE 5 EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 6 PROPOSED VERTICAL SIDING 7 PROPSED HORIZONTAL SIDING 8 PROPOSED STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF 9 PROPOSED RAILING 10 25' HEIGHT LIMIT 11 LINE OF ADDITION PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PER CHANGE ORDER 3 12 LINE OF PROPOSED DESIGN CHANGES TO THE REAR ADDITION KEYNOTE LEGEND SOUTHEAST PERSPECTIVE 8 9 6 1 2 3 7 5 6 8 6 9 7 P 6 1 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM 3D VIEW OPT 2 026 1 2 3 ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISTING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING BRICK 4 EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE 5 EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 6 PROPOSED VERTICAL SIDING 7 PROPSED HORIZONTAL SIDING 8 PROPOSED STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF 9 PROPOSED RAILING 10 25' HEIGHT LIMIT 11 LINE OF ADDITION PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PER CHANGE ORDER 3 12 LINE OF PROPOSED DESIGN CHANGES TO THE REAR ADDITION KEYNOTE LEGEND NORTHEAST PERSPECTIVE 4 5 1 8 6 3 7 6 1 4 P 6 2 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM 3D VIEW OPT 2 027 1 2 3 ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISTING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING BRICK 4 EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE 5 EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 6 PROPOSED VERTICAL SIDING 7 PROPSED HORIZONTAL SIDING 8 PROPOSED STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF 9 PROPOSED RAILING 10 25' HEIGHT LIMIT 11 LINE OF ADDITION PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PER CHANGE ORDER 3 12 LINE OF PROPOSED DESIGN CHANGES TO THE REAR ADDITION KEYNOTE LEGEND NORTHWEST PERSPECTIVE 5 4 3 2 8 6 9 9 1 9 4 9 P 6 3 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM MAIN LEVEL OPT 3 028 1 1 A A B B C C 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 9 9 2 2 '-3 1 /2 " 33'-0"24'-111/2"22'-7" 1 0 '-0 1 /2 " 1 2 '-3 " 6'-0"3'-71/2"1'-11"3'-61/2"3'-61/2"3'-61/2" 4 '-1 1 1 /2 " 1 1 '-2 " 6 '-2 " 5'-5" 2 '-0 1 /2 " 1'-81/2" 33'-0"24'-111/2"22'-7" 2 2 '-3 1 /2 " 1 '-1 " 9 '-0 " 1 '-1 " 1 '-2 " 8 '-1 0 1 /2 " 6 " 5 1 /2 " 6 '-1 0 " 5 1 /2 " 2 '-1 0 " 1 '-2 " 1'-81/2" 14'-8"9'-8"8'-8"9'-71/2"15'-4"11'-31/2"11'-31/2" 4 '-1 1 1 /2 " 5 '-1 " 6 '-1 " 6 '-2 " 5'-0"51/2" 5 '-0 " 5 1 /2 " 1 034 1 034 2 034 2 034 4 034 4 034 3 034 3 034 3 033 2 032 1 031 4 032 PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE MECH ROOM 001 6 6 EXISTING WALLS TO REMAIN PROPOSED REMODEL ADDITION WALL TYPE LEGEND NPROPOSED MAIN LEVEL 1/4" = 1'-0" P 6 4 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM UPPER LEVEL OPT 3 029 1 1 A A B B C C 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 9 9 CDW 1 034 1 034 2 034 2 034 4 034 4 034 3 034 3 034 3 033 2 032 1 031 4 032 9'-73/4"15'-33/4"15'-7" 33'-0" 4 '-4 1 /2 " 7 " 1 2 '-3 " 2 '-1 1 /2 " 2 '-1 1 1 /2 " 14'-8"9'-8"8'-8"24'-111/2"5'-8"9'-11"9'-6" 33'-0"47'-61/2"2'-6" 51/2"14'-21/2"51/2"3'-21/2"51/2"13'-9"51/2" 2 2 '-3 1 /2 " 1 0 '-0 1 /2 " 1 2 '-3 " 7'-103/8"7'-53/8" 2 '-1 1 1 /2 " 4'-81/2"5'-103/4"4'-81/2"7'-1"3'-0"3'-0"2'-6" 51/2"14'-43/4"51/2" 2 '-1 1 /2 " 80'-61/2"2'-6" 9'-73/4"7'-103/8"7'-53/8"2'-10"2'-10"4'-111/2"4'-111/2" 6 '-1 1 /2 " 6 '-1 1 /2 " 1 0 1 /2 " 9 1 /2 " 5 1 /2 " 2 '-1 1 1 /2 " 4'-81/2"3'-17/8"7'-53/8" 2 '-6 3 /4 " 2'-21/2" 6 1 /2 " PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE EXIST. BEDROOM EXIST. BEDROOM DECK BATH 110 DRESSING RM 111 BEDROOM 112 DECK EXT. STAIR STAIR BATH 5 '-0 1 /8 " 5 1 /2 " 6 6 EXISTING WALLS TO REMAIN PROPOSED REMODEL ADDITION WALL TYPE LEGEND NPROPOSED UPPER LEVEL 1/4" = 1'-0" P 6 5 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM ROOF PLAN OPT 3 030 1 1 A A B B C C 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 9 9 1 034 1 034 2 034 2 034 4 034 4 034 3 034 3 034 3 033 2 032 1 031 4 032 2:12 2:12 2:122:12 DECK BELOW DECK BELOW PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE 6 6 NPROPOSED ROOF PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0" P 6 6 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM ELEVATIONS OPT 3 031 1 2 3 A3.1 SHEET TITLE STRUCTURALCONSULTANTSMECHANICALSURVEYORGEOTECH COPYRIGHT FORUM PHI PROJECT NO:0608 DRAWN BY:SMW CIVIL CONTRACTOR DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL HPC 5/1/08 CD 6/13/08 CONSULTANTS HPC 7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL 10/23/08 REVISIONS 5/7/09 REVISIONS 08/18/10 REVISIONS ELEVATIONS 627 W. MAIN STASPEN, COLORADO 81611FORUM PHI174 Midland Ave, Suite 201P.O. Box 1606Basalt, Colorado 81621PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585DOUGLAS KELSO #### KELSO ADDITIONRocky Mountain Surveying4133 Crystal Springs Rd.Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 379-1919Fax: (970) 963-5873Yeh and Associates, Inc.170 Mel Ray RoadGlenwood Springs, CO 81601Phone: (970) 384-1500Fax: (970) 384-1501 Efficiency In Mind, LLC P.O. Box 1481 Carbondale, CO 81623 Phone: (970) 274-6336 Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd. P.O. Box 978 Avon, CO 81620 Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221 Fax: (970) 949-9339 Mozer-Renn Structural Service8573 E. Napa PlaceDenver, CO 80237Phone: (720) 212-0727Fax: (303) 484-8958 DATE OF PUBLICATION8/31/2010 23PROPOSED ADDITIONORIGINAL1888 ADDITION 200011'25'100'100'-9"109'-9"111'-1"118'-7"32 764519 T.O. PLATET.O.F.F.EXISTING V.I.F.EXISTING V.I.F.25' HEIGHT LIMITEXISTING GRADE T.O. SLAB ADDITION 2000 PROPOSED ADDITION ORIGINAL 1888 25 ' 11 ' 100' 100'-9" 109'-9" 111'-1" 118'-7" 3'-4 1/2" 3' - 8 " 2' - 7 " 5 7 3 9 1 T.O. PLATE T.O.F.F. EXISTING V.I.F. EXISTING V.I.F. 25' HEIGHT LIMIT EXISTING GRADE T.O. SLAB 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISITING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISITING BRICK STANDING SEAM 8" WOOD FASCIA TIMBER COLUMN HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 1 WEST 1/4" = 1'-0" 3 EAST 1/4" = 1'-0" PROPOSED ADDITION ORIGINAL 1888 1 6 1 5 T.O. EXISTING RIDGE 124'-3" UPPER LEVEL T.O. FF 111'-1" 9 6 6 5 4 3 2 1 10 12 11 7 12 11 9 6 8 7 9 MAIN LEVEL T.O. FF 100'-0" LOWER LEVEL T.O. FF 95'-0" 123 A3.1SHEET TITLESTRUCTURALCONSULTANTSMECHANICALSURVEYORGEOTECHCOPYRIGHTFORUM PHIPROJECT NO:0608DRAWN BY:SMWCIVILCONTRACTORDESCRIPTIONMARKDATECONCEPTUALAPPROVALHPC5/1/08CD6/13/08 CONSULTANTSHPC7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL10/23/08 REVISIONS5/7/09 REVISIONS08/18/10 REVISIONS ELEVAT IONS 627 W. MAIN STASPEN, COLORADO 81611FORUM PHI174 Midland Ave, Suite 201P.O. Box 1606Basalt, Colorado 81621PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585DOUGLAS KELSO####KELSO ADDITIONRocky Mountain Surveying4133 Crystal Springs Rd.Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 379-1919Fax: (970) 963-5873Yeh and Associates, Inc.170 Mel Ray RoadGlenwood Springs, CO 81601Phone: (970) 384-1500Fax: (970) 384-1501Efficiency In Mind, LLCP.O. Box 1481Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 274-6336Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd.P.O. Box 978Avon, CO 81620Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221Fax: (970) 949-9339Mozer-Renn Structural Service8573 E. Napa PlaceDenver, CO 80237Phone: (720) 212-0727Fax: (303) 484-8958DATE OF PUBLICATION8/31/201023PROPOSED ADDITIONORIGINAL1888 ADDITION 200011'25'100'100'-9"109'-9"111'-1"118'-7"32 764519 T.O. PLATET.O.F.F.EXISTING V.I.F.EXISTING V.I.F.25' HEIGHT LIMITEXISTING GRADE T.O. SLABADDITION 2000PROPOSED ADDITION ORIGINAL 1888 25'11'100'100'-9"109'-9"111'-1"118'-7"3'-4 1/2"3'-8"2'-7"57 391 T.O. PLATET.O.F.F.EXISTING V.I.F.EXISTING V.I.F.25' HEIGHT LIMITEXISTING GRADE T.O. SLAB 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISITING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISITING BRICK STANDING SEAM 8" WOOD FASCIA TIMBER COLUMN HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 1 WEST 1/4" = 1'-0" 3 EAST 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 2 3 ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISTING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING BRICK 4 EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE 5 EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 6 PROPOSED VERTICAL SIDING 7 PROPSED HORIZONTAL SIDING 8 PROPOSED STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF 9 PROPOSED RAILING 10 25' HEIGHT LIMIT 11 LINE OF ADDITION PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PER CHANGE ORDER 3 12 LINE OF PROPOSED DESIGN CHANGES TO THE REAR ADDITION KEYNOTE LEGEND CHANGE ORDER 3 EAST ELEVATION 1' = 1'-0" 1 PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0" P 6 7 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM ELEVATIONS OPT 3 032 4 3 1 4 6 5 5 12 11 8 T.O. EXISTING RIDGE 124'-3" UPPER LEVEL T.O. FF 111'-1" C B A MAIN LEVEL T.O. FF 100'-0" LOWER LEVEL T.O. FF 95'-0" 6 8 7 6 9 9 1 12 T.O. EXISTING RIDGE 124'-3" UPPER LEVEL T.O. FF 111'-1" A B C MAIN LEVEL T.O. FF 100'-0" LOWER LEVEL T.O. FF 95'-0" 1 2 3 A3.2 SHEET TITLE STRUCTURALCONSULTANTS MECHANICAL SURVEYORGEOTECH COPYRIGHT FORUM PHI PROJECT NO:0608 DRAWN BY:SMW CIVIL CONTRACTOR DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL HPC 5/1/08 CD 6/13/08 CONSULTANTS HPC 7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL 10/23/08 REVISIONS 5/7/09 REVISIONS 08/18/10 REVISIONS ELEVATIONS 627 W. MAIN STASPEN, COLORADO 81611FORUM PHI174 Midland Ave, Suite 201P.O. Box 1606Basalt, Colorado 81621PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585DOUGLAS KELSO #### KELSO ADDITIONRocky Mountain Surveying4133 Crystal Springs Rd.Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 379-1919Fax: (970) 963-5873Yeh and Associates, Inc.170 Mel Ray RoadGlenwood Springs, CO 81601Phone: (970) 384-1500Fax: (970) 384-1501 Efficiency In Mind, LLC P.O. Box 1481 Carbondale, CO 81623 Phone: (970) 274-6336 Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd. P.O. Box 978 Avon, CO 81620 Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221 Fax: (970) 949-9339 Mozer-Renn Structural Service8573 E. Napa Place Denver, CO 80237 Phone: (720) 212-0727 Fax: (303) 484-8958 DATE OF PUBLICATION1/5/2016 3 18'-10 11/16"18'-10 11/16"25'100'100'-9"111'-1"118'-7"6 87POINT 3 POINT 4 15 T.O. PLATET.O.F.F.T.O. SLAB25' HEIGHT LIMITEXISTING GRADE T.O. SLAB 100' 109'-9" 111'-7 3/16" 25 ' 14 ' - 9 9/ 1 6 " 14 ' - 9 9/ 1 6 " 3 8 2 1 7 POINT 1POINT 2 5 EXISTING V.I.F. EXISTING V.I.F. EXISTING V.I.F. 25' HEIGHT LIMIT EXISTING GRADE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISITING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISITING BRICK STANDING SEAM 8" WOOD FASCIA TIMBER COLUMN HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 2 SOUTH 1/4" = 1'-0" 4 NORTH 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 2 3 A3.2 SHEET TITLE STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS MECHANICAL SURVEYOR GEOTECH COPYRIGHT FORUM PHI PROJECT NO:0608 DRAWN BY:SMW CIVIL CONTRACTOR DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL HPC 5/1/08 CD 6/13/08 CONSULTANTS HPC 7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL 10/23/08 REVISIONS 5/7/09 REVISIONS 08/18/10 REVISIONS ELEVATIONS 627 W. MAIN ST ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 FORUM PHI 174 Midland Ave, Suite 201 P.O. Box 1606 Basalt, Colorado 81621 PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585 DOUGLAS KELSO #### KELSO ADDITION Rocky Mountain Surveying 4133 Crystal Springs Rd. Carbondale, CO 81623 Phone: (970) 379-1919 Fax: (970) 963-5873 Yeh and Associates, Inc. 170 Mel Ray Road Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: (970) 384-1500 Fax: (970) 384-1501 Efficiency In Mind, LLC P.O. Box 1481 Carbondale, CO 81623 Phone: (970) 274-6336 Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd. P.O. Box 978 Avon, CO 81620 Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221 Fax: (970) 949-9339 Mozer-Renn Structural Service 8573 E. Napa Place Denver, CO 80237 Phone: (720) 212-0727 Fax: (303) 484-8958 DATE OF PUBLICATION1/5/2016 3 18 ' - 1 0 11 / 1 6 " 18 ' - 1 0 11 / 1 6 " 25 ' 100' 100'-9" 111'-1" 118'-7" 6 8 7 POINT 3 POINT 4 1 5 T.O. PLATE T.O.F.F. T.O. SLAB 25' HEIGHT LIMIT EXISTING GRADE T.O. SLAB 100' 109'-9" 111'-7 3/16" 25 ' 14 ' - 9 9/ 1 6 " 14 ' - 9 9/ 1 6 " 3 8 2 1 7 POINT 1POINT 2 5 EXISTING V.I.F. EXISTING V.I.F. EXISTING V.I.F. 25' HEIGHT LIMIT EXISTING GRADE 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9ASPHALT SHINGLEEXISITING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISITING BRICK STANDING SEAM 8" WOOD FASCIA TIMBER COLUMN HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 2 SOUTH 1/4" = 1'-0" 4 NORTH 1/4" = 1'-0" 123 A3.1SHEET TITLESTRUCTURALCONSULTANTSMECHANICALSURVEYORGEOTECHCOPYRIGHTFORUM PHIPROJECT NO:0608DRAWN BY:SMWCIVILCONTRACTORDESCRIPTIONMARKDATECONCEPTUALAPPROVALHPC5/1/08CD6/13/08 CONSULTANTSHPC7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL10/23/08 REVISIONS5/7/09 REVISIONS08/18/10 REVISIONS ELEVATIONS 627 W. MAIN STASPEN, COLORADO 81611FORUM PHI174 Midland Ave, Suite 201P.O. Box 1606Basalt, Colorado 81621PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585DOUGLAS KELSO####KELSO ADDITIONRocky Mountain Surveying4133 Crystal Springs Rd.Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 379-1919Fax: (970) 963-5873Yeh and Associates, Inc.170 Mel Ray RoadGlenwood Springs, CO 81601Phone: (970) 384-1500Fax: (970) 384-1501Efficiency In Mind, LLCP.O. Box 1481Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 274-6336Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd.P.O. Box 978Avon, CO 81620Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221Fax: (970) 949-9339Mozer-Renn Structural Service8573 E. Napa PlaceDenver, CO 80237Phone: (720) 212-0727Fax: (303) 484-8958DATE OF PUBLICATION8/31/201023PROPOSED ADDITIONORIGINAL1888 ADDITION 200011'25'100'100'-9"109'-9"111'-1"118'-7"32 764519 T.O. PLATET.O.F.F.EXISTING V.I.F.EXISTING V.I.F.25' HEIGHT LIMITEXISTING GRADE T.O. SLABADDITION 2000PROPOSED ADDITION ORIGINAL 1888 25'11 '100'100'-9"109'-9"111'-1"118'-7"3'-4 1/2"3'-8"2'-7"57 391 T.O. PLATET.O.F.F.EXISTING V.I.F.EXISTING V.I.F.25' HEIGHT LIMITEXISTING GRADE T.O. SLAB 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISITING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISITING BRICK STANDING SEAM 8" WOOD FASCIA TIMBER COLUMN HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 1 WEST 1/4" = 1'-0" 3 EAST 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 2 3 ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISTING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING BRICK 4 EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE 5 EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 6 PROPOSED VERTICAL SIDING 7 PROPSED HORIZONTAL SIDING 8 PROPOSED STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF 9 PROPOSED RAILING 10 25' HEIGHT LIMIT 11 LINE OF ADDITION PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PER CHANGE ORDER 3 12 LINE OF PROPOSED DESIGN CHANGES TO THE REAR ADDITION KEYNOTE LEGEND 4 PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0"2 PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0" CHANGE ORDER 3 NORTH ELEVATION 1' = 1'-0"CHANGE ORDER 3 SOUTH ELEVATION 1' = 1'-0" HEIGHT OF ROOF IS INACCURATELY SHOWN IN THE CHANGE ORDER 3 DRAWINGS VERIFICATION IN FIELD CONFIRMS THAT THIS ROOF IS 24'-3" ABOVE PROJECT 100' P 6 8 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM ELEVATIONS OPT 3 033 1 2 3 A3.1 SHEET TITLE STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS MECHANICAL SURVEYOR GEOTECH COPYRIGHT FORUM PHI PROJECT NO:0608 DRAWN BY:SMW CIVIL CONTRACTOR DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL HPC 5/1/08 CD 6/13/08 CONSULTANTS HPC 7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL 10/23/08 REVISIONS 5/7/09 REVISIONS 08/18/10 REVISIONS ELEVATIONS 627 W. MAIN ST ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 FORUM PHI 174 Midland Ave, Suite 201 P.O. Box 1606 Basalt, Colorado 81621 PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585 DOUGLAS KELSO #### KELSO ADDITION Rocky Mountain Surveying 4133 Crystal Springs Rd. Carbondale, CO 81623 Phone: (970) 379-1919 Fax: (970) 963-5873 Yeh and Associates, Inc. 170 Mel Ray Road Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: (970) 384-1500 Fax: (970) 384-1501 Efficiency In Mind, LLC P.O. Box 1481 Carbondale, CO 81623 Phone: (970) 274-6336 Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd. P.O. Box 978 Avon, CO 81620 Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221 Fax: (970) 949-9339 Mozer-Renn Structural Service 8573 E. Napa Place Denver, CO 80237 Phone: (720) 212-0727 Fax: (303) 484-8958 DATE OF PUBLICATION8/31/2010 2 3 PROPOSED ADDITIONORIGINAL1888 ADDITION 2000 11' 25 ' 100' 100'-9" 109'-9" 111'-1" 118'-7" 3 2 7 6 4 5 1 9 T.O. PLATE T.O.F.F. EXISTING V.I.F. EXISTING V.I.F. 25' HEIGHT LIMIT EXISTING GRADE T.O. SLAB ADDITION 2000 PROPOSED ADDITION ORIGINAL 1888 25 ' 11' 100' 100'-9" 109'-9" 111'-1" 118'-7" 3'-4 1/2" 3' - 8 " 2' - 7 " 5 7 3 9 1 T.O. PLATE T.O.F.F. EXISTING V.I.F. EXISTING V.I.F. 25' HEIGHT LIMIT EXISTING GRADE T.O. SLAB 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISITING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISITING BRICK STANDING SEAM 8" WOOD FASCIA TIMBER COLUMN HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 1 WEST 1/4" = 1'-0" 3 EAST 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 2 3 4 5 6 9 9'-71/2" ORIGINAL 1888 PROPOSED ADDITION 3 1 1 2 8 6 9 7 6 10 12 9 T.O. EXISTING RIDGE 124'-3" UPPER LEVEL T.O. FF 111'-1" 6 7 11 MAIN LEVEL T.O. FF 100'-0" LOWER LEVEL T.O. FF 95'-0" 123 A3.1SHEET TITLESTRUCTURALCONSULTANTSMECHANICALSURVEYORGEOTECHCOPYRIGHTFORUM PHIPROJECT NO:0608DRAWN BY:SMWCIVILCONTRACTORDESCRIPTIONMARKDATECONCEPTUALAPPROVALHPC5/1/08CD6/13/08 CONSULTANTSHPC7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL10/23/08 REVISIONS5/7/09 REVISIONS08/18/10 REVISIONS ELEVATIONS 627 W. MAIN STASPEN, COLORADO 81611FORUM PHI174 Midland Ave, Suite 201P.O. Box 1606Basalt, Colorado 81621PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585DOUGLAS KELSO####KELSO ADDITIONRocky Mountain Surveying4133 Crystal Springs Rd.Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 379-1919Fax: (970) 963-5873Yeh and Associates, Inc.170 Mel Ray RoadGlenwood Springs, CO 81601Phone: (970) 384-1500Fax: (970) 384-1501Efficiency In Mind, LLCP.O. Box 1481Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 274-6336Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd.P.O. Box 978Avon, CO 81620Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221Fax: (970) 949-9339Mozer-Renn Structural Service8573 E. Napa PlaceDenver, CO 80237Phone: (720) 212-0727Fax: (303) 484-8958DATE OF PUBLICATION8/31/201023PROPOSED ADDITIONORIGINAL1888 ADDITION 200011'25'100'100'-9"109'-9"111'-1"118'-7"32 764519 T.O. PLATET.O.F.F.EXISTING V.I.F.EXISTING V.I.F.25' HEIGHT LIMITEXISTING GRADE T.O. SLABADDITION 2000PROPOSED ADDITION ORIGINAL 1888 25'11'100'100'-9"109'-9"111'-1"118'-7"3'-4 1/2"3'-8"2'-7"57 391 T.O. PLATET.O.F.F.EXISTING V.I.F.EXISTING V.I.F.25' HEIGHT LIMITEXISTING GRADE T.O. SLAB 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISITING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISITING BRICK STANDING SEAM 8" WOOD FASCIA TIMBER COLUMN HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 1 WEST 1/4" = 1'-0" 3 EAST 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 2 3 ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISTING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING BRICK 4 EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE 5 EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 6 PROPOSED VERTICAL SIDING 7 PROPSED HORIZONTAL SIDING 8 PROPOSED STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF 9 PROPOSED RAILING 10 25' HEIGHT LIMIT 11 LINE OF ADDITION PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PER CHANGE ORDER 3 12 LINE OF PROPOSED DESIGN CHANGES TO THE REAR ADDITION KEYNOTE LEGEND CHANGE ORDER 3 WEST ELEVATION 1' = 1'-0" 3 PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0" HEIGHT OF ROOF IS INACCURATELY SHOWN IN THE CHANGE ORDER 3 DRAWINGS VERIFICATION IN FIELD CONFIRMS THAT THIS ROOF IS 24'-3" ABOVE PROJECT 100' P 6 9 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM SECTIONS OPT 3 034 DRESSING RM 111 BEDROOM 112 DECKDECK 1 2 3 4 5 6 6 9 T.O. EXISTING RIDGE 124'-3" UPPER LEVEL T.O. FF 111'-1" MAIN LEVEL T.O. FF 100'-0" LOWER LEVEL T.O. FF 95'-0" BATH 110 ABC T.O. EXISTING RIDGE 124'-3" UPPER LEVEL T.O. FF 111'-1" DRESSING RM 111 MAIN LEVEL T.O. FF 100'-0" BATH 110 A B C T.O. EXISTING RIDGE 124'-3" UPPER LEVEL T.O. FF 111'-1" DRESSING RM 111 MAIN LEVEL T.O. FF 100'-0" 112 C B A T.O. EXISTING RIDGE 124'-3" UPPER LEVEL T.O. FF 111'-1" BEDROOM MAIN LEVEL T.O. FF 100'-0" EXISTING WALLS TO REMAIN PROPOSED REMODEL ADDITION WALL TYPE LEGEND 1 SECTION SD 3 1/4" = 1'-0" 2 SECTION SD 3 1/4" = 1'-0"3 SECTION SD 3 1/4" = 1'-0"4 SECTION SD 3 1/4" = 1'-0" P 7 0 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM 3D VIEW OPT 3 035 1 2 3 ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISTING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING BRICK 4 EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE 5 EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 6 PROPOSED VERTICAL SIDING 7 PROPSED HORIZONTAL SIDING 8 PROPOSED STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF 9 PROPOSED RAILING 10 25' HEIGHT LIMIT 11 LINE OF ADDITION PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PER CHANGE ORDER 3 12 LINE OF PROPOSED DESIGN CHANGES TO THE REAR ADDITION KEYNOTE LEGEND SOUTHWEST PERSPECTIVE 1 9 8 3 6 7 5 7 9 8 6 9 2 P 7 1 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM 3D VIEW OPT 3 036 1 2 3 ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISTING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING BRICK 4 EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE 5 EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 6 PROPOSED VERTICAL SIDING 7 PROPSED STUCCO SIDING 8 PROPOSED STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF 9 PROPOSED RAILING 10 25' HEIGHT LIMIT 11 LINE OF ADDITION PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PER CHANGE ORDER 3 12 LINE OF PROPOSED DESIGN CHANGES TO THE REAR ADDITION KEYNOTE LEGEND SOUTHEAST PERSPECTIVE 8 9 6 1 2 3 7 5 6 8 6 9 7 P 7 2 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM 3D VIEW OPT 3 037 1 2 3 ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISTING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING BRICK 4 EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE 5 EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 6 PROPOSED VERTICAL SIDING 7 PROPSED HORIZONTAL SIDING 8 PROPOSED STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF 9 PROPOSED RAILING 10 25' HEIGHT LIMIT 11 LINE OF ADDITION PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PER CHANGE ORDER 3 12 LINE OF PROPOSED DESIGN CHANGES TO THE REAR ADDITION KEYNOTE LEGEND NORTHEAST PERSPECTIVE 4 5 1 8 6 3 7 6 1 4 P 7 3 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM 3D VIEW OPT 3 038 1 2 3 ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISTING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING BRICK 4 EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE 5 EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 6 PROPOSED VERTICAL SIDING 7 PROPSED HORIZONTAL SIDING 8 PROPOSED STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF 9 PROPOSED RAILING 10 25' HEIGHT LIMIT 11 LINE OF ADDITION PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PER CHANGE ORDER 3 12 LINE OF PROPOSED DESIGN CHANGES TO THE REAR ADDITION KEYNOTE LEGEND NORTHWEST PERSPECTIVE 5 4 3 2 8 6 9 9 1 9 4 9 P 7 4 I I I . A . P75 III.A. P76 III.A. P77 III.A. P78 III.A. P79 III.A. P80 III.A. P81 III.A. P82 III.A. P83 III.A. P84 III.A. 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM HPC COVER CVR 001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 SITE PLAN FAR CALCS EXISTING MAIN LEVEL EXISTING UPPER LEVEL EXISTING ROOF PLAN MAIN LEVEL UPPER LEVEL ROOF PLAN ELEVATIONS ELEVATIONS ELEVATIONS MAIN LEVEL EXTERIOR LIGHTING UPPER LEVEL EXTERIOR LIGHTING 3D VIEW 3D VIEW 3D VIEW 3D VIEW MATERIALS SURVEY 627 W MAIN ST ASPEN CO 81611 USA 627 W MAIN ST. SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT TO RESOLUTION #9, SERIES 2008 FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM: NFPA 13D (EXISTING TO BE REVISED PER PLANS) CODE EDITIONS: 2009 IRC, 2009 IMC, 2009 IECC, 2009 IPC, 2009 IFGC, 2011 NEC, CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 8 MASTER BUILDING PERMIT NUMBER 0085.2008.ARBK SCOPE OF WORK INCLUDES: RECONFIGURATION OF UPPER LEVEL BEDROOM/BATH ADDITION, DECKS AND ROOF LAYOUTS HPC PRESENTATION SHEET INDEX P 8 5 I I I . A . P 8 6 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM SITE PLAN 001 8" ASPEN 10" ASPEN PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE EXISTING STRUCTURE 1 2 3 A1.1 SHEET TITLE STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS MECHANICAL SURVEYOR GEOTECH COPYRIGHT FORUM PHI PROJECT NO:0608 DRAWN BY:SMW CIVIL CONTRACTOR DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL HPC 5/1/08 CD 6/13/08 CONSULTANTS HPC 7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL 10/23/08 REVISIONS 5/7/09 REVISIONS 08/18/10 REVISIONS SITE PLAN 627 W. MAIN ST ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 FORUM PHI 174 Midland Ave, Suite 201 P.O. Box 1606 Basalt, Colorado 81621 PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585 DOUGLAS KELSO #### KELSO ADDITION Rocky Mountain Surveying 4133 Crystal Springs Rd. Carbondale, CO 81623 Phone: (970) 379-1919 Fax: (970) 963-5873 Yeh and Associates, Inc. 170 Mel Ray Road Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: (970) 384-1500 Fax: (970) 384-1501 Efficiency In Mind, LLC P.O. Box 1481 Carbondale, CO 81623 Phone: (970) 274-6336 Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd. P.O. Box 978 Avon, CO 81620 Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221 Fax: (970) 949-9339 Mozer-Renn Structural Service 8573 E. Napa Place Denver, CO 80237 Phone: (720) 212-0727 Fax: (303) 484-8958 DATE OF PUBLICATION8/31/2010 SD SD 1 9 R @ 7 " = 1 1 ' - 1 " 1 8 T @ 1 1 3 / 8 " = 1 7 ' - 0 5 / 8 " U P 12345678910111213141516171819 3 5 ' - 3 1 / 8 " 5 ' - 6 1 / 1 6 " 1 1 5 / 1 6 " 10' 5' 5' 5' 3' - 2 " RADON MITIGATION VENT LOCATION FINAL LOCATION T.B.D. AREA TO BE DEMOLISHED EXTERIOR WALLS TO BE COMPLETELY REMOVED STONE WALK 28.08'13.82' x x x x 952.29' N09°03'13"E P . O . B . D 8 " D L 1 1 ' D 5 " D L 5 ' D 1 0 " D L 7 ' D 8 " D L 1 3 ' D 7 " D L 8 ' L O T B 0 . 0 6 8 A C ± 3 0 . 0 0 ' N 7 5 ° 0 9 ' 1 1 " W 100.00'S14°50'49"W 3 0 . 0 0 ' S 7 5 ° 0 9 ' 1 1 " E 100.00'N14°50'49"E WM S T O N E W A L L C O N C . . P A T I O CONC.. WALK P A T I O S T O N E S H E D W O O D CONC.. WALK O.H. T Y P . CONC.. WALK C U R B D I T C H REBAR AN D Y P C LS# 1 6 1 2 9 ELEV=79 2 4 . 5 8 R E B A R A N D R P C L S # 2 5 9 4 7 REBA R A N D RPC L S # 2 5 9 4 7 9 1 8 4 E L E V = 7 9 2 6 . 8 4 S I N G L E F A M I L Y R E S I D E N C E 2 2 . 3 25.0 1 . 4 1.61 . 4 31.5 2 2 . 3 58.1 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x xxxxxxxxxxxxxx x xxx x x x x x x x x x x EM G M 792 5 7925 7 9 2 6 SETBACK SE T B A C K SETBACK SE T B A C K KITCHEN 02 BEDROOM 05 CLOSET 07 GARAGE 08 PDR 19 BATHROOM 06 ENTRY 04 LIVING ROOM 01 EXISTING - 1,276 SF 256.30 sq ft EXISTING - 640.5 SF DECK - 270.98 sq ft DECK - 85.36 sq ft 476.5 SF 2 3 3 A SITE PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0" 0 BASEMENT FAR 1" = 10'1 MAIN FLOOR FAR 1" = 10'2 UPPER FLOOR FAR 1" = 10' 0 SF 0 SF TOTAL FAR TOTAL UPPER FLOOR FAR F.A.R. CALCULATION - TOTAL MAIN FLOOR AREA - EXISTING BASEMENT FLOOR AREA - EXISTING TOTAL MAIN FLOOR FAR 0 SF UPPER FLOOR AREA - EXISTING TOTAL EXISTING FAR UPPER FLOOR AREA - EXISTING MAIN FLOOR AREA - EXISTING ALLOWABLE DECKS (15%)360 SF 2,150 SF F.A.R. CALCULATION - EXISTING ALLOWABLE FAR (2,400 - 250 = 2,150) 0 SF % EXPOSED (0%) 0 SF 0 SF 0% 3.15 SF 3.15 SF 3.15 SF F.A.R. CALCULATION - APPROVED MAIN FLOOR AREA - APPROVED GARAGE AREA - APPROVED (256.30 - 250 = 6.30/2 = 3.15) TOTAL MAIN FLOOR FAR - APPROVED UPPER FLOOR AREA - APPROVED TOTAL UPPER FLOOR FAR - APPROVED BASEMENT FLOOR AREA - APPROVED TOTAL BASEMENT FAR - APPROVED MAIN FLOOR AREA - APPROVED UPPER FLOOR AREA - APPROVED BASEMENT FLOOR AREA - APPROVED TOTAL BASEMENT FAR - APPROVED 1,276 SF 640.5 SF 1,916.5 SF 1916.5 DECK AREA - APPROVED (271+85.5 - 360) 493.45 1,276 SF 1279.15 SF 640.5 SF TOTAL FAR AFTER DEMO ( 1916.5 - 370 = 1546.5)1,546.5 SF 1117 SF 2,396.15 SF 2,396.15 476.5 SF 476.5 SF 476.5 SF 0 SF N PROPOSED SITE PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0" CHANGE ORDER 3 APPROVED SITE PLAN P 8 7 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM FAR CALCS 002 1 2 3 A1.1 SHEET TITLE STRUCTURALCONSULTANTSMECHANICALSURVEYORGEOTECH COPYRIGHT FORUM PHI PROJECT NO:0608 DRAWN BY:SMW CIVIL CONTRACTOR DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL HPC 5/1/08 CD 6/13/08 CONSULTANTS HPC 7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL 10/23/08 REVISIONS 5/7/09 REVISIONS 08/18/10 REVISIONS SITE PLAN 627 W. MAIN STASPEN, COLORADO 81611FORUM PHI174 Midland Ave, Suite 201P.O. Box 1606Basalt, Colorado 81621PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585DOUGLAS KELSO #### KELSO ADDITIONRocky Mountain Surveying4133 Crystal Springs Rd.Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 379-1919Fax: (970) 963-5873Yeh and Associates, Inc.170 Mel Ray RoadGlenwood Springs, CO 81601Phone: (970) 384-1500Fax: (970) 384-1501Efficiency In Mind, LLCP.O. Box 1481Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 274-6336 Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd. P.O. Box 978 Avon, CO 81620 Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221 Fax: (970) 949-9339 Mozer-Renn Structural Service8573 E. Napa PlaceDenver, CO 80237Phone: (720) 212-0727Fax: (303) 484-8958 DATE OF PUBLICATION8/31/2010 SD SD 19 R @ 7" = 1 1'-1"18 T @ 1 1 3/8" = 17'-0 5/8"UP12345678910111213141516171819 35'-3 1/8"5'-6 1/16"11 5/16"10'5'5'5'3'-2"RADON MITIGATION VENT LOCATIONFINAL LOCATION T.B.D.AREA TO BE DEMOLISHEDEXTERIOR WALLS TO BE COMPLETELY REMOVEDSTONE WALK 28.08'13.82'xxxx952.29'N09°03'13"E P.O.B.D8"DL11'D5"DL5'D10"DL7'D8"DL13'D7"DL8'LOT B0.068 AC±30.00'N75°09'11"W100.00'S14°50'49"W30.00'S75°09'11"E 100.00'N14°50'49"E WM STONE WALLCONC.. PATIOCONC.. WALKPATIOSTONE S H E D W O O D CONC.. WALKO.H. TYP.CONC.. WALKCURBDITCH REBAR AND YPCLS# 16129ELEV=7924.58REBAR A N D RPC LS# 2 5 9 4 7 REBAR ANDRPC LS# 25947 9 1 8 4 ELEV= 7 9 2 6 . 8 4 SINGLE FAMILYRESIDENCE 22.325.01.41.61.431.522.3 58.1 x x x x x x x x xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxEMGM792579257926SETBACKSETBACKSETBACKSETBACKKITCHEN02BEDROOM05CLOSET07GARAGE08PDR19BATHROOM06ENTRY04LIVING ROOM01 EXISTING - 1,276 SF 256.30 sq ft EXISTING - 640.5 SF DECK - 270.98 sq ft DECK - 85.36 sq ft 476.5 SF 2 3 3 A SITE PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0" 0 BASEMENT FAR 1" = 10'1 MAIN FLOOR FAR 1" = 10'2 UPPER FLOOR FAR 1" = 10' 0 SF 0 SF TOTAL FAR TOTAL UPPER FLOOR FAR F.A.R. CALCULATION - TOTAL MAIN FLOOR AREA - EXISTING BASEMENT FLOOR AREA - EXISTING TOTAL MAIN FLOOR FAR 0 SF UPPER FLOOR AREA - EXISTING TOTAL EXISTING FAR UPPER FLOOR AREA - EXISTING MAIN FLOOR AREA - EXISTING ALLOWABLE DECKS (15%)360 SF 2,150 SF F.A.R. CALCULATION - EXISTING ALLOWABLE FAR (2,400 - 250 = 2,150) 0 SF % EXPOSED (0%) 0 SF 0 SF 0% 3.15 SF 3.15 SF 3.15 SF F.A.R. CALCULATION - APPROVED MAIN FLOOR AREA - APPROVED GARAGE AREA - APPROVED (256.30 - 250 = 6.30/2 = 3.15) TOTAL MAIN FLOOR FAR - APPROVED UPPER FLOOR AREA - APPROVED TOTAL UPPER FLOOR FAR - APPROVED BASEMENT FLOOR AREA - APPROVED TOTAL BASEMENT FAR - APPROVED MAIN FLOOR AREA - APPROVED UPPER FLOOR AREA - APPROVED BASEMENT FLOOR AREA - APPROVED TOTAL BASEMENT FAR - APPROVED 1,276 SF 640.5 SF 1,916.5 SF 1916.5 DECK AREA - APPROVED (271+85.5 - 360) 493.45 1,276 SF 1279.15 SF 640.5 SF TOTAL FAR AFTER DEMO ( 1916.5 - 370 = 1546.5)1,546.5 SF 1117 SF 2,396.15 SF 2,396.15 476.5 SF 476.5 SF 476.5 SF 0 SF 126.75 sq ft 1,277.25 sq ft 41.75 sq ft 72.75 sq ft @ 50% = 36.50 SF 322.75 sq ft PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE 148.25 sq ft 102.50 sq ft 89.25 sq ft 640.00 sq ft PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE SETBACK LINE 445.00 sq ft 18.00 sq ft 18.00 sq ft 18.00 sq ft 18.00 sq ft COUNTABLE FAR FILLS GARAGE DECK EXEMPT Lower Level Floor Area Calculations 627 W Main St. Proposed Lower Level Floor Area Calculations Lower Level Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft)126.75 Lower Level Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)0.00 Total Lower Level Countable Area (Sq Ft)0.00 Total Proposed Floor Area Calculations Lower Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)0.00 Main Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)1314.25 Upper Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)1085.00 Deck/Porch Floor Area (Sq Ft)0.00 Total Proposed Floor Area (Sq Ft)2,399.25 Main Level Floor Area Calculations 627 W Main St. Proposed Main Level Floor Area Calculations Main Level Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft)1277.75 Garage Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft)322.75 Main Level Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)1277.75 Garage Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)36.50 Exemption (0-250 @ 0% 250-500 @ 50% Total Main Level Countable Area (Sq Ft)1314.25 Proposed Deck/Porch Floor Area Calculations Front Porch Floor Area (Sq Ft)41.75 Deck Floor Area (Sq Ft)0.00 Exempt Deck Floor Area (Sq Ft)0.00 Deck/Porch Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)0.00 Total Proposed Floor Area Calculations Lower Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)0.00 Main Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)1314.25 Upper Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)1085.00 Deck/Porch Floor Area (Sq Ft)0.00 Total Proposed Floor Area (Sq Ft)2,399.25 Upper Level Floor Area Calculations 627 W Main St. Proposed Upper Level Floor Area Calculations Upper Level Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft)1085.00 Upper Level Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)1085.00 Total Upper Level Countable Area (Sq Ft)1085.00 Proposed Deck/Porch Floor Area Calculations Deck Floor Area (Sq Ft)340.00 148.25 + 89.25 + 102.50 Exempt Deck Floor Area (Sq Ft)360.00 360 Sq Ft Exempt (15% of 2,400) Deck/Porch Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)0.00 Total Proposed Floor Area Calculations Lower Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)0.00 Main Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)1314.25 Upper Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)1085.00 Deck/Porch Floor Area (Sq Ft)0.00 Total Proposed Floor Area (Sq Ft)2,399.25 CHANGE ORDER 3 FAR CALCULATIONS 1' = 1'-0" PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL FAR 1" = 10'PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL FAR 1" = 10'PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL FAR 1" = 10' P 8 8 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM EXISTING MAIN LEVEL 003 1 2 3 A2.2 SHEET TITLE STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS MECHANICAL SURVEYOR GEOTECH COPYRIGHT FORUM PHI PROJECT NO:0608 DRAWN BY:SMW CIVIL CONTRACTOR DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL HPC 5/1/08 CD 6/13/08 CONSULTANTS HPC 7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL 10/23/08 REVISIONS 5/7/09 REVISIONS 08/18/10 REVISIONS MAIN FLOOR PLAN 627 W. MAIN ST ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 FORUM PHI 174 Midland Ave, Suite 201 P.O. Box 1606 Basalt, Colorado 81621 PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585 DOUGLAS KELSO #### KELSO ADDITION Rocky Mountain Surveying 4133 Crystal Springs Rd. Carbondale, CO 81623 Phone: (970) 379-1919 Fax: (970) 963-5873 Yeh and Associates, Inc. 170 Mel Ray Road Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: (970) 384-1500 Fax: (970) 384-1501 Efficiency In Mind, LLC P.O. Box 1481 Carbondale, CO 81623 Phone: (970) 274-6336 Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd. P.O. Box 978 Avon, CO 81620 Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221 Fax: (970) 949-9339 Mozer-Renn Structural Service 8573 E. Napa Place Denver, CO 80237 Phone: (720) 212-0727 Fax: (303) 484-8958 DATE OF PUBLICATION1/5/2016 01 D106 W101 W102 W105W104W103 D101 D104 D105 D102 SD SD 1 9 R @ 7 " = 1 1 ' - 1 " 1 8 T @ 1 1 3 / 8 " = 1 7 ' - 0 5 / 8 " U P 12345678910111213141516171819 3 3 3 22 ' - 3 1/ 2 " ORIGINAL 1888 ADDITION 2000 PROPOSED ADDITION 33'-1 1/2"24'-11 1/2"22'-6 1/2" 1' - 9 " 80'-7 1/2" 80'-7 1/2" 10 ' 22'-1" 33'-1 1/2"24'-11 1/2"22'-6 1/2" 33'-1 1/2"24'-11 1/2"1'-11"20'-7 1/2" 6'-7"5 1/2" 7'-1/2" 6' - 1 " 5 1/ 2 " 6' - 6 1/ 2 " 33'-1 1/2"1'-7 1/2"1'-3 1/2"2'-10 1/2"2'-10 1/2"2'-10"3'-6"3'-6"3'-6"2'-11 1/2"1'-11"20'-7 1/2" 33'-1 1/2"24'-11 1/2"22'-6 1/2" 10 ' - 1 1 " 6' - 5 1/ 2 " 5' - 5 1/ 2 " 5' - 5 1/ 2 " 6' - 5 1/ 2 " 1 A3.1 4 A3.2 2 A3.2 RADON MITIGATION VENT LOCATION FINAL LOCATION T.B.D. EXISTING CLOSET TO REMAIN EXISTING WINDOW TO BE REMOVED FILL TO MATCH EXISTING KITCHEN 02 BEDROOM 05 CLOSET 07 GARAGE 08 PDR 19 BATHROOM 06 ENTRY 04 LIVING ROOM 01 3 A3.1 SD 3 1) 3) 2) SURFACE MOUNTED SCONCE LIGHTING AS REQUIRED AT EXITS. FINAL LOCATIONS T.B.D. 4) SMOKE DETECTOR EXTERIOR CAN LIGHT HANDRAILS AND GUARDRAILS PER CODE. 5) BUILDING REFERENCE ELEVATION : 100'-0" = 7,926.38' SURVEYED ELEV. V.I.F. TO CONFIRM EXISTING BASEMENT OMITTED SLAB ON GRADE 6) 1 MAIN FLOOR PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0" GENERAL NOTES NCHANGE ORDER 3 MAIN LEVEL PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0" P 8 9 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM EXISTING UPPER LEVEL 004 1 2 3 A2.3 SHEET TITLE STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS MECHANICAL SURVEYOR GEOTECH COPYRIGHT FORUM PHI PROJECT NO:0608 DRAWN BY:SMW CIVIL CONTRACTOR DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL HPC 5/1/08 CD 6/13/08 CONSULTANTS HPC 7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL 10/23/08 REVISIONS 5/7/09 REVISIONS 08/18/10 REVISIONS UPPER FLOOR PLAN 627 W. MAIN ST ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 FORUM PHI 174 Midland Ave, Suite 201 P.O. Box 1606 Basalt, Colorado 81621 PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585 DOUGLAS KELSO #### KELSO ADDITION Rocky Mountain Surveying 4133 Crystal Springs Rd. Carbondale, CO 81623 Phone: (970) 379-1919 Fax: (970) 963-5873 Yeh and Associates, Inc. 170 Mel Ray Road Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: (970) 384-1500 Fax: (970) 384-1501 Efficiency In Mind, LLC P.O. Box 1481 Carbondale, CO 81623 Phone: (970) 274-6336 Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd. P.O. Box 978 Avon, CO 81620 Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221 Fax: (970) 949-9339 Mozer-Renn Structural Service 8573 E. Napa Place Denver, CO 80237 Phone: (720) 212-0727 Fax: (303) 484-8958 DATE OF PUBLICATION1/5/2016 D207 D208 D206 D204 D205 D201 D202 1 9 R @ 7 " = 1 1 ' - 1 " 1 8 T @ 1 1 3 / 8 " = 1 7 ' - 0 5 / 8 " U P 12345678910111213141516171819 SD SD SD SD SD SD 1 2 1 A3.1 4 A3.2 2 A3.2 6' - 4 13 / 1 6 " 22 ' - 3 5/ 8 " ORIGINAL 1888 PROPOSED ADDITION OVER 2000 ADDITION PROPOSED ADDITION 1' - 6 " 10 ' 5'-8 3/8"5'-3 5/8"5 1/2"11'-10" 5'-8 3/8"5'-3 5/8"5 1/2"11'-10" 2' - 3 1/ 2 " 1' - 9 " 2' - 3 " 2' - 3 1/ 2 " 1'-8"3'-4" 8' 3' 1' - 5 " 1' - 3 " 2' - 4 " 1' 1' - 5 1/ 2 " 2' - 6 " 1' - 8 1/ 2 " 33'-1 1/2"15'-10 1/16"3'-5/16"4'-6 1/8"2'-8 1/2"3'-2 1/2"3"3'-8 3/8"3'-5/16"13'-2 9/16" 5' 4' - 8 13 / 1 6 " 6' - 2 1/ 2 " 10 ' - 1 1/ 1 6 " 11'-6 1/2" 5' - 9 " 5' - 9 " 33'-1 1/2"11'13'-11 11/16"15'-10 13/16"8'-7 1/4" 3' - 1 1 5/ 1 6 " 1' 12 ' - 5 " 3' - 1 0 9/ 1 6 " 33'-1 1/2"11'12'-1 1/2"17'-9"8'-7 1/4" 33'-1 1/2"11'4'-10 3/8"3'7'-2 3/8"7'-2 7/16"3'4'-7 1/4"8'-7 1/4" RADON MITIGATION VENT LOCATION FINAL LOCATION T.B.D. BEDROOM 10 BATHROOM 12 BEDROOM 16 CLOSET 11 CLOSET 20 DEN 14 BATH 17 SITTING ROOM 18 D212 3 A3.1 W211 W202 W204W203 W212W213W214 W201 W207W205W206 W210 W208W209 SD 3 1) 3) 2) SURFACE MOUNTED SCONCE LIGHTING AS REQUIRED AT EXITS. FINAL LOCATIONS T.B.D. 4) SMOKE DETECTOR EXTERIOR CAN LIGHT HANDRAILS AND GUARDRAILS PER CODE. 5) BUILDING REFERENCE ELEVATION : 100'-0" = 7,926.38' SURVEYED ELEV. V.I.F. TO CONFIRM EXISTING BASEMENT OMITTED SLAB ON GRADE 6) 2 UPPER FLOOR PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0" GENERAL NOTES NCHANGE ORDER 3 UPPER LEVEL PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0" P 9 0 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM EXISTING ROOF PLAN 005 1 2 3 A2.4 SHEET TITLE STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS MECHANICAL SURVEYOR GEOTECH COPYRIGHT FORUM PHI PROJECT NO:0608 DRAWN BY:SMW CIVIL CONTRACTOR DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL HPC 5/1/08 CD 6/13/08 CONSULTANTS HPC 7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL 10/23/08 REVISIONS 5/7/09 REVISIONS 08/18/10 REVISIONS ROOF PLAN 627 W. MAIN ST ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 FORUM PHI 174 Midland Ave, Suite 201 P.O. Box 1606 Basalt, Colorado 81621 PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585 DOUGLAS KELSO #### KELSO ADDITION Rocky Mountain Surveying 4133 Crystal Springs Rd. Carbondale, CO 81623 Phone: (970) 379-1919 Fax: (970) 963-5873 Yeh and Associates, Inc. 170 Mel Ray Road Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: (970) 384-1500 Fax: (970) 384-1501 Efficiency In Mind, LLC P.O. Box 1481 Carbondale, CO 81623 Phone: (970) 274-6336 Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd. P.O. Box 978 Avon, CO 81620 Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221 Fax: (970) 949-9339 Mozer-Renn Structural Service 8573 E. Napa Place Denver, CO 80237 Phone: (720) 212-0727 Fax: (303) 484-8958 DATE OF PUBLICATION1/5/2016 1 A3.1 4 A3.2 2 A3.2 ORIGINAL 1888 PROPOSED ADDITION OVER 2000 ADDITION PROPOSED ADDITION DECK DECK 3 A3.1 6:12 8:12 6:12 16:12 2:12 6:12 12:12 12:12 8:12 3:12 12:12 16:12 2:12 6:12 12:12 12:12 12:12 12:12 12:12 12:12 12:12 RADON MITIGATION VENT LOCATION FINAL LOCATION T.B.D. 6:126:12 6:126:12 SD 3 1) 3) 2) SURFACE MOUNTED SCONCE LIGHTING AS REQUIRED AT EXITS. FINAL LOCATIONS T.B.D. 4) SMOKE DETECTOR EXTERIOR CAN LIGHT HANDRAILS AND GUARDRAILS PER CODE. 5) BUILDING REFERENCE ELEVATION : 100'-0" = 7,926.38' SURVEYED ELEV. V.I.F. TO CONFIRM EXISTING BASEMENT OMITTED SLAB ON GRADE 6) 3 ROOF PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0" GENERAL NOTES NCHANGE ORDER 3 ROOF PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0" P 9 1 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM MAIN LEVEL 006 1 1 A A B B D D 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 9 9 B B 2 2 '-3 1 /2 " 4 '-1 1 1 /2 " 5 1 /2 " 1 3 '-4 1 /2 " 5 1 /2 " 3 '-0 1 /2 " 80'-61/2" 33'-0"24'-111/2"22'-7" 80'-61/2" 33'-0"24'-111/2"22'-7" 3 011 2 010 1 009 4 010 PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE LIVING ROOM ENTRYKITCHEN POWDER BEDROOM BATHROOM CLOSET GARAGE 6 6 EXISTING WALLS TO REMAIN PROPOSED REMODEL ADDITION WALL TYPE LEGEND NPROPOSED MAIN LEVEL 1/4" = 1'-0" P 9 2 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM UPPER LEVEL 007 1 1 A A B B D D 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 9 9 B B CDW 3 011 2 010 1 009 4 010 33'-0"10'-0"15'-33/4"15'-7" 73'-61/2" 51/2" 14'-21/2"51/2" 3'-21/2"51/2" 13'-9" 51/2" 2 2 '-3 1 /2 " 1 0 '-0 1 /2 " 1 2 '-3 " 2 '-1 1 1 /2 " 73'-61/2"7'-0"2'-6" 33'-0"10'-0"15'-33/4"5'-8"9'-11" 51/2" 14'-43/4"51/2" 5'-21/2"51/2" 9'-51/2"51/2"4'-5"2'-91/4"2'-91/4"4'-51/4"1'-10"6'-01/2"1'-7" 1 6 '-4 1 /2 " 5 1 /2 " 9 '-1 1 7 /8 " 5 1 /2 " 5 '-0 1 /8 " 5 1 /2 " 51/2"14'-43/4"51/2"7'-1"51/2"5'-1"51/2"2'-01/2"51/2" 4'-5"5'-61/2"4'-51/4"2'-61/2"2'-61/2" 1 6 '-4 1 /2 " 2 '-0 " 1 2 '-3 " 2 '-1 1 /2 " 5 1 /2 " 1 '-6 1 /2 " 5 1 /2 " 1 1 '-4 " 5 1 /2 " 1 '-8 " 5 1 /2 " PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE EXTERIOR STAIR EXIST. BEDROOM EXIST. BEDROOM DECK BATH 110 DRESSING RM 111 BEDROOM 112 DECK STAIR BATH 6 6 EXISTING WALLS TO REMAIN PROPOSED REMODEL ADDITION WALL TYPE LEGEND NPROPOSED UPPER LEVEL 1/4" = 1'-0" P 9 3 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM ROOF PLAN 008 1 1 A A B B D D 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 9 9 B B 3 011 2 010 1 009 4 010 8:12 8:128:12 8:12 8:12 8:12 DECK BELOW DECK BELOW PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE 6 6 NPROPOSED ROOF PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0" P 9 4 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM ELEVATIONS 009 1 2 3 A3.1 SHEET TITLE STRUCTURALCONSULTANTSMECHANICALSURVEYORGEOTECH COPYRIGHT FORUM PHI PROJECT NO:0608 DRAWN BY:SMW CIVIL CONTRACTOR DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL HPC 5/1/08 CD 6/13/08 CONSULTANTS HPC 7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL 10/23/08 REVISIONS 5/7/09 REVISIONS 08/18/10 REVISIONS ELEVATIONS 627 W. MAIN STASPEN, COLORADO 81611FORUM PHI174 Midland Ave, Suite 201P.O. Box 1606Basalt, Colorado 81621PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585DOUGLAS KELSO #### KELSO ADDITIONRocky Mountain Surveying4133 Crystal Springs Rd.Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 379-1919Fax: (970) 963-5873Yeh and Associates, Inc.170 Mel Ray RoadGlenwood Springs, CO 81601Phone: (970) 384-1500Fax: (970) 384-1501 Efficiency In Mind, LLC P.O. Box 1481 Carbondale, CO 81623 Phone: (970) 274-6336 Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd. P.O. Box 978 Avon, CO 81620 Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221 Fax: (970) 949-9339 Mozer-Renn Structural Service8573 E. Napa PlaceDenver, CO 80237Phone: (720) 212-0727Fax: (303) 484-8958 DATE OF PUBLICATION8/31/2010 23PROPOSED ADDITIONORIGINAL1888 ADDITION 200011'25'100'100'-9"109'-9"111'-1"118'-7"32 764519 T.O. PLATET.O.F.F.EXISTING V.I.F.EXISTING V.I.F.25' HEIGHT LIMITEXISTING GRADE T.O. SLAB ADDITION 2000 PROPOSED ADDITION ORIGINAL 1888 25 ' 11 ' 100' 100'-9" 109'-9" 111'-1" 118'-7" 3'-4 1/2" 3' - 8 " 2' - 7 " 5 7 3 9 1 T.O. PLATE T.O.F.F. EXISTING V.I.F. EXISTING V.I.F. 25' HEIGHT LIMIT EXISTING GRADE T.O. SLAB 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISITING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISITING BRICK STANDING SEAM 8" WOOD FASCIA TIMBER COLUMN HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 1 WEST 1/4" = 1'-0" 3 EAST 1/4" = 1'-0" PROPOSED ADDITION ORIGINAL 1888 1 6 1 5 T.O. EXISTING RIDGE 124'-3" UPPER LEVEL T.O. FF 111'-1" 9 6 6 5 4 3 2 1 10 12 11 12 11 9 6 8 7 9 7 13 14 14 MAIN LEVEL T.O. FF 100'-0" LOWER LEVEL T.O. FF 95'-0" 123 A3.1SHEET TITLESTRUCTURALCONSULTANTSMECHANICALSURVEYORGEOTECHCOPYRIGHTFORUM PHIPROJECT NO:0608DRAWN BY:SMWCIVILCONTRACTORDESCRIPTIONMARKDATECONCEPTUALAPPROVALHPC5/1/08CD6/13/08 CONSULTANTSHPC7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL10/23/08 REVISIONS5/7/09 REVISIONS08/18/10 REVISIONS ELEVAT IONS 627 W. MAIN STASPEN, COLORADO 81611FORUM PHI174 Midland Ave, Suite 201P.O. Box 1606Basalt, Colorado 81621PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585DOUGLAS KELSO####KELSO ADDITIONRocky Mountain Surveying4133 Crystal Springs Rd.Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 379-1919Fax: (970) 963-5873Yeh and Associates, Inc.170 Mel Ray RoadGlenwood Springs, CO 81601Phone: (970) 384-1500Fax: (970) 384-1501Efficiency In Mind, LLCP.O. Box 1481Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 274-6336Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd.P.O. Box 978Avon, CO 81620Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221Fax: (970) 949-9339Mozer-Renn Structural Service8573 E. Napa PlaceDenver, CO 80237Phone: (720) 212-0727Fax: (303) 484-8958DATE OF PUBLICATION8/31/201023PROPOSED ADDITIONORIGINAL1888 ADDITION 200011'25'100'100'-9"109'-9"111'-1"118'-7"32 764519 T.O. PLATET.O.F.F.EXISTING V.I.F.EXISTING V.I.F.25' HEIGHT LIMITEXISTING GRADE T.O. SLABADDITION 2000PROPOSED ADDITION ORIGINAL 1888 25'11'100'100'-9"109'-9"111'-1"118'-7"3'-4 1/2"3'-8"2'-7"57 391 T.O. PLATET.O.F.F.EXISTING V.I.F.EXISTING V.I.F.25' HEIGHT LIMITEXISTING GRADE T.O. SLAB 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISITING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISITING BRICK STANDING SEAM 8" WOOD FASCIA TIMBER COLUMN HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 1 WEST 1/4" = 1'-0" 3 EAST 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 2 3 EXISTING ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISTING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING BRICK 4 EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE 5 EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 6 PROPOSED VERTICAL SIDING 7 PROPSED HORIZONTAL SIDING 8 PROPOSED ASPHALT SHINGLES 9 PROPOSED RAILING 10 25' HEIGHT LIMIT 11 LINE OF ADDITION PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PER CHANGE ORDER 3 12 LINE OF PROPOSED DESIGN CHANGES TO THE REAR ADDITION KEYNOTE LEGEND 13 PROPOSED EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURES 14 PROPOSED WINDOWS 15 PROPOSED DOORS CHANGE ORDER 3 EAST ELEVATION 1' = 1'-0" 1 PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0" P 9 5 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM ELEVATIONS 010 B 4 3 3 4 1 4 6 5 5 12 11 8 T.O. EXISTING RIDGE 124'-3" UPPER LEVEL T.O. FF 111'-1" D B A MAIN LEVEL T.O. FF 100'-0" LOWER LEVEL T.O. FF 95'-0" B 6 8 13 6 9 9 1 12 13 15 7 13 T.O. EXISTING RIDGE 124'-3" UPPER LEVEL T.O. FF 111'-1" A B D MAIN LEVEL T.O. FF 100'-0" LOWER LEVEL T.O. FF 95'-0" 1 2 3 A3.2 SHEET TITLE STRUCTURALCONSULTANTS MECHANICAL SURVEYORGEOTECH COPYRIGHT FORUM PHI PROJECT NO:0608 DRAWN BY:SMW CIVIL CONTRACTOR DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL HPC 5/1/08 CD 6/13/08 CONSULTANTS HPC 7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL 10/23/08 REVISIONS 5/7/09 REVISIONS 08/18/10 REVISIONS ELEVATIONS 627 W. MAIN STASPEN, COLORADO 81611FORUM PHI174 Midland Ave, Suite 201P.O. Box 1606Basalt, Colorado 81621PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585DOUGLAS KELSO #### KELSO ADDITIONRocky Mountain Surveying4133 Crystal Springs Rd.Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 379-1919Fax: (970) 963-5873Yeh and Associates, Inc.170 Mel Ray RoadGlenwood Springs, CO 81601Phone: (970) 384-1500Fax: (970) 384-1501 Efficiency In Mind, LLC P.O. Box 1481 Carbondale, CO 81623 Phone: (970) 274-6336 Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd. P.O. Box 978 Avon, CO 81620 Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221 Fax: (970) 949-9339 Mozer-Renn Structural Service8573 E. Napa Place Denver, CO 80237 Phone: (720) 212-0727 Fax: (303) 484-8958 DATE OF PUBLICATION1/5/2016 3 18'-10 11/16"18'-10 11/16"25'100'100'-9"111'-1"118'-7"6 87POINT 3 POINT 4 15 T.O. PLATET.O.F.F.T.O. SLAB25' HEIGHT LIMITEXISTING GRADE T.O. SLAB 100' 109'-9" 111'-7 3/16" 25 ' 14 ' - 9 9/ 1 6 " 14 ' - 9 9/ 1 6 " 3 8 2 1 7 POINT 1POINT 2 5 EXISTING V.I.F. EXISTING V.I.F. EXISTING V.I.F. 25' HEIGHT LIMIT EXISTING GRADE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISITING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISITING BRICK STANDING SEAM 8" WOOD FASCIA TIMBER COLUMN HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 2 SOUTH 1/4" = 1'-0" 4 NORTH 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 2 3 A3.2 SHEET TITLE STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS MECHANICAL SURVEYOR GEOTECH COPYRIGHT FORUM PHI PROJECT NO:0608 DRAWN BY:SMW CIVIL CONTRACTOR DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL HPC 5/1/08 CD 6/13/08 CONSULTANTS HPC 7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL 10/23/08 REVISIONS 5/7/09 REVISIONS 08/18/10 REVISIONS ELEVATIONS 627 W. MAIN ST ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 FORUM PHI 174 Midland Ave, Suite 201 P.O. Box 1606 Basalt, Colorado 81621 PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585 DOUGLAS KELSO #### KELSO ADDITION Rocky Mountain Surveying 4133 Crystal Springs Rd. Carbondale, CO 81623 Phone: (970) 379-1919 Fax: (970) 963-5873 Yeh and Associates, Inc. 170 Mel Ray Road Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: (970) 384-1500 Fax: (970) 384-1501 Efficiency In Mind, LLC P.O. Box 1481 Carbondale, CO 81623 Phone: (970) 274-6336 Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd. P.O. Box 978 Avon, CO 81620 Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221 Fax: (970) 949-9339 Mozer-Renn Structural Service 8573 E. Napa Place Denver, CO 80237 Phone: (720) 212-0727 Fax: (303) 484-8958 DATE OF PUBLICATION1/5/2016 3 18 ' - 1 0 11 / 1 6 " 18 ' - 1 0 11 / 1 6 " 25 ' 100' 100'-9" 111'-1" 118'-7" 6 8 7 POINT 3 POINT 4 1 5 T.O. PLATE T.O.F.F. T.O. SLAB 25' HEIGHT LIMIT EXISTING GRADE T.O. SLAB 100' 109'-9" 111'-7 3/16" 25 ' 14 ' - 9 9/ 1 6 " 14 ' - 9 9/ 1 6 " 3 8 2 1 7 POINT 1POINT 2 5 EXISTING V.I.F. EXISTING V.I.F. EXISTING V.I.F. 25' HEIGHT LIMIT EXISTING GRADE 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9ASPHALT SHINGLEEXISITING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISITING BRICK STANDING SEAM 8" WOOD FASCIA TIMBER COLUMN HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 2 SOUTH 1/4" = 1'-0" 4 NORTH 1/4" = 1'-0" 123 A3.1SHEET TITLESTRUCTURALCONSULTANTSMECHANICALSURVEYORGEOTECHCOPYRIGHTFORUM PHIPROJECT NO:0608DRAWN BY:SMWCIVILCONTRACTORDESCRIPTIONMARKDATECONCEPTUALAPPROVALHPC5/1/08CD6/13/08 CONSULTANTSHPC7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL10/23/08 REVISIONS5/7/09 REVISIONS08/18/10 REVISIONS ELEVATIONS 627 W. MAIN STASPEN, COLORADO 81611FORUM PHI174 Midland Ave, Suite 201P.O. Box 1606Basalt, Colorado 81621PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585DOUGLAS KELSO####KELSO ADDITIONRocky Mountain Surveying4133 Crystal Springs Rd.Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 379-1919Fax: (970) 963-5873Yeh and Associates, Inc.170 Mel Ray RoadGlenwood Springs, CO 81601Phone: (970) 384-1500Fax: (970) 384-1501Efficiency In Mind, LLCP.O. Box 1481Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 274-6336Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd.P.O. Box 978Avon, CO 81620Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221Fax: (970) 949-9339Mozer-Renn Structural Service8573 E. Napa PlaceDenver, CO 80237Phone: (720) 212-0727Fax: (303) 484-8958DATE OF PUBLICATION8/31/201023PROPOSED ADDITIONORIGINAL1888 ADDITION 200011'25'100'100'-9"109'-9"111'-1"118'-7"32 764519 T.O. PLATET.O.F.F.EXISTING V.I.F.EXISTING V.I.F.25' HEIGHT LIMITEXISTING GRADE T.O. SLABADDITION 2000PROPOSED ADDITION ORIGINAL 1888 25'11 '100'100'-9"109'-9"111'-1"118'-7"3'-4 1/2"3'-8"2'-7"57 391 T.O. PLATET.O.F.F.EXISTING V.I.F.EXISTING V.I.F.25' HEIGHT LIMITEXISTING GRADE T.O. SLAB 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISITING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISITING BRICK STANDING SEAM 8" WOOD FASCIA TIMBER COLUMN HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 1 WEST 1/4" = 1'-0" 3 EAST 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 2 3 EXISTING ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISTING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING BRICK 4 EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE 5 EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 6 PROPOSED VERTICAL SIDING 7 PROPSED HORIZONTAL SIDING 8 PROPOSED ASPHALT SHINGLES 9 PROPOSED RAILING 10 25' HEIGHT LIMIT 11 LINE OF ADDITION PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PER CHANGE ORDER 3 12 LINE OF PROPOSED DESIGN CHANGES TO THE REAR ADDITION KEYNOTE LEGEND 13 PROPOSED EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURES 14 PROPOSED WINDOWS 15 PROPOSED DOORS 4 PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0"2 PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0" CHANGE ORDER 3 NORTH ELEVATION 1' = 1'-0"CHANGE ORDER 3 SOUTH ELEVATION 1' = 1'-0" HEIGHT OF ROOF IS INACCURATELY SHOWN IN THE CHANGE ORDER 3 DRAWINGS VERIFICATION IN FIELD CONFIRMS THAT THIS ROOF IS 24'-3" ABOVE PROJECT 100' P 9 6 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM ELEVATIONS 011 1 2 3 A3.1 SHEET TITLE STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS MECHANICAL SURVEYOR GEOTECH COPYRIGHT FORUM PHI PROJECT NO:0608 DRAWN BY:SMW CIVIL CONTRACTOR DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL HPC 5/1/08 CD 6/13/08 CONSULTANTS HPC 7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL 10/23/08 REVISIONS 5/7/09 REVISIONS 08/18/10 REVISIONS ELEVATIONS 627 W. MAIN ST ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 FORUM PHI 174 Midland Ave, Suite 201 P.O. Box 1606 Basalt, Colorado 81621 PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585 DOUGLAS KELSO #### KELSO ADDITION Rocky Mountain Surveying 4133 Crystal Springs Rd. Carbondale, CO 81623 Phone: (970) 379-1919 Fax: (970) 963-5873 Yeh and Associates, Inc. 170 Mel Ray Road Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: (970) 384-1500 Fax: (970) 384-1501 Efficiency In Mind, LLC P.O. Box 1481 Carbondale, CO 81623 Phone: (970) 274-6336 Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd. P.O. Box 978 Avon, CO 81620 Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221 Fax: (970) 949-9339 Mozer-Renn Structural Service 8573 E. Napa Place Denver, CO 80237 Phone: (720) 212-0727 Fax: (303) 484-8958 DATE OF PUBLICATION8/31/2010 2 3 PROPOSED ADDITIONORIGINAL1888 ADDITION 2000 11' 25 ' 100' 100'-9" 109'-9" 111'-1" 118'-7" 3 2 7 6 4 5 1 9 T.O. PLATE T.O.F.F. EXISTING V.I.F. EXISTING V.I.F. 25' HEIGHT LIMIT EXISTING GRADE T.O. SLAB ADDITION 2000 PROPOSED ADDITION ORIGINAL 1888 25 ' 11' 100' 100'-9" 109'-9" 111'-1" 118'-7" 3'-4 1/2" 3' - 8 " 2' - 7 " 5 7 3 9 1 T.O. PLATE T.O.F.F. EXISTING V.I.F. EXISTING V.I.F. 25' HEIGHT LIMIT EXISTING GRADE T.O. SLAB 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISITING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISITING BRICK STANDING SEAM 8" WOOD FASCIA TIMBER COLUMN HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 1 WEST 1/4" = 1'-0" 3 EAST 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 2 3 4 5 6 9 9'-71/2" ORIGINAL 1888 PROPOSED ADDITION 3 1 1 2 8 6 9 7 6 10 1213 9 13 14 14 T.O. EXISTING RIDGE 124'-3" UPPER LEVEL T.O. FF 111'-1" 6 7 1513 1115 14 14 MAIN LEVEL T.O. FF 100'-0" LOWER LEVEL T.O. FF 95'-0" 123 A3.1SHEET TITLESTRUCTURALCONSULTANTSMECHANICALSURVEYORGEOTECHCOPYRIGHTFORUM PHIPROJECT NO:0608DRAWN BY:SMWCIVILCONTRACTORDESCRIPTIONMARKDATECONCEPTUALAPPROVALHPC5/1/08CD6/13/08 CONSULTANTSHPC7/9/08 FINAL APPROVAL10/23/08 REVISIONS5/7/09 REVISIONS08/18/10 REVISIONS ELEVATIONS 627 W. MAIN STASPEN, COLORADO 81611FORUM PHI174 Midland Ave, Suite 201P.O. Box 1606Basalt, Colorado 81621PHONE: 970.279.4157 FAX: 866.770.5585DOUGLAS KELSO####KELSO ADDITIONRocky Mountain Surveying4133 Crystal Springs Rd.Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 379-1919Fax: (970) 963-5873Yeh and Associates, Inc.170 Mel Ray RoadGlenwood Springs, CO 81601Phone: (970) 384-1500Fax: (970) 384-1501Efficiency In Mind, LLCP.O. Box 1481Carbondale, CO 81623Phone: (970) 274-6336Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd.P.O. Box 978Avon, CO 81620Phone: (970) 949-5072 X 221Fax: (970) 949-9339Mozer-Renn Structural Service8573 E. Napa PlaceDenver, CO 80237Phone: (720) 212-0727Fax: (303) 484-8958DATE OF PUBLICATION8/31/201023PROPOSED ADDITIONORIGINAL1888 ADDITION 200011'25'100'100'-9"109'-9"111'-1"118'-7"32 764519 T.O. PLATET.O.F.F.EXISTING V.I.F.EXISTING V.I.F.25' HEIGHT LIMITEXISTING GRADE T.O. SLABADDITION 2000PROPOSED ADDITION ORIGINAL 1888 25'11'100'100'-9"109'-9"111'-1"118'-7"3'-4 1/2"3'-8"2'-7"57 391 T.O. PLATET.O.F.F.EXISTING V.I.F.EXISTING V.I.F.25' HEIGHT LIMITEXISTING GRADE T.O. SLAB 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISITING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISITING BRICK STANDING SEAM 8" WOOD FASCIA TIMBER COLUMN HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 1 WEST 1/4" = 1'-0" 3 EAST 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 2 3 EXISTING ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISTING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING BRICK 4 EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE 5 EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 6 PROPOSED VERTICAL SIDING 7 PROPSED HORIZONTAL SIDING 8 PROPOSED ASPHALT SHINGLES 9 PROPOSED RAILING 10 25' HEIGHT LIMIT 11 LINE OF ADDITION PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PER CHANGE ORDER 3 12 LINE OF PROPOSED DESIGN CHANGES TO THE REAR ADDITION KEYNOTE LEGEND 13 PROPOSED EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURES 14 PROPOSED WINDOWS 15 PROPOSED DOORS CHANGE ORDER 3 WEST ELEVATION 1' = 1'-0" 3 PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0" HEIGHT OF ROOF IS INACCURATELY SHOWN IN THE CHANGE ORDER 3 DRAWINGS VERIFICATION IN FIELD CONFIRMS THAT THIS ROOF IS 24'-3" ABOVE PROJECT 100' P 9 7 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM MAIN LEVEL EXTERIOR LIGHTING 012 1 1 A A B B D D 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 9 9 B B 3 011 2 010 1 009 4 010 LIVING ROOM ENTRYKITCHEN POWDER BEDROOM BATHROOM CLOSET GARAGE 6 6 EXTERIOR LIGHTING LEGEND LT1 RECESSED DOWNLIGHT WALL MOUNT FIXTURE EXTERIOR SOFFIT NMAIN LEVEL 1/4" = 1'-0" P 9 8 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM UPPER LEVEL EXTERIOR LIGHTING 013 1 1 A A B B D D 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 9 9 B B 3 011 2 010 1 009 4 010 EXTERIOR STAIR EXIST. BEDROOM EXIST. BEDROOM DECK BATH 110 DRESSING RM 111 BEDROOM 112 DECK STAIR BATH 6 6 EXTERIOR LIGHTING LEGEND LT1 RECESSED DOWNLIGHT WALL MOUNT FIXTURE EXTERIOR SOFFIT NUPPER LEVEL 1/4" = 1'-0" P 9 9 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM 3D VIEW 014 1 2 3 EXISTING ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISTING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING BRICK 4 EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE 5 EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 6 PROPOSED VERTICAL SIDING 7 PROPSED HORIZONTAL SIDING 8 PROPOSED ASPHALT SHINGLES 9 PROPOSED RAILING 10 25' HEIGHT LIMIT 11 LINE OF ADDITION PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PER CHANGE ORDER 3 12 LINE OF PROPOSED DESIGN CHANGES TO THE REAR ADDITION KEYNOTE LEGEND 13 PROPOSED EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURES 14 PROPOSED WINDOWS 15 PROPOSED DOORS SOUTHWEST PERSPECTIVE 1 13 3 6 7 5 7 9 8 6 9 13 15 13 14 9 15 2 P 1 0 0 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM 3D VIEW 015 1 2 3 EXISTING ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISTING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING BRICK 4 EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE 5 EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 6 PROPOSED VERTICAL SIDING 7 PROPSED HORIZONTAL SIDING 8 PROPOSED ASPHALT SHINGLES 9 PROPOSED RAILING 10 25' HEIGHT LIMIT 11 LINE OF ADDITION PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PER CHANGE ORDER 3 12 LINE OF PROPOSED DESIGN CHANGES TO THE REAR ADDITION KEYNOTE LEGEND 13 PROPOSED EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURES 14 PROPOSED WINDOWS 15 PROPOSED DOORS SOUTHEAST PERSPECTIVE 13 6 1 2 3 7 5 8 6 7 13 9 13 P 1 0 1 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM 3D VIEW 016 1 2 3 EXISTING ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISTING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING BRICK 4 EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE 5 EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 6 PROPOSED VERTICAL SIDING 7 PROPSED HORIZONTAL SIDING 8 PROPOSED ASPHALT SHINGLES 9 PROPOSED RAILING 10 25' HEIGHT LIMIT 11 LINE OF ADDITION PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PER CHANGE ORDER 3 12 LINE OF PROPOSED DESIGN CHANGES TO THE REAR ADDITION KEYNOTE LEGEND 13 PROPOSED EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURES 14 PROPOSED WINDOWS 15 PROPOSED DOORS NORTHEAST PERSPECTIVE 4 5 1 8 6 3 7 6 1 4 13 P 1 0 2 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM 3D VIEW 017 1 2 3 EXISTING ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISTING HORIZONTAL SIDING EXISTING BRICK 4 EXISTING FISH SCALE SHINGLE 5 EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 6 PROPOSED VERTICAL SIDING 7 PROPSED HORIZONTAL SIDING 8 PROPOSED ASPHALT SHINGLES 9 PROPOSED RAILING 10 25' HEIGHT LIMIT 11 LINE OF ADDITION PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PER CHANGE ORDER 3 12 LINE OF PROPOSED DESIGN CHANGES TO THE REAR ADDITION KEYNOTE LEGEND 13 PROPOSED EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURES 14 PROPOSED WINDOWS 15 PROPOSED DOORS NORTHWEST PERSPECTIVE 5 4 3 2 6 9 9 1 9 4 9 8 1313 15 8 15 P 1 0 3 I I I . A . 6 2 7 W M A I N S T . H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E V I E W 715 West Main Street Ste. 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM MATERIALS 018 PROPOSED ASPHALT SHINGLE PROPOSED VERTICAL SIDING PROPOSED HORIZONTAL SIDING P 1 0 4 I I I . A . 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 232 E. Main Street– Demolition, Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial Design, Special Review and Variation Review, PUBLIC HEARING DATE: July 27, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY: The applicant proposes to demolish the existing gas station on this site and replace is with a retail building. The property is within the Main Street Historic District. Aspects of the new development to be addressed by HPC at this hearing include site plan, architectural design, public amenity, utility/delivery/trash and mitigation of transportation impacts. Affordable housing mitigation will be addressed at Final and is expected to be in the form of credits generated by units built elsewhere in town. As with all Conceptual reviews, Council will have the authority to call up HPC’s determination and require the board to reconsider the project if appropriate. APPLICANT: 232 East Main Street LLC, represented by Bendon Adams. ADDRESS: 232 E. Main Street, Lots R and S, Block 73, City and Townsite of Aspen. PARCEL ID: 2737-073-20-008. ZONING: MU, Mixed Use. DEMOLITION The first topic for HPC to discuss is demolition of the existing building. Demolition shall be approved if it is demonstrated that the application meets any one of the following criteria: a. The property has been determined by the City to be an imminent hazard to public safety and the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely manner, b. The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure, c. The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen or d. No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic, architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance. Staff response: The project involves removal of all of the existing development. A gas station has existed on this site for decades. Below is a photo of the predecessor to the existing building. The Conner family’s original station was built at 232 E. Main in 1953 and P105 IV.A. 2 replaced with the current building in 1970. In this photo, the second story of the Cortina Lodge, then known as Aspen Court, had not been built. While the long time existence of the use is noteworthy, the current structure has not been identified as having historic, architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance, therefore staff finds that the first demolition Criterion D is met. 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. P106 IV.A. 3 Staff Response: This structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or Historic District in which it is located and therefore its loss will not have a negative impact on preservation goals. Staff finds the criteria for Demolition are met and recommends approval. CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW & COMMERCIAL DESIGN Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval of a Conceptual Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan unless agreed to by the applicant. Staff Response: Conceptual review focuses on the height, scale, massing and proportions of a proposal. The design guidelines for conceptual review of the proposed new structure are found in the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines; Main Street Historic District chapter. This project is also subject to Chapter 12 of the new City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, which deal with accessibility, architectural lighting, mechanical equipment, services areas and signage. Some of these topics will be addressed at Final, rather than Conceptual. The applicable guidelines for this hearing are attached as “Exhibit A.” In terms of form, staff finds the proposal creates an appropriate dialogue with the landmarked Cortina Lodge directly to the west, as well as the Victorian’s further down the block. The new building is predominantly gable roofed, with a pitch that is not quite as shallow as the Chalet, but not quite as steep as the 19th century residential buildings. The façade is broken down into two modules, each of which are related to the width of adjacent historic development. The western module is just over 20’ wide and the eastern module is just over 30’ wide. This is consistent with the remaining Victorians marked with a star on the 1904 Sanborn map above. The nearest of the structures at Cortina Lodge is two stories tall and 20’ wide, while the one story building is closer to 15’ in width. Regarding height, directly adjacent to Cortina Lodge, the proposed structure at 232 E. Main is approximately 3’ taller at the ridgeline. At the corner, the higher ridgeline is approximately 7’ P107 IV.A. 4 taller than the Cortina Lodge, but approximately the same height as the roof of Carl’s Pharmacy. The overall height of the 232 E. Main building drops slightly along the alley. Staff finds the structure is a good fit with the scale of the surrounding development. Materials and windows will be discussed at Final, but the project seems to be compatible while still being architecturally interesting itself. While the building complies with the maximum floor area allowed for the lot; 1:1 or 5,976 square feet, it is only allowable to achieve that maximum square footage by incorporating more than one use into the development. Commercial use only is limited to 0.75:1, or 4,482 square feet. The applicant is asking to be allowed to construct an extra 1,494 square feet of commercial space, rather than forgo it, or build that area and devote it to residential use, for instance. Arguably, that extra square footage is the 2nd level retail space shown on the plans. This area has low sidewalls and is essentially within the roof form. If it were deleted, the overall size of the building would be unlikely to decrease. HPC has the authority to allow the commercial area to be built to a 1:1 floor area under Special Review, as follows: Dimensional requirements. Whenever the dimensional requirements of a proposed development are subject to special review, the development application shall only be approved if the following conditions are met. 1. The mass, height, density, configuration, amount of open space, landscaping and setbacks of the proposed development are designed in a manner which is compatible with or enhances the character of surrounding land uses and is consistent with the purposes of the underlying zone district. 2. The applicant demonstrates that the proposed development will not have adverse impacts on surrounding uses or will mitigate those impacts, including but not limited to the effects of shading, excess traffic, availability of parking in the neighborhood or blocking of a designated view plane. As stated above, staff finds the project to be a good fit for the neighborhood. Mitigation for the impacts of the extra commercial space, such as parking and affordable housing, is being required. This discussion is primarily about building size. Staff supports the requested variation. The proposed building is sited in a traditional manner, but setbacks must be discussed. The Mixed Use zone district requires a front yard setback of at least 10’, with side and rear yards to be a minimum of 5’. The Code offers flexibility on the front yard by allowing the applicant’s request that the front yard be reduced to 5’ through the Special Review criteria listed above. The face of the building is 10’ back from the street, however a roof overhang and sidewalls project forward 5’ to shelter outdoor seating, similar to a porch. Staff finds the feature to be successful in terms of design, but looking down the blockface, a deeper front yard setback is typical. There are three Victorian era homes which are 12-15’ back from the street. One of the P108 IV.A. 5 Cortina structures has a small area of yard in front of it, while the other has a balcony which extends a bit past the front lot line, over the sidewalk. Staff finds the proposal to have an inadequate front setback. The sense that there is a limited setback seems to be increased by the dense planting border indicated conceptually on the renderings, and the fact that there is a deck at the front of the building that is up to about a foot and half above grade. The primary building entrance does not seem to be on the Main Street side, as suggested by the guidelines, a circumstance which also erodes the relationship to adjacent front yards. Staff recommends against this variance, finding this minimal front setback to be incompatible with the surrounding development. The applicant also requests a variation of the 5’ side yard setback requirements. On the west, against the Cortina, a 0’ yard is requested. On the east the building meets the setback, but a fixed overhang shielding an entrance exceeds the maximum 18” eave projection that is allowed, instead occupying the full setback. Unlike the front yard, where HPC may consider setbacks variations based on the character of the neighborhood, sideyard variations must be shown to address a hardship. In order to authorize a variance from the dimensional requirements of Title 26, the appropriate decision-making body shall make a finding that the following three (3) circumstances exist: 1. The grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of this Title and the Municipal Code; and 2. The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure; and P109 IV.A. 6 3. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship, as distinguished from mere inconvenience. In determining whether an applicant's rights would be deprived, the Board shall consider whether either of the following conditions apply: a) There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel, building or structure, which are not applicable to other parcels, structures or buildings in the same zone district and which do not result from the actions of the applicant; or b) Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied by the terms of this Title and the Municipal Code to other parcels, buildings or structures, in the same zone district. The criteria for receiving a variance are strict. A property owner must demonstrate that reasonable use of the property has been withheld and can only be achieved by providing a variance. In situations where all, or practically all, reasonable use of a property is made impossible by development regulations, the City has the ability to grant a variance to avoid a “regulatory taking”. Staff believes this property has reasonable use. The property owner must demonstrate that his rights, as compared with owners of similar properties, have been deprived. In considering this criterion, the HPC must consider unique conditions inherent to the property which are not the result of the applicant’s actions. There are other design solutions that could still achieve their concept without requiring a variance, particularly in terms of the awning. A retractable fabric awning may project into the full 5’ setback. On the Cortina side, both Building and Engineering have concerns with the possibility of snow shedding from 232 E. Main onto the neighbor’s roof, which is not permitted. The Cortina does not provide their own sideyard setback, so the applicant believes that butting the buildings together, as they are now, and providing snowmelt on the 232 E. Main roof will work to control the issue. Staff does not find that this application meets the standards for a hardship variance and recommends revisions. This is staff’s only objection to the proposal, but will necessitate continuing the hearing. Downtown projects like this one typically require mitigation of development impacts, such as parking. There is no code compliant parking on the site now. The redevelopment will generate a requirement for 3.8 parking spaces. The applicant has opted to choose cash-in-lieu payment, which will be a condition of approval. The project must meet requirements for adequate utility, trash and recycling areas. These topics will be more fully vetted at building permit by Environmental Health, Engineering and Utilities, however the application appears to meet the following criteria by providing all elements in the correct size and placement on the site. These functions are placed at the northwest corner of the lot: P110 IV.A. 7 1. A trash and recycle service area shall be accommodated on all projects and shall meet the minimum size and location standards established by Title 12, Solid Waste, of the Municipal Code, unless otherwise established according to said Chapter. 2. A utility area shall be accommodated on all projects and shall meet the minimum standards established by Title 25, Utilities, of the Municipal Code, the City’s Electric Distribution Standards, and the National Electric Code, unless otherwise established according to said Codes. 3. All utility, trash and recycle service areas shall be co-located and combined to the greatest extent practical. 4. If the property adjoins an alleyway, the utility, trash and recycle service areas shall be along and accessed from the alleyway, unless otherwise approved through Title 12, Solid Waste, of the Municipal Code, or through Chapter 26.430, Special Review. 5. All utility, trash and recycle service areas shall be fenced so as not to be visible from the street, unless they are entirely located on an alleyway or otherwise approved though Title 12, Solid Waste, of the Municipal Code, or through Chapter 26.430, Special Review. All fences shall be six (6) feet high from grade, shall be of sound construction, and shall be no less than ninety percent (90%) opaque, unless otherwise varied through Chapter 26.430, Special Review. 6. Whenever utility, trash, and recycle service areas are required to be provided abutting an alley, other portions of a building may extend to the rear property line if otherwise allowed by this Title, provided that the utility, trash and recycle area is located at grade and accessible to the alley. 7. All utility service pedestals shall be located on private property. Easements shall allow for service provider access. Encroachments into the alleyway shall be minimized to the extent practical and should only be necessary when existing site conditions, such as an historic resource, dictate such encroachment. All encroachments shall be properly licensed. 8. All commercial and lodging buildings shall provide a delivery area. The delivery area shall be located along the alley if an alley adjoins the property. The delivery area shall be accessible to all tenant spaces of the building in a manner that meets the requirements of the International Building Code Chapters 10 and 11 as adopted and amended by the City of Aspen. All non-ground floor commercial spaces shall have access to an elevator or dumbwaiter for delivery access. Alleyways (vehicular rights-of-way) may not be utilized as pathways (pedestrian rights-of-way) to meet the requirements of the International Building Code. Any truck loading facility shall be an integral component of the building. Shared facilities are highly encouraged. P111 IV.A. 8 9. All commercial tenant spaces located on the ground floor in excess of 1,500 square feet shall contain a vestibule (double set of doors) developed internal to the structure to meet the requirements of the International Energy Conservation Code as adopted and amended by the City of Aspen, or an air curtain. 10. Mechanical exhaust, including parking garage ventilation, shall be vented through the roof. The exhaust equipment shall be located as far away from the street as practical. 11. Mechanical ventilation equipment and ducting shall be accommodated internally within the building and/or located on the roof, minimized to the extent practical and recessed behind a parapet wall or other screening device such that it shall not be visible from a public right-of-way at a pedestrian level. New buildings shall reserve adequate space for future ventilation and ducting needs. 12. The trash and recycling service area requirements may be varied pursuant to Title 12, Solid Waste, of the Municipal Code. All other requirements of this subsection may be varied by special review (see Chapter 26.430.040.E, Utility and delivery service area provisions). Redevelopment of this site requires the provision of an on-site public amenity space or a cash- in-lieu payment. Currently there is no qualifying public amenity on the site. The applicant has chosen to create usable open space on the property and is meeting the requirement to devote at least 10% of the site to this purpose. When combined with upgrades to occur in the right of way bordering the site the improvements have very meaningful benefit to this area of town. Desirable characteristics of on-site amenity space are addressed by the following requirements: 1. The dimensions of any proposed on-site public amenity sufficiently allow for a variety of uses and activities to occur, considering any expected tenant and future potential tenants and uses. 2. The public amenity contributes to an active street vitality. To accomplish this characteristic, public seating, outdoor restaurant seating or similar active uses, shade trees, solar access, view orientation and simple at-grade relationships with adjacent rights-of-way are encouraged. 3. The public amenity and the design and operating characteristics of adjacent structures, rights-of-way and uses contribute to an inviting pedestrian environment. 4. The proposed amenity does not duplicate existing pedestrian space created by malls, sidewalks or adjacent property, or such duplication does not detract from the pedestrian environment. 5. Any variation to the design and operational standards for public amenity, Subsection 26.575.030.F., promotes the purpose of the public amenity requirements. P112 IV.A. 9 The application must incorporate improvements to pedestrian and transit amenities, such as safety improvements, public bike racks, etc. The application is considered to have a minor impact due to the credits for the existing structure, however the applicant is required to complete a “Transportation Impact Analysis.” The property is currently entirely surrounded by driveway, which creates pedestrian and car conflicts and an unappealing walking environment. The right-of-way on both sides of the property will be upgraded to current standards with a detached sidewalk and trees. A bulb out is proposed at the corner to increase pedestrian space and provide for a safer street crossing. A We-cycle station is planned on the west side of Monarch, along with three new parallel parking spaces. The applicant must continue to work with the Engineering, Parks and Transportation Departments for an approved plan for Final review. The TIA plan included in the application more than mitigates for the impact calculations, however Engineering has noted that credit is not appropriate for a few actions and they wish to further evaluate the bulb out design. There are a number of details regarding sidewalk widths, curb design and tree locations that have been identified as needing minor revisions, according to comments provided by the Engineering Department. This can be further refined for Final review. REFERRAL COMMENTS As part of the preparation of this project for HPC review, staff and the applicant met with other City Departments to discuss any conditions for the redevelopment. Although many of the concerns of other departments will be resolved as part of the building permit review process, HPC may wish to be aware of the topics. Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District – ACSD has numerous standards that will need to be addressed at building permit. There are no unique challenges identifed in their comments. Building- Building indicted the need to install a grease interceptor for food prep and sprinklers throughout the building. A hinged door, rather than folding doors, will be needed facing Main Street. Engineering Dept – Engineering commented on the TIA and provided input about Stormwater mitigation, snow storage, and utilities. Engineering noted that proper remediation of the underground gas storage tanks will be required. Environmental Health Dept – Environmental Health has preliminarily reviewed the plans for a 302 square foot trash and utility area and found them to be compliant. They may require the interior access to the trash area to be by ramp, rather than stairs or a lift. Parks Dept – Parks has a number of requirements for the installation of trees in the new right-of- way design. Zoning Dept – Zoning requested topographical information (provided in the application) and will review the height of the building relative to natural grade. There is more than a 2’ drop from P113 IV.A. 10 front to back. Zoning mentioned the need to provide adequate information regarding exterior lighting and mechanical equipment at permit review. ______________________________________________________________________________ The HPC may: • approve the application, • approve the application with conditions, • disapprove the application, or • continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. ______________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC continue the application, requiring the design to be modified to meet the front, east and west setback requirements. A resolution approving the project as proposed is attached, should the Commission elect to make that decision. Exhibits: Resolution #__, Series of 2016 A. Design Guidelines B. DRC Comments C. Application Exhibit A- Relevant Design Guidelines 7.1 Preserve the historic district’s street plan. Three distinct street grids intersect in the neighborhood (Main Street, side streets and alleys). This layout should be retained. 7.2 Maintain the traditional character and function of an alley where it exists. Locate buildings and fences along the alley’s edge to maintain its narrow width. Paving alleys is strongly discouraged. Closing an alley is inappropriate. 7.3 Parking shall not be positioned between the building and the street. Visual impacts shall be minimized in one or more of the following ways: Parking shall be placed underground or in a structure wherever possible. Where surface parking must be provided, it shall be located to the rear or the interior of the property, behind the structure. P114 IV.A. 11 Surface parking shall be externally buffered with landscaping, and internally planted and landscaped to soften parking areas. 7.5 Respect historic settlement patterns. Site a new building in a way similar to historic buildings in the area. This includes consideration of building setbacks, entry orientation and open space. 7.6 Where a sidewalk exists, maintain its historic material and position. Historically, sidewalks were detached from the curb, and separated by a planting strip. 7.7 Minimize the use of curb cuts along the street. Provide auto access along an alley wherever possible. New curb cuts are not permitted. Whenever possible, remove an existing curb cut. 7.8 Provide a walk to the primary building entry, perpendicular from the public sidewalk. 7.9 Orient a new building in a manner that is similar to the orientation of buildings during the mining era, with the primary entrance facing the street. The building should be oriented parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid pattern of the block. A structure, or each street-facing unit in the case of a multifamily structure, should have a primary entrance that faces the street. The entrance to the structure should be at an appropriate residential scale and visible from the street. 7.10 When constructing a new building, locate it to fit within the range of yard dimensions seen in the block historically during the mining era. These include front yard , side yard and rear yard setbacks. Setbacks vary in some areas, but generally fall within an established range. A greater variety in setbacks is inappropriate in this context. Consider locating within the average range of setbacks along the block. 7.13 A new building or addition should reflect the range and variation in building height of the Main Street Historic District. Refer to the zone district regulations to determine the maximum height limit on the subject property. A minimum second story floor to ceiling height of 9 ft. should be used in a method that is respectful to historic buildings. Additional height, as permitted in the zone district, may be added for one or more of the following reasons: - The primary function of the building is civic. (i.e. the building is a Museum, Performance Hall, Fire Station, etc.) - Some portion of the property is affected by a height restriction due to its proximity to a historic resource, or location within a View Plane, therefore relief in another area may be appropriate. - To benefit the livability of Affordable Housing units. P115 IV.A. 12 - To make a demonstrable (to be verified by the Building Department) contribution To the building's overall energy efficiency, for instance by providing improved daylighting. 7.14 Design a new building to appear similar in scale to those in the district during the mining era. Generally, a new building should be one to two stories in height. 7.15 On larger structures, subdivide the mass into smaller “modules” that are similar in size to single family residences or Victorian era buildings seen traditionally on Main Street. Other subordinate modules may be attached to the primary building form. 12.1 Address accessibility compliance requirements while preserving character defining features of historic buildings and districts. All new construction must comply completely with the International Building Code (IBC) for accessibility. Special provisions for historic buildings exist in the law that allow some flexibility when designing solutions which meet accessibility standards. 12.4 Minimize the visual impacts of utilitarian areas, such as mechanical equipment and trash storage. Place mechanical equipment on the ground where it can be screened. Mechanical equipment may only be mounted on a building on an alley façade. Rooftop mechanical equipment or vents must be grouped together to minimize their visual impact. Where rooftop units are visible, it may be appropriate to provide screening with materials that are compatible with those of the building itself. Use the smallest, low profile units available for the purpose. Window air conditioning units are not allowed. Minimize the visual impacts of utility connections and service boxes. Group them in a discrete location. Use pedestals when possible, rather than mounting on a historic building. Paint mechanical equipment in a neutral color to minimize their appearance by blending with their backgrounds In general, mechanical equipment should be vented through the roof, rather than a wall, in a manner that has the least visual impact possible. Avoid surface mounted conduit on historic structures. 12.5 Awnings must be functional. An awning must project at least 3 feet, and not more than 5 feet from the building façade. An awning may only be installed at a door or window and must fit within the limits of the door or window opening. Awnings are inappropriate on AspenModern properties unless historic evidence shows otherwise. P116 IV.A. Historic Preservation Commission Resolution #__, Series 2016 Page 1 of 2 RESOLUTION #__ (SERIES OF 2016) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION GRANTING DEMOLITION, CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT, CONCEPTUAL COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL REVIEW AND VARIATIONS FOR 232 E. MAIN STREET, LOTS R AND S, BLOCK 73, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO Parcel ID: 2737-073-20-008 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from 232 East Main Street, LLC, represented by Bendon Adams, LLC, for the following land use review approvals: • Demolition pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.415, • Commercial Design Review, Conceptual pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.412, • Major Development, Conceptual pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.415, • Special Review pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.430, • Variances pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.314; and, WHEREAS, all code citation references are to the City of Aspen Land Use Code in effect on the day of initial application, March 15 2016, as applicable to this Project; and, WHEREAS, as a result of a Development Review Committee meeting held on June 8, 2016, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, Parks Department and Zoning; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the proposed Application and recommended continuation for restudy; and, WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission reviewed the Application at a duly noticed public hearing on July 27, 2016, during which time the recommendations of the Community Development Director and comments from the public were requested and heard by the Historic Preservation Commission; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing the Historic Preservation Commission approved Resolution #__, Series of 2016, by a __ to __ vote, granting approval with the conditions listed hereinafter. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Historic Preservation Commission hereby grants Demolition, Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial Design, Special Review and Variation approval for the project as presented to HPC on July 27, 2016, with the following conditions: P117 IV.A. Historic Preservation Commission Resolution #__, Series 2016 Page 2 of 2 1. Cash-in-lieu mitigation is required for the generation of 3.8 new parking spaces. 2. Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Applicant is required to obtain Final Major Development Review and Growth Management approval. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one (1) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date for a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date. Section 3: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Community Development Department and the Historic Preservation Commission are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions or an authorized authority. Section 4: This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 5: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 27th day of July, 2016. Approved as to form: Approved as to content: __________________________ ______________________________ Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Willis Pember, Chair Attest: _______________________________ Kathy Strickland, Deputy Clerk P118 IV.A. REFERRAL COMMENTS From: Hailey Guglielmo, EIT Development Engineer City of Aspen Engineering Department To: Amy Simon Date: June 8, 2016 RE: DRC Comments for 232 E Main St Conceptual Application These comments are not intended to be exclusive, but an initial response to the project packet submitted for purpose of the DRC meeting. 1) Transportation Impact Analysis: a) Further discussion is needed on the bulb out. At detailed review, after an engineer is hired for the project, the applicant will need to provide a detailed plan that is approved by the Engineering, Transportation, Streets, and Fire Departments. Multiple design iterations may be necessary to arrive at an agreed upon design. b) MMLOS Item Number 9, Large Scale Landscaping, is not applicable to this site. Please remove this item from the report. c) MMLOS Item Number 14, Enhanced Pedestrian Access Points, is not applicable for solely the replacement of ADA ramps. d) TDM Item Number 6, Transit Access Improvement, is not applicable. The project already takes credit for the improved sidewalk within the MMLOS section of the TIA. Credit cannot be given twice for the same measure. 2) Drainage: a) At detailed review provide a conceptual major drainage report that meets URMP and Engineering Design Standards. The conceptual design shall address WQCV and drainage requirements. b) If a vault is utilized the pipe discharge cannot point discharge into the gutter. The outlet must tie into the city system. There is a stormline in Monarch St. 3) Snow Storage: a) Show the snow storage area. A minimum functional area equaling 30% of the paved area shall be provided contiguous to the paved and designed to accommodate snow storage. For heated areas, the functional area can be reduced to 10%. If the rooftop deck is to be utilized throughout the winter, where will snow storage from the roof take place? b) Ensure there is no snow shed onto neighboring properties. The current proposed pitched roof will dump snow directly onto the Cortina Lodge, which will not be permitted. 4) Sidewalk and Curb and Gutter: a) A pedestrian easement is needed on Monarch St where the walkway extends onto the property. P119 IV.A. DRC Comments – 232 E Main Conceptual Page 2 b) All sidewalk, curb and gutter must meet the Engineering Standards as outlined in Title 21 and the Engineering Design Standards adopted by Title 29. c) Minimum sidewalk width for a commercial/residential area is 8’. d) The existing ramps on the corner of Main St and Monarch are non-complying ramps. Curbheads along ramps are only permitted if the curbhead is adjacent to a planting or other non-walking surface. Since this particular corner is paved throughout, winged ramps are required. Winged ramps are currently shown on the planset and will be required. 5) Alley: a) Alley entrance shall meet COA Standards. b) Identify utility pedestals serving the property. Relocate all utility pedestals to within the property boundary. 6) Environmental Site Assessment a) Due to the previous use of the site as a gas station and the location of an underground storage tank an environmental site assessment and soils test is required. The site assessment and remediation is to comply with the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment – Division of Oil and Public Safety. 7) Survey Requirements a) A survey requirement is to pothole and provide depth to utilities. Please comply with this requirement at building permit submittal. 8) Utilities: a) All trees shall be planted a minimum of 10’ away from existing and proposed utilities. b) Fire flow calculations shall be submitted at building permit to demonstrate the requested service line size is necessary. Calculations for a service line one size smaller shall also be submitted which show the smaller line does not supply adequate fire sprinkler protection. c) Ensure the proposed transformer easement provides 3’ of clearance on the sides and back of the transformer, and a 10’ clearance at the front of the transformer which can extend into the City alley. ________________________________________________________________________ ACSD Requirements: 232 E. Main Street 6-8-16 The applicant for these proposed developments shall commit to funding the replacement of the existing District owned main sanitary sewer lines the alleys serving the proposed developments. Service is contingent upon compliance with the District’s rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) are not connected to the sanitary sewer system. On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD. Oil and Grease interceptors (not traps) are required for all food processing establishments. Oil and Sand separators are required for parking garages and vehicle maintenance establishments. P120 IV.A. DRC Comments – 232 E Main Conceptual Page 3 Driveway entrance drains must drain to drywells. Elevator shafts drains must flow thru o/s interceptor Old service lines must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to specific ACSD requirements and prior to soil stabilization. Soil nails are not allowed in ROW. Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system. Above grade development shall flow by gravity. One tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements may be required where more than one unit is served by a single service line. Permanent improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or right of ways. Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and hard landscaping may impact public ROW or easements to be dedicated to the district. All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. Peg in our office can develop an estimate for this project once detailed plans have been made available to the district. Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the planned reserve capacity of the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an additional proportionate fee will be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection system or treatment capacity constraint. Additional proportionate fees would be collected over time from all development in the area of concern in order to fund the improvements needed. Where additional development would produce flows that would overwhelm the planned capacity of the existing collection system and or treatment facility, the development will be assessed fees to cover the costs of replacing the entire portion of the system that would be overwhelmed. The District would fund the costs of constructing reserve capacity in the area of concern (only for the material cost difference for larger line). Pool drain sizing shall be approved by the District. Glycol heating and snow melt systems must be designed to prohibit and discharge of glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. The glycol storage areas must have approved containment facilities. The district will be able to respond with more specific comments and requirements once detailed building and utility plans are available. Parks comments are: 1. Minimum 5-foot planting strip required for street trees, with 30” good soil depth. 2. City Forester will make recommendations on species of trees. 3. Irrigation required for trees. 4. Install utilities outside of driplines of trees to minimize future impacts. 5. If electrical boxes are planned for tree area, stanchion must be outside of root ball. 6. Structural cells not required unless planting strip is reduced to less than 5-feet, however they may help to offset storm water mitigation. P121 IV.A. DRC Comments – 232 E Main Conceptual Page 4 Zoning comments * Address is on Main Street; multiple entrances appear to be on Monarch. The tables in the 5’ front yard setback; not consistent with front entrance. * Outdoor Lighting: please provide information P122 IV.A. 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM March 15, 2016 Updated June 29, 2016 Ms. Amy Simon Historic Preservation Officer City of Aspen 130 So. Galena St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: 232 East Main Street Conceptual Application Ms. Simon: Please accept this request to redevelop the property located at 232 East Main Street, also known as the Conoco gas station. The site is 5,981 sf in size and is located in the Mixed Use Zone District/Main Street Historic District. As you know, the property previously received conceptual approvals for a three story lodge, Base 2. The conceptual lodge project was subject to a community vote last November and the Base 2 lodge was voted down. The applicant has updated the application based on feedback from City Planning Staff and City referral departments. A walkway has been added to the Main Street façade to create a more prominent entrance and to fit into the pattern of walkways and entrances in the Main Street Historic District. The requested rear yard setback variance for exterior stairs to access the trash area is removed from the application – circulation is now accommodated inside the building. A snowmelt/snow shedding system is shown on the elevations to insure that snow will not shed onto the Cortina Lodge or into the right of way. The trash area has been enlarged to meet City Standards, rather than request Special Review from the Environmental Health Department. The applicant has developed a new concept for the property: a 100% commercial building that is well below the height limit, incorporates lively outdoor space to energize Main Street, and redefines the street corner. The proposal is to redevelop the current gas station with a new two story commercial building. No basement is proposed at this time. The front portion of the property is one story and a small two story space is located toward the alley. The proposed building is a fresh approach to new construction in the Historic District that blends Victorian and Modern by drawing inspiration from the gable forms of the historic Victorians and the deep overhang of the chalet style represented by the Cortina Lodge. Being in the Historic District this project is reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission for demolition approval, and for compatibility with surrounding landmarks and consistency with the purpose and intent of the Historic Preservation program. Public amenity is located onsite around the perimeter of the building P123 IV.A. 232 East Main Street Conceptual HPC Reviews 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM in the required setbacks. This application requests the following reviews of the Historic Preservation Commission: • Conceptual Major Development Review (Exhibit A) • Conceptual Commercial Design Review (Exhibit A) • Special Review for an FAR increase for internal commercial use from 0.75:1 to 1:1 (Exhibit B) • Setback Variances (Exhibit B) • Demolition for properties within the Main Street Historic District (Exhibit C) The property is currently developed as a gas station with a 1,500 sf nla commercial building. There is currently no legal parking and the entire site is hardscape and curb cuts (a survey showing a lack of legal parking spaces is provided in the application). The proposal is to demolish the building and construct a new two story building that is entirely commercial. The required 3.8 parking spaces 1 are to be mitigated through cash in lieu which is allowed by right in the Land Use Code for commercial buildings. Special Review for an increase to the internal commercial floor area from 0.75:1 to 1:1 and for a 5’ front yard setback for an eave overhang and wing walls is proposed and discussed in Exhibit B of the application. The requested floor area increase affects the size of the use inside the building and not the overall size of the building. The size of the building complies with the Mixed Use Zone District. The building face along Main Street sits 11’ back from the property line, where 10’ is required by zoning. The requested variance is for a 5’ setback from a deep eave overhang and wing walls that define a modern front porch to relate to the residential character of the 19th century Victorians in the District, and to create a buffer for the Cortina Lodge which has a 0’ front yard setback. We look forward to discussing this project with you and with the Historic Preservation Commission as we feel that it is a great addition to the Main Street Historic District and serves as an appropriate transition to the Commercial Core Historic District. Please contact me with any questions or concerns: 925-2855 or sara@bendonadams.com Kind Regards, Sara Adams, AICP Principal BendonAdams, LLC 1 1 parking space per 1,000 sf of net leasable is required to be mitigated. Existing deficit on property is 1.5 spaces (1,500 sf/1,000). A deficit is allowed to be maintained when a property is redeveloped. Total net leasable proposed is 5,371 sf = 5.3 spaces (5,371/1,000). 5.3 spaces – 1.5 spaces = 3.8 spaces P124 IV.A. 232 East Main Street Conceptual HPC Reviews 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM Attachments:  A – Commercial Design Review and Major Development Conceptual Review  B – Special Review and Setback Variances  C – Demolition D – TIA    E – Drawings, survey, rendering  F - Pre-Application conference summary   G - Land Use Application and Dimensional Requirements Form.  H – Vicinity Map  I – Authorization to represent  J – Disclosure of ownership   K – Agreement to pay form  L – HOA compliance form  M – list of owners within 300 ft. will be furnished closer to the public hearing to ensure compliance with  the 6 month requirement for the list.     P125 IV.A. Exhibit A- Conceptual Design Reviews Page 1 of 8 Exhibit A - Commercial Design Standards and HPC Major Development Conceptual for 232 East Main Street 26.415.060.B.2 The City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, as amended, which are on file with the Community Development Department, will be used in the review of requests of certificates of no negative effect or certificates of appropriateness. Conformance with the applicable guidelines and the common development review procedures set forth in Chapter 26.304 will be necessary for the approval of any proposed work: Please find below (part A) an analysis of the Main Street Historic District Design Guidelines and Objectives. Conceptual Commercial Design Standard Review uses the same design guidelines for the Main Street Historic District and the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. As described below, the project conforms with the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines/ Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Guidelines and Objectives. Relevant Design Guidelines found in Chapter 12, Architectural Lighting, Mechanical Equipment, Service Areas and Signage, are addressed below. 12.1 Address accessibility compliance requirements while preserving character defining features of historic buildings and districts. • All new construction must comply completely with the International Building Code (IBC) for accessibility. Special provisions for historic buildings exist in the law that allow some flexibility when designing solutions which meet accessibility standards. The proposed new building intends to meet all IBC requirements for accessibility. 12.2 Original light fixtures must be maintained. When there is evidence as to the appearance of original fixtures that are no longer present, a replication is appropriate. The existing building is not a designated landmark and is proposed to be demolished. 12.3 Exterior light fixtures should be simple in character. • The design of a new fixture should be appropriate in form, finish, and scale with the structure. • New fixtures should not reflect a different period of history than that of the affected building, or be associated with a different architectural style. • Lighting should be placed in a manner that is consistent with the period of the building, and should not provide a level of illumination that is out of character. • One light adjacent to each entry is appropriate on an Aspen Victorian residential structure. A recessed fixture, surface mounted light, pendant or sconce will be considered if suited to the building type or style. • On commercial structures and AspenModern properties, recessed lights and concealed lights are often most appropriate. Conceptual ideas for exterior gooseneck light fixtures that highlight the proposed architectural style are included in the application. Light fixtures, cut sheets and a more refined lighting plan will be included in the final design application for Final Review. 12.4 Minimize the visual impacts of utilitarian areas, such as mechanical equipment and trash storage. P126 IV.A. Exhibit A- Conceptual Design Reviews Page 2 of 8 • Place mechanical equipment on the ground where it can be screened. • Mechanical equipment may only be mounted on a building on an alley façade. • Rooftop mechanical equipment or vents must be grouped together to minimize their visual impact. Where rooftop units are visible, it may be appropriate to provide screening with materials that are compatible with those of the building itself. Use the smallest, low profile units available for the purpose. • Window air conditioning units are not allowed. • Minimize the visual impacts of utility connections and service boxes. Group them in a discrete location. Use pedestals when possible, rather than mounting on a historic building. • Paint mechanical equipment in a neutral color to minimize their appearance by blending with their backgrounds • In general, mechanical equipment should be vented through the roof, rather than a wall, in a manner that has the least visual impact possible. • Avoid surface mounted conduit on historic structures. Mechanical equipment is centrally located on the rooftop and is concealed from the street behind the gable roof forms. 12.5 Awnings must be functional. • An awning must project at least 3 feet, and not more than 5 feet from the building façade. • An awning may only be installed at a door or window and must fit within the limits of the door or window opening. • Awnings are inappropriate on AspenModern properties unless historic evidence shows otherwise. A metal awning is proposed at the primary entrance facing Monarch Street. The awning is not operable, but is about 6 ft., defines the entrance, and protects customers from weather. 12.6 Signs should not obscure or damage historic building fabric. • Where possible, install a free standing sign that is appropriate in height and width. Consolidate signage for multiple businesses. • Mount signs so that the attachment point can be easily repaired when the sign is replaced. Do not mount signage directly into historic masonry. • Blade signs or hanging signs are generally preferred to wall mounted signs because the number of attachment points may be less. • Signs should be constructed of wood or metal. • Pictographic signs are encouraged because they add visual interest to the street. 12.7 Sign lighting must be subtle and concealed. • Pin mounted letters with halo lighting will not be approved on Aspen Victorian buildings. • The size of a fixture used to light a sign must be minimized. The light must be directed towards the sign. If possible, integrate the lights into the sign bracket. 12.8 Locate signs to be subordinate to the building design. • Signs should be located on the first floor of buildings, primarily. • Signs should not obscure historic building details. P127 IV.A. Exhibit A- Conceptual Design Reviews Page 3 of 8 12.9 Preserve historic signs. There is no historic building fabric on the proposed building. The applicant intends to meet the Guidelines and the City of Aspen Sign Code when a sign permit is submitted. 26.412.050. Review Criteria. An application for commercial design review may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: A. The proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial design standards, or any deviation from the standards provides a more appealing pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. Unique site constraints can justify a deviation from the standards. Compliance with Section 26.412.070, Suggested design elements, is not required but may be used to justify a deviation from the standards. Site plan: The project proposes a double gable roof facing Main Street that defines the corner and reflects the pattern of gable roofs in the block. The project reflects the street grid (Guideline 7.1) and maintains the traditional character of the alley by accessing trash and utilities from the rear of the property (Guideline 7.2). A sidewalk is proposed to define an entrance along Main Street. An awning is proposed to extend from the building along Monarch Street to define the entrance and as a pedestrian scaled element. A 6’ deep eave with wing walls projects from the building facing Main Street that is a modern interpretation of a traditional front porch element found on the 19th century building in the District. New sidewalks and street planting that are compliant with City of Aspen regulations are proposed (Guideline 7.6). A landscape garden bed is proposed along Main Street to create a buffer between outdoor seating and Highway 82 and to creatively resolve grade changes along the street. Parking is proposed through cash in lieu, which is a by right mitigation option at $30,000 per space. P128 IV.A. Exhibit A- Conceptual Design Reviews Page 4 of 8 Building Orientation and Alignment: The proposed building is setback 5 feet from Main Street and between 5 and 7 feet from Monarch Street. It is parallel to lot lines which maintains the traditional street grid and softens the 0 feet setback of the designated Cortina Lodge by proposes a front yard setback that fits within the range of setbacks (Guidelines 7.9 and 7.10). The image above illustrates the building setbacks in the neighborhood. As shown below, the Cortina sticks out into the right of way and there are almost 0 feet setbacks across Main and Monarch Streets. More generous setbacks are found heading west on Main Street. Building Height, Mass and Scale: The proposed building is a range of building height from 18’ 10” and 20’ 3.25” gable forms facing Main Street. The property slopes toward the alley with a 2’ grade change. Building height steps down toward the rear of the property as shown on the east elevation. The entire building is well below the 28’ height limit in the Mixed Use Zone District. This range of heights is consistent with Guideline 7.13 and is sensitive to the two story historic Cortina Lodge. 7.13 A new building or addition should reflect the range and variation in building height of the Main Street Historic District. 7.14 Design a new building to appear similar in scale to those in the district during the mining era. The property is almost 60’ in width. The proposed building is broken into 2 gable modules that creates a repetitive pattern Figure 1: Building setbacks in neighborhood. Star indicates 232 E. Main Street. Cortina is directly to the east. Figure 2: 1904 Sanborn Map shows almost a 0’ setback at 232 E. Main Street. Figures 3 & 4: Landmarks located within the same block as 232 E. Main St. P129 IV.A. Exhibit A- Conceptual Design Reviews Page 5 of 8 that is in scale and harmonious with the other two story buildings in the block (Guideline 7.14). A glass connector piece is proposed between the two gable forms along Monarch Street to create a visual break. The proposed building is clearly new construction that draws inspiration from the historic gable forms in the Historic District and the deep overhang of the chalet style represented by the Cortina Lodge. B. For proposed development converting an existing structure to commercial use, the proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial design standards, to the greatest extent practical. Changes to the façade of the building may be required to comply with this Section. n/a. C. The application shall comply with the guidelines within the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines as determined by the appropriate Commission. The guidelines set forth design review criteria, standards and guidelines that are to be used in making determinations of appropriateness. The City shall determine when a proposal is in compliance with the criteria, standards and guidelines. Although these criteria, standards and guidelines are relatively comprehensive, there may be circumstances where alternative ways of meeting the intent of the policy objectives might be identified. In such a case, the City must determine that the intent of the guideline is still met, albeit through alternative means. Please see discussion above. The conceptual design guidelines for the Main Street Historic District are met. 26.412.060. Commercial Design Standards. The following design standards, in addition to the commercial, lodging and historic district design objectives and guidelines, shall apply to commercial, lodging and mixed-use development: A. Public Amenity Space. Creative, well-designed public places and settings contribute to an attractive, exciting and vital downtown retail district and a pleasant pedestrian shopping and entertainment atmosphere. Public amenity can take the form of physical or operational improvements to public rights-of-way or private property within commercial areas. On parcels required to provide public amenity, pursuant to Section 26.575.030, Public amenity, the following standards shall apply to the provision of such amenity. Acceptance of the method or combination of methods of providing the public amenity shall be at the option of the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, according to the procedures herein and according to the following standards: 1. The dimensions of any proposed on-site public amenity sufficiently allow for a variety of uses and activities to occur, considering any expected tenant and future potential tenants and uses. There is currently no public amenity on-site as the entire site is used for a gas station. The required public amenity is 10% or 597.6 sf. At grade areas adjacent to the building along the east elevation and the garden area along Main Street meet the public amenity design standards and encompass 898.8 sf. Extensive Figure 5: Cortina Lodge. P130 IV.A. Exhibit A- Conceptual Design Reviews Page 6 of 8 upgrades to the right of way including street trees, sidewalks and a new intersection are proposed (subject to Parks and Engineering Department approval). The total public amenity including the off-site improvements to the right of way equals 2,979 sf. 2. The public amenity contributes to an active street vitality. To accomplish this characteristic, public seating, outdoor restaurant seating or similar active uses, shade trees, solar access, view orientation and simple at-grade relationships with adjacent rights-of-way are encouraged. Outdoor restaurant seating and landscaping are proposed along Main Street to vitalize the corner. New street trees are proposed to provide shade. The outdoor seating is underneath the eave overhang and as such does not count toward the public amenity calculation. 3. The public amenity and the design and operating characteristics of adjacent structures, rights-of- way and uses contribute to an inviting pedestrian environment. The public amenity area is open to view and open to the sky. There are no walls or enclosures and the grade changes are less than 2’. Landscaping is proposed and detailed information will be provided during Final Design Review. All of these features contribute to an inviting pedestrian environment on a busy corner. 4. The proposed amenity does not duplicate existing pedestrian space created by malls, sidewalks or adjacent property, or such duplication does not detract from the pedestrian environment. The proposed amenity space does not duplicate existing spaces. The proposed space defines the corner while providing a simple and energized area for pedestrians and customers to dwell. 5. Any variation to the design and operational standards for public amenity, Subsection 26.575.030.F., promotes the purpose of the public amenity requirements. No variations are requested to the design and operational standards for public amenity. B. Utility, delivery and trash service provision. When the necessary logistical elements of a commercial building are well designed, the building can better contribute to the overall success of the district. Poor logistics of one (1) building can detract from the quality of surrounding properties. Efficient delivery and trash areas are important to the function of alleyways. The following standards shall apply: 1. A trash and recycle service area shall be accommodated on all projects and shall meet the minimum size and location standards established by Title 12, Solid Waste, of the Municipal Code, unless otherwise established according to said Chapter. The required size for this type of development is 20’w x 15’d x 10’h and 300 sf. The proposed area is located off of the alley and is 22’5.75”w x 19’2.75”d x 10’ h and 302 sf in size (interior measurement). A slightly shorter trash area was originally proposed; however, after consulting with the Environmental Health Department, the depth was increased to meet city Standards. 2. A utility area shall be accommodated on all projects and shall meet the minimum standards established by Title 25, Utilities, of the Municipal Code, the City’s Electric Distribution Standards, and the National Electric Code, unless otherwise established according to said Codes. A 10’ x 10’ area is proposed on the alley that is open to the sky, which meets the Utilities Department Section 5 requirement. P131 IV.A. Exhibit A- Conceptual Design Reviews Page 7 of 8 3. All utility, trash and recycle service areas shall be co-located and combined to the greatest extent practical. The utility and trash areas are co-located along the alley in the northwest corner away from Monarch Street. 4. If the property adjoins an alleyway, the utility, trash and recycle service areas shall be along and accessed from the alleyway, unless otherwise approved through Title 12, Solid Waste, of the Municipal Code, or through Chapter 26.430, Special Review. These areas are located off of the alley. 5. All utility, trash and recycle service areas shall be fenced so as not to be visible from the street, unless they are entirely located on an alleyway or otherwise approved though Title 12, Solid Waste, of the Municipal Code, or through Chapter 26.430, Special Review. All fences shall be six (6) feet high from grade, shall be of sound construction, and shall be no less than ninety percent (90%) opaque, unless otherwise varied through Chapter 26.430, Special Review. The utility trash area is located on an alley inside the building’s double pocket doors to prevent wildlife from entering and to visibly shield the area from the alley. 6. Whenever utility, trash, and recycle service areas are required to be provided abutting an alley, other portions of a building may extend to the rear property line if otherwise allowed by this Title, provided that the utility, trash and recycle area is located at grade and accessible to the alley. The trash and recycle area is located at grade along the alley that is accessible from inside the building. 7. All utility service pedestals shall be located on private property. Easements shall allow for service provider access. Encroachments into the alleyway shall be minimized to the extent practical and should only be necessary when existing site conditions, such as an historic resource, dictate such encroachment. All encroachments shall be properly licensed. The utility areas are proposed to be located on private property. The applicant understands that an easement may be necessary to provide access. 8. All commercial and lodging buildings shall provide a delivery area. The delivery area shall be located along the alley if an alley adjoins the property. The delivery area shall be accessible to all tenant spaces of the building in a manner that meets the requirements of the International Building Code Chapters 10 and 11 as adopted and amended by the City of Aspen. All non-ground floor commercial spaces shall have access to an elevator or dumbwaiter for delivery access. Alleyways (vehicular rights-of-way) may not be utilized as pathways (pedestrian rights-of-way) to meet the requirements of the International Building Code. Any truck loading facility shall be an integral component of the building. Shared facilities are highly encouraged. Deliveries are proposed along the alleyway. The building is setback from the property line by 5’ providing a pathway that is on the property. Additional information and proposed pathway will be provided during Final Design Reviews and as part of the building permit application. 9. All commercial tenant spaces located on the ground floor in excess of 1,500 square feet shall contain a vestibule (double set of doors) developed internal to the structure to meet the requirements of the International Energy Conservation Code as adopted and amended by the City of Aspen, or an air curtain. P132 IV.A. Exhibit A- Conceptual Design Reviews Page 8 of 8 An internal air curtain is proposed at the main entrance along Monarch Street as noted on the plans. 10. Mechanical exhaust, including parking garage ventilation, shall be vented through the roof. The exhaust equipment shall be located as far away from the street as practical. Mechanical equipment and venting is proposed on the one story flat roof in a location that is fully shielded by the gable roof forms. Venting locations will be provided in the Final Design Review application. 11. Mechanical ventilation equipment and ducting shall be accommodated internally within the building and/or located on the roof, minimized to the extent practical and recessed behind a parapet wall or other screening device such that it shall not be visible from a public right-of-way at a pedestrian level. New buildings shall reserve adequate space for future ventilation and ducting needs. The rooftop mechanical is clustered on the one story flat roof element toward the rear of the property. Details of the mechanical equipment location will be provided in the Final Design Review application. 12. The trash and recycling service area requirements may be varied pursuant to Title 12, Solid Waste, of the Municipal Code. All other requirements of this subsection may be varied by special review (see Chapter 26.430.040.E, Utility and delivery service area provisions). A variance from the trash area requirements is not requested. P133 IV.A. Exhibit B – Special Review and Setback Variances Exhibit B – Special Review and Setback Variances for 232 East Main Street Special Review: The proposed project requests Special Review approval to increase the commercial floor area from 0.75:1 to 1:1 and to decrease the front yard setback from 10’ to 5’ for an eave overhang and wing walls. The Mixed Use Zone District authorizes these variations through specific Special Review criteria. 26.4130.040. Review standards for special review. No development subject to special review shall be permitted unless the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all standards and requirements set forth below. A. Dimensional requirements. Whenever the dimensional requirements of a proposed development are subject to special review, the development application shall only be approved if the following conditions are met. 1. The mass, height, density, configuration, amount of open space, landscaping and setbacks of the proposed development are designed in a manner which is compatible with or enhances the character of surrounding land uses and is consistent with the purposes of the underlying zone district. Commercial floor area: The Mixed Use Zone District allows commercial floor area to reach 1:1 through Special Review, where 0.75:1 is allowed by right. The project proposes a 100% commercial building that is well below the allowable height and meets the overall allowable floor area for the parcel. The proposed commercial use is compatible with surrounding land uses: across the street is the 100% commercial Moore Building, Explore booksellers and Main Street bakery are all 100% commercial buildings. Salon Tullio, Aspen Consignment and the office building across from Main Street Bakery are all commercial buildings. There are very limited residential uses in this section of Main Street including the Cortina Lodge which is housing for the Hotel Jerome employees and a residential historic Victorian adjacent to the Cortina. The purpose of the Mixed Use Zone District is “provide a transition between the commercial core and the surrounding residential neighborhoods and to provide a variety of building sizes compatible with character of the Main Street Historic District.” Considering the location of the property on the edge of the Commercial Core Zone District and the activity on this corner, we believe that a commercial building is most appropriate in this area. Adding residential to the building would raise the height through the addition of a true second floor, which we believe would be detrimental to the Cortina Lodge and the surrounding 1 and 2 story landmarks in the block. The proposed maximum height of just over 20’ to the 1/3 point fits in with neighboring 2 story structures and is compatible with surrounding landmarks: Carl’s Pharmacy – about 27’5” top of parapet Cortina Lodge (the 2 story building) – about 21’ gable roof apex Hotel Jerome – about 50’ at the corner of Monarch and Bleeker Sts. Residential 2 story Victorian adjacent to Cortina – about 20’ 6” gable roof apex P134 IV.A. Exhibit B – Special Review and Setback Variances Allowing an increase to the commercial floor area within the building does not change the maximum allowable floor area for the property; it only affects the use of the interior space. We find that a commercial building in this location is appropriate and that the proposed use fits in with the largely commercial neighborhood. Front yard setback: The Mixed Use Zone District allows up to a 5’ front yard setback through Special Review. Examining the historic and current development patterns of the neighborhood supports a 5’ setback requirement as a way to soften the Cortina Lodge, which sits in the right of way, and to create a transition between the Main Street and Commercial Core Historic Districts. The 10’ setback is important toward the middle of the Main Street Historic District where generous front yards are the pattern of development and represent 19th century residential site plans as seen below; however, 232 East Main Street is located at the end of the District where the setbacks are not as generous. Figure 3: An example of generous front yards on Main Street between 3rd and 4th Streets – 0.3 miles away from the subject property. Figure 1: Building setbacks in neighborhood. Star indicates 232 E. Main Street. Cortina is directly to the east. Figure 2: 1904 Sanborn Map shows almost a 0’ setback at 232 E. Main Street. P135 IV.A. Exhibit B – Special Review and Setback Variances The proposed building facade sits 11’ feet back from the front property line; however, the wing walls and the eave overhang are 5’ from the front property line. The proposal finds a successful middle ground between meeting the Code for the actual building wall and creating a buffer for the Cortina Lodge by projecting wing walls and a deep eave to the 5’ setback line. 2. The applicant demonstrates that the proposed development will not have adverse impacts on surrounding uses or will mitigate those impacts, including but not limited to the effects of shading, excess traffic, availability of parking in the neighborhood or blocking of a designated view plane. Commercial floor area: The project proposes to mitigate all impacts of the new commercial development. The proposed building cleans up the existing curb cuts and traffic issues at the current gas station. Parallel parking will be restored along Monarch Street in compliance with Engineering Department standards. Parking for the project is proposed to be met through cash in lieu, which is allowed by right for commercial development in this location. The property is not located within a designated view plane and the low height of the proposed building will not affect shading. As mentioned above the proposed use is consistent with other established uses in the neighborhood. Front yard setback: The proposed 5’ front yard setback is consistent with the surrounding development and does not negatively impact surrounding uses. The development proposes to mitigate all impacts by meeting Code requirements. The front yard setback allows the generous eave overhangs and wing walls to extend beyond the building face, which is integral to the success of the new architecture. The actual building face sits 11’ back from the property line which is more than the 10’ requirement of the zone district. Setback Variances: The following setback variances are requested: East side yard (Monarch): 5’ required, building is at 5’ but awning extends to ¾” West side yard: 5’ required, 0’ provided The property is located within the Main Street Historic District but is not a designated landmark. As such, it is subject to the following review criteria for setback variances: 26.312.040.A Standards applicable to variances. In order to authorize a variance from the dimensional requirements of Title 26, the appropriate decision making body shall make a finding that the following three (3) circumstances exist: 1. The grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals and objectives of this Title and the Municipal Code; and 2. The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure; and 3. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship, as distinguished from mere inconvenience. In P136 IV.A. Exhibit B – Special Review and Setback Variances determining whether an applicant’s rights would be deprived, the Board shall consider whether either of the following conditions apply: a) There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel, building or structure, which are not applicable to other parcels, structures or buildings in the same zone district and which do not result from the actions of the applicant; or b) Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied by the terms of this Title and the Municipal Code to other parcels, buildings or structures, in the same zone district. East setback: The proposed east setback is solely for an awning that defines the entrance to the building facing Monarch Street. The building is located 5’ from the property line and is compliant with zone district requirements. The grant of a variance for an awning is consistent with the purpose and goals of the Land Use Code and the Main Street Historic District guidelines which state: “Entries are clearly defined on most structures in the neighborhood. Porches, porticos and stoops are elements that typically define entries. These features add a one-story element to the fronts of buildings, helping to establish a uniform sense of human scale along the block.” The project already has a porch like entry facing Main Street. The awning proposed along Monarch Street acts as a secondary porch element that defines the entrance and breaks up the Monarch façade with a one story element. The 4’11 ¼” awning is the minimum reasonable depth for this type of building element that protects pedestrians and customers from the elements and is a defined architectural detail that does not appear understated in comparison to the rest of the building. The Land Use Code allows a long list of architectural details to infringe within required setbacks. Almost all of these elements are allowed because they do not add mass or bulk to the building. As stated earlier, the building is located at the 5’ setback, only the awning extends into this area. While properties are allowed to extend building eaves 18” into a setback, awnings are not allowed a setback exemption. The Main Street design guidelines support defined entries; however setting the building back even further from the property line to accommodate this awning would be detrimental on this specific corner site that is located in a transitional commercial neighborhood. The properties on the other 3 corners of the intersection are all allowed to have 0’ setbacks, while this property is subject to a 5’ setback which is met by the proposed building with the exception of the awning. P137 IV.A. Exhibit B – Special Review and Setback Variances West setback: A 0’ setback is proposed adjacent to the landmarked Cortina Lodge. The Cortina Lodge sits on the property line and the proposal maintains the current relationship between the two properties as shown below. The proposed 0’ setback is consistent with current development pattern of the Cortina and maintaining this relationship is important and aligned with historic preservation goals. Allowing the building to grow in width maintains a low two story building that is compatible with the adjacent landmarks and allows a reasonable amount of commercial use in the building. Requiring a west yard setback will shift the square footage from the setback to the second story which will have an adverse impact on adjacent landmarks and properties across the alley. In addition to being located to a landmark that does not meet setback requirement, this is a special property located on an intersection that contains all commercial zoning with the exception of this parcel. The commercial zoning on the other 3 corners all allow 0’ sideyard setbacks. The proposed 0’ setback along the west elevation supports the goals of the historic preservation program by maintaining the relationship between the landmark and the new building; is appropriate for reasons of fairness considering the other corners in the intersection are allowed 0’ setbacks; and facilitates a wider but lower height building that is compatible with surrounding landmarks. Figure 4: Current west side yard setback condition. P138 IV.A. P 1 3 9 I V . A . = input = calculation DATE: PROJECT NAME: PROJECT ADDRESS: APPLICANT CONTACT  INFORMATION: NAME, COMPANY,  ADDRESS, PHONE, EMAIL minor Entering Exiting Total Entering Exiting Total Commercial (sf)3828.0 sf 6.06 2.72 8.79 6.41 9.62 16.03 Free‐Market Housing (Units)0 Units 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Affordable Housing (Units)0 Units 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lodging (Units)0 Units 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Essential Public Facility (sf)0.0 sf 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.06 2.72 8.79 6.41 9.62 16.03 Land Use Trip Rate %Entering %Exiting Trip Rate %Entering %Exiting Commercial 2.27 0.69 0.31 4.14 0.4 0.6 Free‐Market Housing 0.67 0.29 0.71 0.82 0.56 0.44 Affordable Housing 0.75 0.48 0.52 0.89 0.55 0.45 Lodging 0.25 0.57 0.43 0.31 0.52 0.48 Essential Public Facility 0.86 0.62 0.38 1.66 0.4 0.6 AM Peak Average PM Peak Average Trips Generated AM Peak‐Hour PM Peak‐Hour TOTAL NEW TRIPS ASSUMPTIONS ASPEN TRIP GENERATION Is this a major or minor project? 232 E. Main Street 232 E. Main Street Net New  Units/Square Feet of  the Proposed ProjectProposed Land Use *For mixed‐use (at least two of the established land uses) sites, a 4% reduction for AM Peak‐Hour and a 14% reduction for PM Peak‐Hour is applied to  the trip generation.  Sara Adams of BendonAdams 300 S. Spring St., #202, Aspen, CO 81611 925‐2855 sara@bendonadams.com Trip Generation 3/15/2016 Instructions:  IMPORTANT: Turn on Macros: In order for code to run correctly the security settings need to be altered. Click "File"  and then click "Excel Options." In the "Trust Center" category, click "Trust Center Settings", and then click the "Macro  Settings" category. Beneath "Macro Settings" select "Enable all Macros."  Sheet 1. Trip Generation: Enter the project's square footage and/or unit counts under Proposed Land Use. The  numbers should reflect the net change in land use between existing and proposed conditions. If a landuse is to be  reduced put a negative number of units or square feet.  Sheet 2. MMLOS: Answer Yes, No, or Not Applicable under each of the Pedestrian, Bike and Transit sections. Points  are only awarded for proposed (not existing) and confirmed aspects of the project.  Sheet 3. TDM: Choose the mitigation measures that are appropriate for your project. Sheet 4. Summary and Narrative: Review the summary of the project's mitigated trips and provide a narrative which  explains the measures selected for the project. Click on "Generate Narrative" and individually explain each measure  that was chosen and how it enhances the site or mitigates vehicle traffic. Ensure each selected measure make sense  Minor Development - Inside the Roundabout Major Development - Outside the Roundabout Helpful Hints:  1. Refer to the Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines for information on the use of this tool. 2. Refer to TIA Frequently Asked Questions for a quick overview.  2. Hover over red corner tags for additional information on individual measures.  3. Proposed TDM or MMLOS measures should be new and/or an improvement of existing conditions. A project will  not receive credit for measures already in place. Proposed TDM or MMLOS measures should also make sense in the  context of project location and future use. Transportation Impact Analysis  TIA Frequently Asked Questions P140 IV.A. = input = calculation 35 Category Sub. Measure Number Question Answer Points 1 Does the project propose a detached sidewalk where an attached sidewalk currently exists? Does the proposed sidewalk and buffer meet standard minimum widths? Yes 5 2 Is the proposed effective sidewalk width greater than the standard minimum width?No 0 3 Does the project propose a landscape buffer greater than the standard minimum width?Yes 5 10 4 Does the project propose a detached sidewalk on an adjacent block? Does the proposed sidewalk and buffer meet standard minimum widths? No 0 5 Is the proposed effective sidewalk width on an adjacent block greater than the standard minimum width?No 0 6 Is the proposed landscape buffer on an adjacent block greater than the standard minimum width?No 0 0 7 Are slopes between back of curb and sidewalk equal to or less than 5%?Yes 0 8 Are curbs equal to (or less than) 6 inches?Yes 0 9 Is new large-scale landscaping proposed that improves the pedestrian experience? Properties within the Core do not have ample area to provide the level of landscaping required to receive credit in this category. Yes 5 10 Does the project propose an improved crosswalk? This measure must get City approval before receiving credit. Yes 5 10 11 Are existing driveways removed from the street? Yes 5 12 Is pedestrian and/or vehicle visibility unchanged by new structure or column?Yes 0 13 Is the grade (where pedestrians cross) on cross-slope of driveway 2% or less?Yes 0 14 Does the project propose enhanced pedestrian access points from the ROW? This includes improvements to ADA ramps or creating new access points which prevent pedestrians from crossing a street. Yes 5 15 Does the project propose enhanced pedestrian or bicyclist interaction with vehicles at driveway areas?No 0 10 16 Is the project's pedestrian directness factor less than 1.5? Yes 0 17 Does the project propose new improvements which reduce the pedestrian directness factor to less than 1.2? A site which has an existing pedestrian directness factor less than 1.2 cannot receive credit in this category. No 0 18 Is the project proposing an off site improvement that results in a pedestrian directness factor below 1.2?* No 0 19 Are traffic calming features proposed that are part of an approved plan (speed humps, rapid flash)?*No 0 0 20 Are additional minor improvements proposed which benefit the pedestrian experience and have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff? No 0 21 Are additional major improvements proposed which benefit the pedestrian experience and have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff? No 0 0 30 Pe d e s t r i a n s Subtotal Ad d i t i o n a l Pr o p o s e d Im p r o v e m e n t s TOTAL NUMBER OF TRIPS MITIGATED: Pe d e s t r i a n R o u t e s Tr a f f i c C a l m i n g a n d Pe d e s t r i a n N e t w o r k Dr i v e w a y s , P a r k i n g , a n d A c c e s s Co n s i d e r a t i o n s MMLOS Input Page Subtotal Subtotal Si d e w a l k C o n d i t i o n on A d j a c e n t B l o c k s Si d e w a l k C o n d i t i o n on P r o j e c t F r o n t a g e Subtotal Instructions: Answer Yes, No, or Not Applicable to each measure under the Pedestrian, Bike and Transit sections. Subtotal Subtotal Pedestrian Total* P141 IV.A. Category Sub.Measure Number Question Answer Points 22 Is a new bicycle path being implemented with City approved design? No 0 23 Do new bike paths allow access without crossing a street or driveway?No 0 24 Is there proposed landscaping, striping, or signage improvements to an existing bicycle path?No 0 25 Does the project propose additional minor bicycle improvements which have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff?Yes 5 26 Does the project propose additional major bicycle improvements which have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff?No 0 5 Bi c y c l e Pa r k i n g 27 Is the project providing bicycle parking? No 0 0 5 Category Sub.Measure Number Question Answer Points 28 Is seating/bench proposed?No 0 29 Is a trash receptacle proposed?No 0 30 Is transit system information (signage) proposed?No 0 31 Is shelter/shade proposed?No 0 32 Is enhanced pedestrian-scale lighting proposed?No 0 33 Is real-time transit information proposed?No 0 34 Is bicycle parking/storage proposed specifically for bus stop use? No 0 35 Are ADA improvements proposed?No 0 0 36 Is a bus pull-out proposed at an existing stop?No 0 37 Is relocation of a bus stop to improve transit accessibility or roadway operations proposed?No 0 38 Is a new bus stop proposed (with minimum of two basic amenities)? No 0 0 0 Tr a n s i t Ba s i c A m e n i t i e s Subtotal Subtotal En h a n c e d Am e n i t i e s Subtotal Subtotal Bicycles Total* Transit Total* Bi c y c l e s Mo d i f i c a t i o n s t o E x i s t i n g B i c y c l e Pa t h s P142 IV.A. Category Measure  Number Sub.  Question Answer  Strategy VMT  Reductions Will an onsite ammenities strategy be implemented?No Which onsite ammenities will be implemented?Retail Servicing Will a shared shuttle service strategy be implemented?No What is the degree of implementation?Low What is the company size?Small What percentage of customers are eligible? 3 Nonmotorized Zones Will a nonmotorized zones strategy be implemented?No 0.00% 0.00% Category Measure  Number Sub.  Question Answer  Strategy VMT  Reductions Will a network expansion stragtegy be implemented?NA What is the percentage increase of transit network coverage? What is the existing transit mode share as a % of total daily trips? Will a service frequency/speed strategy be implemented?NA What is the percentage reduction in headways (increase in frequency)?  What is the existing transit mode share as a % of total daily trips? What is the level of implementation? Will a transit access improvement strategy be implemented?Yes What is the extent of access improvements? Within Project and Connecting Off‐site 7 Intercept Lot Will an intercept lot strategy be implemented?No 0.00% 2.00% Category Measure  Number Sub.  Question Answer  Strategy VMT  Reductions Will there be participation in TOP?No What percentage of employees are eligible? Is a transit fare subsidy strategy implemented?No What percentage of employees are eligible?0% What is the amount of transit subsidy per passenger (daily equivalent)?25% Is an employee parking cash‐out strategy being implemented?No What percentage of employees are eligible? Is a workplace parking pricing strategy implemented?No What is the daily parking charge? What percentage of employees are subject to priced parking? Is a compressed work weeks strategy implemented?No What percentage of employees are participating? What is the workweek schedule? Is an employer sponsered shuttle program implemented?No What is the employer size? What percentage of employees are eligible? Is a carpool matching strategy implemented?No What percentage of employees are eligble?0% Is carshare participation being implemented?No How many employee memberships have been purchased?<100 What percentage of employees are eligble?0% Is participation in the bikeshare program WE‐cycle being implemented?Yes How many memberships have been purchased?<100 What percentage of employees/guests are eligble?100% Is an end of trip facilities strategy being implemented?No What is the degree of implementation?  What is the employer size?  Is a self‐funded emergency ride home strategy being implemented?No What percentage of employees are eligible? Is a carpool/vanpool priority parking strategy being implemented?No What is the employer size? What number of parking spots are available for the program? Is a private employer shuttle strategy being implemented?No What is the employer size? What percentage of employees are eligible? Is a trip reduction marketing/incentive program implemented?Yes What percentage of employees/guests are eligible?100% 1.19% 2.00% 3.16% 1. 22% work trips represents a mixed-used site (SF Bay Area Travel Survey). See Assumptions Tab for more detail. 21 16 17 18 19 20 11 12 13 14 15 Participation in TOP Transit Fare Subsidy Employee Parking Cash‐Out Workplace Parking Pricing Compressed Work Weeks Employer Sponsored Vanpool Carpool Matching Carshare Program Self‐funded Emergency Ride Home Carpool/Vanpool Priority Parking Private Employer Shuttle Trip Reduction Marketing/Incentive  Program End of Trip Facilities Cross Category Maximum Reduction, Neighborhood and Transit  Global Maximum VMT Reductions TDM Input Page 1.50% 0.00% 0.00% Co m m u t e   T r i p   R e d u c t i o n   P r o g r a m s   S t r a t e g i e s Onsite Servicing Shared Shuttle Service Ne i g h b o r h o o d / S i t e   En h a n c e m e n t s   S t r a t e g i e s 0.00% 0.00% Network Expansion Service Frequency/Speed Transit Access Improvement Maximum Reduction Allowed in Category 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Bikeshare Program 0.00% 4.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.00% 0.00% Maximum Reduction Allowed in Category Maximum Reduction Allowed in CategoryTr a n s i t   S y s t e m   I m p r o v e m e n t s   St r a t e g i e s 1 2 4 5 6 8 9 10 Instructions TDM: Choose the mitigation measures that are appropriate for your project. Proposed TDM or  MMLOS measures should be new and/or an improvement of existing conditions. A project will not receive credit  for measures already in place. Proposed TDM or MMLOS measures should also make sense in the context of  project location and future use. P143 IV.A. DATE: PROJECT NAME: PROJECT ADDRESS: APPLICANT CONTACT  INFORMATION: NAME, COMPANY,  ADDRESS, PHONE, EMAIL Peak Hour Max Trips Generated MMLOS TDM Total Trips Mitigated PM 16.0 35 0.51 35.51 0.00 Click on the "Generate Narrative" Button to the right.  Respond to each of the prompts in the space provided. Each response should cover the following:   1. Explain the selected measure.  2. Call out where the measure is located. 3. Demonstrate how the selected measure is appropriate to enhance the project site       and reduce traffic impacts. 4. Explain the Enforcement and Financing Plan for the selected measure.    5. Explain the scheduling and implementation responsibility of the mitigation measure.  6. Attach any additional information and a site map to the narrative report.  Sara Adams of BendonAdams 300 S. Spring St., #202, Aspen, CO 81611 925‐2855 sara@bendonadams.com Summary and Narrative:  Narrative: 3/15/2016 232 E. Main Street 232 E. Main Street Trip Generation SUMMARY Trip Mitigation NET TRIPS TO BE  MITIGATED Project Description In the space below provide a description of the proposed project. A two story commercial building the replaces an existing gas station is proposed on the corner of Monarch and Main Streets. Outdoor seating  on the property is proposed facing Main Street.  A landscape area both on and off the property is proposed in addition to new sidewalks, a  new intersection and new street trees.  A wecycle station is proposed on Monarch Street in the right of way. MMLOS In the space provided call out the effective sidewalk width and the percentage of the site which meets or exceeds the minimum standard  width. Explain the site constraints for areas which do not meet the minimum width.  This property is located on the corner of Main and Monarch Streets. 8 ft. sidewalk widths are proposed for both Main and Monarch Streets  which meets the requirment for a commercial building. 100% of the site meets the required 8' sidewalk width.  A detached sidewalk is proposed on an adjacent block. Explain below how this improvement ties into the proposed project.  Detached sidewalks are proposed for both Main and Monarch Streets, but are not proposed on a adjacent block.  In the space provided desicribe what  new landscaping is proposed and how the proposed landscaping plan enhances the pedestrian  experience. This measure is only applicable to large scale projects and requires more extensive landscaping then a few plantings or lawn  area. The project shall establish extensive landscaping which significantly benefits the site and improves the pedestrian comfort and  experience. P144 IV.A. New landscaping is proposed in the right of way and on the property along Main Street to enhance the pedestrian experience by creating a  beautiful buffer between the pedestrian and Highway 82.  more detailed landscape plans will be provided during Final Design Reviews and  included in the Final TIA application.  Explain the proposed improved crosswalk and how this improvement benefits the pedestian experience and the site as a whole. An  improved crosswalk includes measures such as incorporating a corner bulb out or defining a crosswalk path with colored concrete. Simply  re‐striping a crosswalk will not recieve credit. This measure must be pre‐approved by City staff.  Prio r to a final review application, we plan to meet with Engineering Staff to discuss the specific crosswalk and corner bulb out proposed at  the corner of Main and Monarch Streets.  Explain what driveways are removed and how this benefits the pedestrian experience.  The entire site is a curbcut due to the current use as a gas station.  Removing all curb cuts and reconstructing the sidewalks benefits the  pedestrian experience by offering a more organized, safe and clearly delineated area for walking. Describe the enhanced pedestrian access point(s). This measure is to improve pedestrian access to the site from the ROW. It includes  adding additional access points which prevent pedestrians and bicyclists from crossing a street,  improvements to the project's ADA ramps  in the ROW, and improvements to existing access points.  New ADA ramps in the right of way will be provided at the intersection of Main and Monarch Streets.  Explain any additional minor bicycle improvements which have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff.  We plan to discuss the addition of a wecycle station in the right of way with City Staff prior to the submission of a final TIA as part of the final  review land use application.  Include any additional information that pertains to the MMLOS plan in the space provided below.  A TIA site plan is included in the application on sheet TIA‐1. TDM The project proposes onsite amenities. Describe the combination of amenities below.  Providing a combination of creative onsite  amenities reduces the need for SOV trips throughout the day. Services within the development that will reduce the need for auto trips  include grocery, restaurant, recreation rental, dry cleaning, child care, bicycle repair stations, etc.  A combination of amenities is required.  n/a Explain the proposed nonmotorized zones strategy below. Larger areas of non‐motorized travel zones provide safe and comfortable space  that encourages walking and bicycling, thus reducing SOV trips. Non‐motorized zones are applicable for larger redevelopment or specific  areas only. Public amenity space already required by the City of Aspen does not qualify for this reduction.  n/a ‐ this is a small development on a 5,976 sf lot.  P145 IV.A. A transit access improvement strategy will be implemented. Provision of safe and comfortable access to transit service is important for  generating and maintaining transit ridership, thus reducing SOV trips. The successful project will improve pedestrian access to a transit  stop via formalization of trails, addition and/or improvement of sidewalk, installation of lighting and/or way finding or other  measures.Explain the proposed transit access improvement strategy below.  We propose to improve the sidewalk and to remove all of the curb cuts on the property making the trip to the bus stop on Main Street much  more safe. Provide details in the space provided for the proposed carshare participation. Carshare programs have been linked to increased use of  alternative transportation modes and reduced SOV trips. The successful project will provide access to Aspen’s CAR TO GO carshare  program. Trip reduction potential will depend on the level to which the development participates.  Car share memberships can be  provided to all employees or residents of new developments.  n/a Provide details for the proposed bike share program participation. Bike sharing provides access to a fleet of bicycles for short trips, thus  reducing SOV travel. The successful project will provide memberships to the existing WE‐cycle program. Include details on how many WE‐ cycle memberships will be purchased and whether these will be made available to guests, employees, or both.  Memberships to wecycle will be provided to employees and a new wecycle station will be located in adjacent the right of way.  Explain the proposed trip reduction marketing/incentive program in the space provided. A trip reduction marketing programs should  include a number of the following strategies: orientation to trip reduction programs and benefits; orientation to specific alternative  transportation modes such as bus service information, bike/walk route maps, etc.; publishing of web or traditional informational  materials; events and contests such as commuter fairs, new employee orientations, bike to work days, etc.; educational opportunities  such bicycle commute/repair classes; web or traditional materials aimed at guests/customers such as bike/walk maps, free transit day  passes, etc.; incentive programs such as prizes, rewards or discounts for alternative commuting.  Information about transportation alternatives such as bus routes and times, bike and walking maps, and other transit focused information  will be provided to employees.  Include any additional information that pertains to the TDM plan in the space provided below.  Enter Text Here MMLOS Site Plan Requirements Include the following on a site plan. Clearly call out and label each measure. Attach the site plan to the TIA submittal. Sidewalk Width and Buffer Width Detached Sidewalk on Adjacent Property Landscape Buffer on Adjacent Property Slopes Between Back of Curb and Sidewalk Landscape Plan Crosswalk Improvement(s) Removed Driveway(s) 2% Slope at Pedestrian Driveway Crossings Enhanced Pedestrian Access Point Pedestrian Directness Factor (See callout number 9 on the MMLOS sheet for an example) Enforcement and Financing Provide an overview of the Enforcement and Financing plan for the proposed transportation mitigation measures. P146 IV.A. this is a small redevelopment: most of the improvements to meet transportation mitigation are physical improvements that will be captured  during the building permit and certificate of occupancy process. Financing and enforcement for wecycle memberships will be clarified in the  final TIA application. The property owner will assess these measures through a survey and report them every year for 3 years to the City of Aspen. The plan will  include status of implemented measures, survey methodology and results, evaluation of performance and conclusions/ recommendations for  changes.  Scheduling and Implementation Responsibility of Mitigation Measures Provide an overview of the scheduling and implementation responsibility for the proposed transportation mitigation measures. Most of the transportation mitigation measures will occur during construction and prior to a certificate of occupancy.  Monitoring and Reporting Provide a monitoring and reporting plan. Refer to page 17 in the Transportation Analysis Guidelines for a list of monitoring plan  requirements. Components of a Monitoring and Reporting Plan should include (1) Assessment of compliance with guidelines, (2) Results  and effectiveness of implemented measures, (3) Identification of additional strategies, and (4) Surveys and other supporting data. P147 IV.A. PR O J E C T LO C A T I O N ScalePROJECT NUMBER DATE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY 12" = 1’−0"6/29/2016 5:31:21 PM232 E. MAIN STREET ASPEN, CO.CS−1ProjectNumberIssue Date Author Checker COVER SHEET AS P E N , C O LO C A L J U R I S D I C T I O N : TH E C I T Y O F A S P E N 13 0 S . G A L E N A S T R E E T AS P E N , C O 8 1 6 1 1 TE L ( 9 7 0 ) 4 2 9 - 2 7 6 1 CO N T A C T : B Y D E P A R T M E N T AR C H I T E C T : MO D I F A R C H I T E C T U R E 12 0 0 W E S T L A K E S T R E E T CH I C A G O , I L 6 0 6 0 7 CO N T A C T S : R O B A V I L A , R A O R S T E V E C O U G H L I N , R A OW N E R ' S R E P R E S E N T A T I V E & G E N E R A L C O N T R A C T O R : M D E V E L O P M E N T 20 0 1 N . H A L S T E D S T . , S U I T E 3 0 4 CH I C A G O , I L 6 0 6 1 4 CO N T A C T : M A R K H U N T LA N D P L A N N E R : BE N D O N A D A M S 30 0 S . S P R I N G S T . , # 2 0 2 AS P E N , C O 8 1 6 1 1 SA R A A D A M S , A I C P VI C I N I T Y M A P SH E E T N U M B E R SH E E T N A M E 1 - T I T L E CS - 1 CO V E R S H E E T 2- S U R V E Y SH E E T 1 V I C I N I T Y M A P , C O N T R O L L I N G M O N U M E N T A I O N , P R O P DE S C R I P T I O N S , N O T E S , A N D C E R T I F I C A T E S SH E E T 2 E X T E R I O R B O U N D A R Y , E X I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S , A N D TO P O G R A P H Y 3 - A R C H I T E C T U R A L PA - 1 EX I S T I N G P U B L I C A M E N I T Y PA - 2 PR O P O S E D P U B L I C A M E N I T Y TI A - 1 TI A P R O P O S E D S I T E P L A N EC - 1 EX I S T I N G F L O O R P L A N S EC - 2 EX I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S S I T E P L A N A- 0 1 0 SI T E P L A N A- 1 1 0 PR O P O S E D F L O O R P L A N S FA R - 1 FA R C A L C U L A T I O N S NL - 1 NE T L E A S A B L E A- 1 3 1 RO O F P L A N A- 2 1 1 PR O P O S E D B U I L D I N G E L E V A T I O N S A- 2 1 2 PR O P O S E D B U I L D I N G E L E V A T I O N S NO. DATE BYDESCRIPTION 1 03.02.16 SC ISSUED TO LAND PLANNER BU I L D I N G C O D E : I N T E R N A T I O N A L B U I L D I N G C O D E 2 0 1 5 ME C H A N I C A L : I N T E R N A T I O N A L M E C H A N I C A L C O D E 2 0 1 5 PL U M B I N G : I N T E R N A T I O N A L P L U M B I N G C O D E 2 0 1 5 EL E C T R I C A L : N A T I O N A L E L E C T R I C A L C O D E 2 0 1 4 AC C E S S I B I L I T Y : I C C / A N S I A 1 1 7 . 1 2 0 0 3 EN E R G Y : I N T E R N A T I O N A L E N E R G Y C O N S E R V A T I O N C O D E 2 0 1 5 FI R E C O D E : I N T E R N A T I O N A L F I R E C O D E 2 0 1 5 FU E L G A S : I N T E R N A T I O N A L F U E L G A S C O D E 2 0 1 5 AP P L I C A B L E C O D E S P148 IV.A. ScalePROJECT NUMBER DATE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY 6/29/2016 5:31:20 PM232 E. MAIN STREET ASPEN, CO.ALTAProjectNumberIssue Date Author Checker EXISTING LAND SURVEYNO. DATE BYDESCRIPTION 1 03.02.16 SC ISSUED TO LAND PLANNER P149 IV.A. ScalePROJECT NUMBER DATE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY 6/29/2016 5:31:37 PM232 E. MAIN STREET ASPEN, CO.PA−1ProjectNumberIssue Date Author Checker EXISTING PUBLIC AMENITY TH I S L O T D O E S N O T HA V E A N Y E X I S T I N G PU B L I C A M E N I T Y S P A C E NO. DATE BYDESCRIPTION 1 03.02.16 SC ISSUED TO LAND PLANNER P150 IV.A. PR O P O S E D 2 S T O R Y RE T A I L B U I L D I N G H I S T O R I C C O R T I N A L O D G E TR A N S F O R M E R PR O P E R T Y L I N E CO R T I N A LO D G E B A L C O N Y PU B L I C A M E N I T Y A R E A 89 8 . 8 0 S F 15 ' - 0 " 6'- 1 1 / 4 " 9 ' - 4 1 / 2 " 8 ' - 0 " 5 ' - 0 " R. O . W . P U B L I C A M E N I T Y A R E A 29 7 8 . 9 2 S F ScalePROJECT NUMBER DATE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY 1" = 10’−0"6/29/2016 5:31:39 PM232 E. MAIN STREET ASPEN, CO.PA−2ProjectNumberIssue Date Author Checker PROPOSED PUBLIC AMENITY 1 " = 1 0 ' - 0 " 1 PR O P O S E D P U B L I C A M M E N I T Y P L A N NO. DATE BYDESCRIPTION 1 03.02.16 SC ISSUED TO LAND PLANNER P151 IV.A. AL L E Y PR O P O S E D 2 S T O R Y RE T A I L B U I L D I N G M O N A R C H S T . MA I N S T . H I S T O R I C C O R T I N A L O D G E N E W S T R E E T P A R K I N G N E W S T R E E T P A R K I N G N E W S T R E E T P A R K I N G TR A N S F O R M E R PR O P E R T Y L I N E CO R T I N A LO D G E B A L C O N Y BE N C H BE N C H W E C Y C L E S T A T I O N FL E X I B L E DE L I N E A T O R PO S T S DE T E C T A B L E WA R N I N G DE T E C T A B L E WA R N I N G DE T E C T A B L E WA R N I N G FL E X I B L E DE L I N E A T O R PO S T S RO U T E DI S T A N C E : 4 3 ' - 0 " NE W P E D E S T R I A N EN T R Y D O O R : DI S T A N C E 5 8 ' - 0 " LA N D S C A P E A R E A 42 7 S F L A N D S C A P E A R E A 1 3 6 . 4 9 S F L A N D S C A P E A R E A 1 0 5 . 1 4 S F L A N D S C A P E A R E A 1 0 3 . 6 2 S F L A N D S C A P E A R E A 9 3 . 6 1 S F TR A S H A N D U T I L I T Y AR E A 10 3 2 2 ' - 4 3 / 4 " 3 ' - 0 " 1 7 ' - 3 " 3 ' - 0 " 1 7 ' - 0 " 3 ' - 0 " 1 5 ' - 4 1 / 4 " 15 ' - 0 " 6'- 1 1 / 4 " 45 ' - 9 " 9 ' - 4 1 / 2 " 8 ' - 0 " 5 ' - 0 " 1 0 ' - 0 " 13 ' - 0 " LA N D S C A P E A R E A 17 5 S F LA N D S C A P E A R E A 70 S F ScalePROJECT NUMBER DATE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY 1" = 10’−0"6/29/2016 5:31:39 PM232 E. MAIN STREET ASPEN, CO.TIA−1ProjectNumberIssue Date Author Checker TIA PROPOSED SITE PLAN 1 " = 1 0 ' - 0 " 1 PR O P O S E D T I A S I T E P L A N NO. DATE BYDESCRIPTION 1 03.02.16 SC ISSUED TO LAND PLANNER P152 IV.A. NE T L E A S A B L E A R E A = 1 5 0 0 S F FU E L P U M P S ( N I C I N EX I S T I N G N E T LE A S A B L E A R E A ) ScalePROJECT NUMBER DATE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY 1/4" = 1’−0"6/29/2016 5:31:26 PM232 E. MAIN STREET ASPEN, CO.EC−1ProjectNumberIssue Date Author Checker EXISTING FLOOR PLANS 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 EX I S T I N G F L O O R P L A N NO. DATE BYDESCRIPTION 1 03.02.16 SC ISSUED TO LAND PLANNER P153 IV.A. AL L E Y PR O P O S E D 2 S T O R Y RE T A I L B U I L D I N G LA N D S C A P E A R E A 42 7 S F M O N A R C H S T . MA I N S T . L A N D S C A P E A R E A 1 3 6 . 4 9 S F H I S T O R I C C O R T I N A L O D G E N E W S T R E E T P A R K I N G N E W S T R E E T P A R K I N G N E W S T R E E T P A R K I N G TR A N S F O R M E R AW N I N G , T Y P . PR O P E R T Y L I N E CO R T I N A LO D G E B A L C O N Y BE N C H BE N C H W E C Y C L E S T A T I O N EX I S T . T R A F F I C SI G N A L EX I S T . C R O S S I N G BU T T O N S L A N D S C A P E A R E A 1 0 5 . 1 4 S F L A N D S C A P E A R E A 1 0 3 . 6 2 S F L A N D S C A P E A R E A 9 3 . 6 1 S F FL E X I B L E DE L I N E A T O R PO S T S DE T E C T A B L E WA R N I N G DE T E C T A B L E WA R N I N G FL E X I B L E DE L I N E A T O R PO S T S 14 ' - 1 1 / 4 " 7' - 0 " 8'- 0 " 6'- 1 1 / 4 " 30 2 S F TR A S H A N D U T I L I T Y AR E A 10 3 1 0 ' - 0 " S E T B A C K 5 ' - 0 " 8 ' - 0 " 9 ' - 4 1 / 2 " 45 ' - 9 " LA N D S C A P E A R E A 17 5 S F 54 ' - 9 " 13 ' - 0 " HIS T O R I C C O R T I N A LO D G E S T O N E C H I M N E Y 1 9 ' - 2 3 / 4 " SI D E W A L K LA N D S C A P E A R E A 70 S F ScalePROJECT NUMBER DATE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY 1" = 10’−0"6/29/2016 5:31:04 PM232 E. MAIN STREET ASPEN, CO.A−010ProjectNumberIssue Date Author Checker SITE PLAN 1 " = 1 0 ' - 0 " 1 PR O P O S E D S I T E P L A N NO. DATE BYDESCRIPTION 1 03.02.16 SC ISSUED TO LAND PLANNER P154 IV.A. DN 59 ' - 9 " 5 ' - 3 " 8 9 ' - 9 " 5 ' - 0 " TR A N S F O R M E R 1 0 0 ' - 0 " AI R C U R T A I N B Y TE N A N T AI R C U R T A I N B Y TE N A N T 22 ' - 5 3 / 4 " 30 ' - 3 1 / 2 " 5 ' - 0 " 8 5 ' - 0 " 1 0 ' - 0 " 52 ' - 9 " 7'- 0 " 54 ' - 9 " 5'- 0 " 3 2 ' - 1 0 1 / 4 " 5 6 ' - 1 0 3 / 4 " MA I N F L O O R R E T A I L SP A C E 10 0 30 2 S F TR A S H A N D U T I L I T Y AR E A 10 3 2 ' - 4 1 / 2 " 1 1 ' - 0 3 / 4 " 1 ' - 1 1 1 / 2 " 1 1 ' - 0 3 / 4 " 1 ' - 1 1 1 / 2 " 1 1 ' - 0 3 / 4 " 1 ' - 1 1 1 / 2 " 1 1 ' - 0 3 / 4 " 2 ' - 4 1 / 2 " 2 ' - 9 " 6 ' - 0 " EL E V . 10 9 UP UT I L I T Y ME T E R S 13 ' - 0 " 8'- 0 " x 8 ' - 0 " D O U B L E PO C K E T D O O R S OU T D O O R D E C K 65 ' E X I T A C C E S S TR A V E L D I S T A N C E FR O M L E V E L 2 OP E N T O B E L O W RO O F 15 4 7 S F 2N D L E V E L RE T A I L S P A C E 10 7 EL E V . 10 9 22 ' - 5 3 / 4 " 30 ' - 3 1 / 2 " 52 ' - 9 " 56'-10 3/4"32'-10 1/4"89'-9" 54 ' - 9 " 8 5 ' - 0 " DN LO W H E A D C L E A R A N C E LO W H E A D C L E A R A N C E 15 4 7 / 6 0 = 2 5 O C C U P A N T S ScalePROJECT NUMBER DATE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY 3/16" = 1’−0"6/29/2016 5:59:59 PM232 E. MAIN STREET ASPEN, CO.A−110ProjectNumberIssue Date Author Checker PROPOSED FLOOR PLANS 3 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 MA I N F L O O R P R O P O S E D P L A N 3 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 2N D L E V E L - P R O P O S E D P L A N NO. DATE BYDESCRIPTION 1 03.02.16 SC ISSUED TO LAND PLANNER P155 IV.A. ZONING: (MU) MIXED USE NET LOT AREA: 5,976 SF (59'-9" X 100'-0")ZONING ALLOWANCE (0.75:1) 4482 SF (0.75 X 5,976 SF)(1:1) 5,976 BY SPECIAL REVIEW (1 X 5,976 SF)PROPOSED F.A.R. 5976SF / 5976SF = (1:1)ZONING INFO AND CALCS: 51 S F EL E V . 5 ' - 3 " 8 9 ' - 9 " 5 ' - 0 " 22 ' - 5 3 / 4 " 37 ' - 3 1 / 2 " 59 ' - 9 " 5 ' - 0 " 8 5 ' - 0 " 1 0 ' - 0 " 54 ' - 9 " 5' - 0 " 5 7 ' - 7 3 / 4 " 3 2 ' - 1 1 / 4 " 37 1 9 S F MA I N F L O O R RE T A I L S P A C E 10 7 S F ST A I R UP 6 ' - 0 " 32 9 S F DE C K 35 1 S F TR A S H A N D UT I L I T Y A R E A 13 6 S F ST A I R 92 S F ST A I R 52 S F EL E V . 16 1 2 S F 2N D L E V E L RE T A I L S P A C E 52 ' - 9 " 52 ' - 9 " 7'- 0 " 5 6 ' - 1 0 3 / 4 " 3 2 ' - 1 0 1 / 4 " 5'-3"89'-9"5'-0" 54 ' - 9 " 5'- 0 " 8 5 ' - 0 " 1 0 ' - 0 " 8 5 ' - 0 " 5 ' - 0 " RO O F DN FLOOR AREA RATIO (F.A.R.) LEGEND AREA TOWARD F.A.R.EXEMPT FROM F.A.R. 4 ' - 0 " OP E N T O B E L O W ScalePROJECT NUMBER DATE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY As indicated 6/29/2016 5:31:27 PM232 E. MAIN STREET ASPEN, CO.FAR−1ProjectNumberIssue Date Author Checker FAR CALCULATIONS 3 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 MA I N F L O O R - P R O P O S E D P L A N 3 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 2N D L E V E L - P R O P O S E D P L A N FLOOR AREA SUMMARY - AREA TOWARD F.A.R.NAME AREA L E V E L MAIN FLOOR RETAIL SPACE 3 7 1 9 S F M A I N F L O O R TRASH AND UTILITY AREA 3 5 1 S F M A I N F L O O R STAIR 136 SF M A I N F L O O R STAIR 107 SF M A I N F L O O R ELEV.51 SF M A I N F L O O R 2ND LEVEL RETAIL SPACE 1 6 1 2 S F 2 N D L E V E L 5976 SF FLOOR AREA SUMMARY - EXEMPT FROM F.A.R.NAME AREA L E V E L DECK 329 SF M A I N F L O O R STAIR 92 SF 2 N D L E V E L ELEV.52 SF 2 N D L E V E L 473 SF NO. DATE BYDESCRIPTION 1 03.02.16 SC ISSUED TO LAND PLANNER P156 IV.A. 36 7 5 S F MA I N F L O O R RE T A I L S P A C E 5 7 ' - 7 3 / 4 " 3 2 ' - 1 1 / 4 " 52 ' - 9 " 59 ' - 9 " 52 ' - 9 " 7'- 0 " 5 ' - 3 " 8 9 ' - 9 " 5 ' - 0 " 54 ' - 9 " 5'- 0 " 5 ' - 0 " 8 5 ' - 0 " 1 0 ' - 0 " 1 0 0 ' - 0 " 51 S F EL E V . 10 7 S F ST A I R UP 31 3 S F TR A S H A N D UT I L I T Y A R E A NET LEASABLE AREA LEGEND TOWARD NET LEASABLE EXEMPT FROM NET LEASABLE 32 7 S F DE C K 14 9 5 S F 2N D F L O O R RE T A I L S P A C E 51 S F EL E V . 84 S F ST A I R 52 ' - 9 " 52 ' - 9 " 7' - 0 " 5 6 ' - 1 0 3 / 4 " 3 2 ' - 1 0 1 / 4 " 5'-3"89'-9"5'-0" 54 ' - 9 " 5'- 0 " 0 " 8 5 ' - 0 " 1 0 ' - 0 " 8 5 ' - 0 " 5 ' - 0 " RO O F DN OP E N T O B E L O W ScalePROJECT NUMBER DATE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY 3/16" = 1’−0"6/29/2016 5:31:28 PM232 E. MAIN STREET ASPEN, CO.NL−1ProjectNumberIssue Date Author Checker NET LEASABLETOWARD NET LEASABLE NAME AREA L E V E L MAIN FLOOR RETAIL SPACE3675 SF M A I N F L O O R STAIR 107 SF M A I N F L O O R ELEV.51 SF M A I N F L O O R 2ND FLOOR RETAIL SPACE1495 SF 2 N D L E V E L TOTAL AREA 5328 SF 3 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 MA I N F L O O R - N E T L E A S A B L E A R E A 3 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 2N D L E V E L - N E T L E A S A B L E A R E A EXEMPT FROM NET LEASABLE NAME AREA L E V E L DECK 327 SF M A I N F L O O R TRASH AND UTILITY AREA313 SF M A I N F L O O R STAIR 84 SF 2 N D L E V E L ELEV.51 SF 2 N D L E V E L TOTAL AREA 776 SF NO. DATE BYDESCRIPTION 1 03.02.16 SC ISSUED TO LAND PLANNER P157 IV.A. ME C H A N I C A L UN I T A R E A 87 0 S F ST E E L P L A T E R A I N S C R E E N PA N E L I N G W / 1 / 2 " R E V E A L OV E R R O O F A T ( 9 / 1 2 ) S L O P E . 17 9 8 S F RO O F H A T C H ST E E L A W N I N G SL O P E D G L A S S R O O F 90 S F CE D A R S H A K E S H I N G L E S OV E R G A B L E D R O O F , R O O F AT ( 9 / 1 2 ) S L O P E 2, 2 8 7 S F SN O W M E L T PR O P O S E D S N O W M E L T S Y S T E M T O AL L E V I A T E S N O W S H E D D I N G B O T H I N T H E RO W A N D O N A N Y A D J A C E N T L O T S SN O W C L E A T ScalePROJECT NUMBER DATE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY 3/16" = 1’−0"6/29/2016 5:31:08 PM232 E. MAIN STREET ASPEN, CO.A−131ProjectNumberIssue Date Author Checker ROOF PLAN 3 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 PR O P O S E D R O O F P L A N NO. DATE BYDESCRIPTION 1 03.02.16 SC ISSUED TO LAND PLANNER P158 IV.A. MA I N F L O O R 0" MA I N F L O O R 0" T/ G A B L E 0 3 28 ' - 6 3 / 4 " T/ L O W E R G L A Z I N G 10 ' - 5 " ST E E L P L A T E AW N I N G WR O U G H T I R O N GO O S E N E C K L I G H T FI X T U R E W I T H FR O S T E D L E N S , T Y P . ST E E L P L A T E PA N E L I N G IN S U L A T E D S T O R E F R O N T WIT H C A S T I R O N M U L L I O N S CO N C R E T E C U R B W / WO O D P L A N K D E C K I N G T/ G A B L E 0 1 24 ' - 4 " ST E E L P L A T E R A I N S C R E E N PA N E L I N G W / 1 / 2 " R E V E A L OV E R R O O F A T ( 9 / 1 2 ) S L O P E TA P E R E D S T E E L PL A T E S U R R O U N D ST E E L P L A T E R A I N S C R E E N PA N E L I N G W / 1 / 2 " R E V E A L IN S U L A T E D S T O R E F R O N T WIT H C A S T I R O N M U L L I O N S IN S U L A T E D A R T I S I A N WIR E D G L A S S 9 12 9 12 B/ G A B L E 16 ' - 1 1 / 2 " 2N D L E V E L 11 ' - 0 " T/ E L E V A T O R P A R A P E T 25 ' - 9 1 / 2 " EL E V A T O R B E Y O N D 1/ 3 G A B L E 0 3 20 ' - 3 1 / 4 " 1/ 3 G A B L E 0 1 18 ' - 1 0 1 / 4 " SO U T H E A S T G R A D E -6 " SO U T H W E S T G R A D E -1 ' - 4 3 / 4 " NO R T H E A S T G R A D E -2 ' - 3 " NO R T H E A S T G R A D E -2 ' - 3 " SE T B A C K 5'- 0 " PR O P E R T Y L I N E PR O P E R T Y L I N E 3/ 4 " AW N I N G 4' - 1 1 1 / 4 " F R O M N O R T H E A S T G R A D E ( M O S T R E S T R I C T I V E ) 2 2 ' - 6 1 / 4 " F R O M N O R T H E A S T G R A D E ( M O S T R E S T R I C T I V E ) 2 8 ' - 0 1 / 2 " PR O P O S E D S N O W M E L T S Y S T E M TO A L L E V I A T E S N O W S H E D D I N G BO T H I N T H E R O W A N D O N A N Y AD J A C E N T L O T S PR O P O S E D S N O W M E L T S Y S T E M TO A L L E V I A T E S N O W S H E D D I N G BO T H I N T H E R O W A N D O N A N Y AD J A C E N T L O T S PR O P O S E D S N O W M E L T S Y S T E M TO A L L E V I A T E S N O W S H E D D I N G BO T H I N T H E R O W A N D O N A N Y AD J A C E N T L O T S MA I N F L O O R 0" MAIN FLOOR 0" T/ G A B L E 0 3 28 ' - 6 3 / 4 " T/ LOWER GLAZING 10'-5"B/FACIA 13'-0"CEDAR SHAKE SHINGLES OVER GABLED ROOF,ROOF AT (9/12) SLOPE IN S U L A T E D T A P E R E D G L A S S RO O F W / C A S T I R O N M U L L I O N S ST E E L P L A T E A W N I N G BO A R D F O R M E D CO N C R E T E WA L L B A S E , T Y P . WR O U G H T I R O N GO O S E N E C K L I G H T FIX T U R E W I T H FR O S T E D L E N S , T Y P . IN S U L A T E D F O L D I N G GL A S S W A L L W I T H CA S T I R O N M U L L I O N S T/GABLE 02 26'-6 3/4" ST E E L P L A T E R A I N S C R E E N PA N E L I N G W / 1 / 2 " R E V E A L OV E R R O O F A T ( 9 / 1 2 ) S L O P E . IN S U L A T E D ST O R E F R O N T W I T H CA S T I R O N M U L L I O N S PR O P O S E D F U T U R E B L D ' G SIG N A G E L O C A T I O N WR O U G H T I R O N GO O S E N E C K L I G H T FI X T U R E W I T H FR O S T E D L E N S , T Y P . GL A S S E N T R Y D O O R S W/ C U S T O M C - C H A N N E L PU S H / P U L L H A N D L E S IN S U L A T E D ST O R E R O N T W I T H C A S T IR O N M U L L I O N S ST E E L P L A T E R A I N S C R E E N PA N E L I N G W / 1 / 2 " R E V E A L PR O P O S E D FU T U R E B L D ' G SI G N A G E L O C A T I O N RE C L A I M E D WO O D S I D I N G AN G L E I R O N RE V E A L RECLAIMED WOOD FACIA TA P E R E D S T E E L P L A T E SU R R O U N D B/G A B L E 16 ' - 1 1 / 2 " 2ND LEVEL 11'-0"T/ ELEVATOR PARAPET 25'-9 1/2" 1/ 3 G A B L E 0 3 20 ' - 3 1 / 4 " 1/3 GABLE 01 18'-10 1/4"1/3 T/GABLE 02 18'-4 1/4" SO U T H E A S T G R A D E -6 " SOUTHEAST GRADE -6" NO R T H E A S T G R A D E -2 ' - 3 " NORTHEAST GRADE -2'-3" PR O P E R T Y L I N E SE T B A C K 5'- 3 " PROPERTY LINE PR O P O S E D S N O W M E L T S Y S T E M T O AL L E V I A T E S N O W S H E D D I N G B O T H I N T H E RO W A N D O N A N Y A D J A C E N T L O T S ScalePROJECT NUMBER DATE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY 1/4" = 1’−0"6/29/2016 5:31:11 PM232 E. MAIN STREET ASPEN, CO.A−211ProjectNumberIssue Date Author Checker PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONS 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 PR O P O S E D S O U T H E L E V A T I O N 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 PR O P O S E D E A S T E L E V A T I O N NO. DATE BYDESCRIPTION 1 03.02.16 SC ISSUED TO LAND PLANNER P159 IV.A. MA I N F L O O R 0" MAIN FLOOR 0"T/GABLE 03 28'-6 3/4" PO R T I O N O F W A L L H I D D E N / A B U T I N G CO R T I N A L O D G E T O B E C O N S T R U C T E D OF C O N C R E T E M A S O N R Y U N I T S TR A N S F O R M E R TH I S W A L L A B U T S H I S T O R I C C O R T I N A L O D G E CE D A R S H A K E S H I N G L E S O V E R GA B L E D R O O F , R O O F A T ( 9 / 1 2 ) S L O P E T/ G A B L E 0 2 26 ' - 6 3 / 4 " T/GABLE 01 24'-4" T/ P A R A P E T 14 ' - 3 " B/GABLE 16'-1 1/2" RE C L A I M E D W O O D S I D I N G IN S U L A T E D T A P E R E D G L A S S RO O F W / C A S T I R O N M U L L I O N S ST E E L P L A T E R A I N S C R E E N W/ 1 / 2 " R E V E A L O V E R R O O F AT ( 9 / 1 2 ) S L O P E RE C L A I M E D W O O D F A C I A EL E V A T O R S H A F T C L A D I N RE C L A I M E D W O O D S I D I N G 1/3 GABLE 03 20'-3 1/4"1/3 GABLE 01 18'-10 1/4" 1/ 3 T / G A B L E 0 2 18 ' - 4 1 / 4 " SOUTHWEST GRADE -1'-4 3/4" NO R T H E A S T G R A D E -2 ' - 3 " NORTHEAST GRADE -2'-3" NO R T H W E S T G R A D E -3 ' - 3 " PROPERTY LINE SE T B A C K 5'-0" PR O P E R T Y L I N E SE T B A C K 5'- 3 " ST A I R B E Y O N D FROM NORTHEAST GRADE (MOST RESTRICTIVE)22'-6 1/4" F R O M N O R T H E A S T G R A D E ( M O S T R E S T R I C T I V E ) 2 8 ' - 0 1 / 2 " MA I N F L O O R 0" MA I N F L O O R 0" T/ G A B L E 0 3 28 ' - 6 3 / 4 " TR A N S F O R M E R T/ L O W E R G L A Z I N G 10 ' - 5 " WR O U G H T I R O N GO O S E N E C K L I G H T FI X T U R E W I T H FR O S T E D L E N S , T Y P . RE C L A I M E D W O O D S I D I N G AN G L E I R O N R E V E A L B/ F A C I A 13 ' - 0 " T/ G A B L E 0 2 26 ' - 6 3 / 4 " T/ G A B L E 0 1 24 ' - 4 " ST E E L P L A T E R A I N S C R E E N PA N E L I N G W / 1 / 2 " R E V E A L RE C L A I M E D W O O D F A C I A T/ P A R A P E T 14 ' - 3 " B/ G A B L E 16 ' - 1 1 / 2 " RE C L A I M E D W O O D S O F F I T VE N T ST E E L P L A T E R A I N S C R E E N W/ 1 / 2 " R E V E A L O V E R R O O F AT ( 9 / 1 2 ) S L O P E 9 12 BR E A K M E T A L C O P I N G 9 12 CE D A R S H A K E S H I N G L E S OV E R G A B L E D R O O F , R O O F AT ( 9 / 1 2 ) S L O P E SL I D I N G S T E E L PO C K E T E D D O O R S 2N D L E V E L 11 ' - 0 " B/ E L E V A T O R R O O F 23 ' - 5 " T/ E L E V A T O R P A R A P E T 25 ' - 9 1 / 2 " EL E V A T O R B E Y O N D 1/ 3 G A B L E 0 3 20 ' - 3 1 / 4 " 1/ 3 G A B L E 0 1 18 ' - 1 0 1 / 4 " 1/ 3 T / G A B L E 0 2 18 ' - 4 1 / 4 " ST E E L LO A D I N G / M A N DO O R NO R T H E A S T G R A D E -2 ' - 3 " NO R T H E A S T G R A D E -2 ' - 3 " NO R T H W E S T G R A D E -3 ' - 3 " NO R T H W E S T G R A D E -3 ' - 3 " PR O P E R T Y L I N E PR O P E R T Y L I N E SE T B A C K 5'- 0 " BO A R D F O R M E D CO N C R E T E WA L L B A S E , T Y P . 2 3 ' - 6 1 / 4 " 2 9 ' - 0 1 / 2 " 2 2 ' - 1 1 / 4 " ScalePROJECT NUMBER DATE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY 1/4" = 1’−0"6/29/2016 5:31:13 PM232 E. MAIN STREET ASPEN, CO.A−212ProjectNumberIssue Date Author Checker PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONS 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 PR O P O S E D W E S T E L E V A T I O N 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 PR O P O S E D N O R T H E L E V A T I O N NO. DATE BYDESCRIPTION 1 03.02.16 SC ISSUED TO LAND PLANNER P160 IV.A. P 1 6 1 I V . A . P 1 6 2 I V . A . P 1 6 3 I V . A . P 1 6 4 I V . A . P 1 6 5 I V . A . P 1 6 6 I V . A . P 1 6 7 I V . A . P168 IV.A. P169 IV.A. P170 IV.A. P171 IV.A. P172 IV.A. P173 IV.A. P174 IV.A. P175 IV.A. P176 IV.A. P177 IV.A. P178 IV.A. P 1 7 9 I V . A . P 1 8 0 I V . A . P 1 8 1 I V . A . P 1 8 2 I V . A . P 1 8 3 I V . A . P 1 8 4 I V . A . CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT January, 2016 City of Apen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5050 ATTACHMENT 3 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Project: ______________________________________________________________________________ Applicant: ______________________________________________________________________________ Location: ______________________________________________________________________________ Zone District: ______________________________________________________________________________ Lot Size: __________________________________________________________________________ Lot Area: _____________________________________________________________________________ (For the purpose of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high-water mark, easement, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Existing: _____________ Proposed: _________________________________ Number of residential units: Existing: _____________ Proposed: _________________________________ Number of bedrooms: Existing: _____________ Proposed: _________________________________ Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): ______________ DIMENSIONS: Floor Area: Existing: _____________ Allowable: ___________Proposed ____________ Principal bldg. height: Existing: _____________ Allowable: ___________Proposed____________ Access. Bldg. height: Existing: _____________ Allowable: __________ Proposed_____________ On-Site parking: Existing: _____________ Required: ___________Proposed_____________ % Site coverage: Existing: _____________ Required: ___________Proposed_____________ % Open Space: Existing: _____________ Required: ___________Proposed_____________ Front Setback: Existing: _____________ Required ____________Proposed _____________ Rear Setback: Existing: _____________ Required: ___________Proposed _____________ Combined F/F: Existing: _____________ Required ___________ Proposed _____________ Side Setback: Existing: _____________ Required: ___________Proposed _____________ Side Setback: Existing: _____________ Required ___________ Proposed _____________ Combined Sides: Existing: _____________ Required ___________ Proposed _____________ Distance between Bldgs. Existing: _____________ Required: ___________ Proposed _____________ Existing: _____________ Required: ___________Proposed: _____________ Existing non-conformities or encroachments: __________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ Variations requested: _____________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ 232 East Main Street 232 East Main Street, LLC 232 East Main Street, Lots R and S, Block 73 City and Townsite of Aspen, CO Mixed Use Historic District 59.8' x 100' 5,981 sf 1,500 sf 5,328 sf: 3,833 ground and 1,495 sf upper floor 0 0 0 0 1,500 sf 5,981 sf total 5,976 sf total: Special Review requested for commercial FAR of 1:1 approx. 21' to apex varied heights, max. of 20' 3.25" measured to 1/3 point 28' - 32' 0 3.8 spaces cash in lieu by right 0% public amenity 10%10% to be met onsite and offsite n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a about 55.8'5' - 10'5' through Special Review 16'5'5' 3"to building and 1'3" to exterior stair n/a n/a n/a EAST - Monarch 22'5'5' to building and 0' to awning at entrance WEST 0.2'5'0' n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a West setback is nonconforming. Front yard setback of 5' through Special Review; East sideyard (Monarch St.) setback of 0' for awning only; West sideyard setback of 0'; Rear yard setback of 1'3" for exterior stair; commercial FAR of 1:1 through Special Review P185 IV.A. P 1 8 6 I V . A . P 1 8 7 I V . A . ATTACHMENT 2 - Historic Preservation Land Use Application PROJECT: Name: Location: (Indicate street address, lot & block number or metes and bounds description of property) Parcel ID # (REQUIRED)___________________________________________________________ APPLICANT: Name: Address: Phone #: _______________________Fax#:___________________E-mail:_____________________ REPRESENTATIVE: Name: Address: Phone #: _______________________Fax#:___________________E-mail:______________________ TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): Historic Designation Certificate of No Negative Effect Certificate of Appropriateness -Minor Historic Development -Major Historic Development -Conceptual Historic Development -Final Historic Development -Substantial Amendment Relocation (temporary, on or off-site) Demolition (total demolition) Historic Landmark Lot Split EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: April 30, 2015 232 East Main Street 232 East Main Street, Lots R and S, Block 73 City and Townsite of Aspen, CO 2737-073-20-008 232 East Main Street, LLC 2001 N. Halsted St., Suite 304 Chicago, IL 60614 312-850-1680 mhunt@mdevco.com Sara Adams, BendonAdams 300 S. Spring St., Suite 202, Aspen, CO 81611 925-2855 sara@bendonadams.com Conceptual Commercial Design Special Review Conoco gas station New 100% commercial two story building. Setback variances, special review for 1:1 FAR for commercial use are requested modifications. P188 IV.A. Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: April 30, 2015 General Information Please check the appropriate boxes below and submit this page along with your application. This information will help us review your plans and, if necessary, coordinate with other agencies that may be involved. YES NO 232 E. Main Street Vicinity Map Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) Emissions Inventory Boundary (EIB) Historic Sites Historic Districts Parcel Boundary March 10, 2016 0 0.035 0.070.0175 mi 0 0.06 0.120.03 km 1:2,257 P 1 9 0 I V . A . P 1 9 1 I V . A . BUS_RE/5962049.1 730 East Durant Avenue, Second Floor, Aspen, Colorado 81611-1557 Telephone: 970.925.6300 Fax: 970.925.1181 www.shermanhoward.com Curtis B. Sanders Sherman & Howard L.L.C. Direct Dial Number: 970.300.0114 E-mail: csanders@shermanhoward.com March 14, 2016 City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: 232 East Main Street LLC, a Colorado limited liability company; Certificate of Ownership Dear Sir or Madam: I am an attorney licensed by the State of Colorado to practice law. This letter shall confirm and certify that 232 East Main Street LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, is the owner of certain improved real property located at 232 East Main Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611, and legally described as follows (the "Subject Property"): Lots R and S, Block 73, City and Townsite of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. The Subject Property is subject to the following matters of record: 1. Restrictions as set forth in Deed recorded November 30, 1888 in Book 59 at Page 521. 2. Ordinance No. 60, Series of 1976, designating the Subject Property as within an Historic District, recorded December 9, 1976 in Book 321 at Page 51. 3. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in the Deed of Trust, Assignment of Leases and Rents and Security Agreement dated as of June 10, 2014 and given by 232 East Main Street LLC in favor of Jefferies LoanCore LLC recorded June 18, 2014 as Reception No. 611183, Pitkin County, Colorado. 4. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in the Assignment of Leases and Rents dated as of June 10, 2014 and given by 232 East Main Street LLC in favor of Jefferies LoanCore LLC recorded June 18 2014 as Reception No. 611184, Pitkin County, Colorado. P192 IV.A. 2 BUS_RE/5962049.1 5. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in the UCC Financing Statement given by 232 East Main Street LLC in favor of Jefferies LoanCore LLC recorded June 18, 2014 as Reception No. 611185, Pitkin County, Colorado. 6. Assignment of Deed of Trust, Assignment of Leases and Rents and Security Agreement dated as of August 28, 2014 between Jefferies Loancore LLC as Assignor and JLC Warehouse V LLC as Assignee recorded August 24, 2015 as Reception No. 622650. 7. Assignment of Leases and Rents dated as of August 28, 2014 between Jefferies Loancore LLC as Assignor and JLC Warehouse V LLC as Assignee recorded August 24, 2015 as Reception No. 622651. 8. Assignment of UCC Financing Statement between Jefferies Loancore LLC as Assignor and JLC Warehouse V LLC as Assignee recorded August 24, 2015 as Reception No. 622652. 9. Assignment of Deed of Trust, Assignment of Leases and Rents and Security Agreement dated as of July 22, 2015 between JLC Warehouse V LLC as Assignor and DIVCORE CLO 2013-LTD. as Assignee recorded August 24, 2015 as Reception No. 622710. 10. Assignment of Assignment of Leases and Rents dated as of July 22, 2015 between JLC Warehouse V LLC as Assignor and DIVCORE CLO 2013-LTD. as Assignee recorded August 24, 2015 as Reception No. 622711. 11. Assignment of UCC Financing Statement between JLC Warehouse V LLC as Assignor and DIVCORE CLO 2013-LTD. as Assignee recorded August 24, 2015 as Reception No. 622711. Sincerely, Curtis B. Sanders P193 IV.A. CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT January, 2016 City of Apen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5050 Agreement to Pay Application Fees An agreement between the City of Aspen (“City”) and Property Phone No.: Owner (“I”): Email: Address of Billing Property: Address: (Subject of (send bills here) application) I understand that the City has adopted, via Ordinance No., Series of 2011, review fees for Land Use applications and payment of these fees is a condition precedent to determining application completeness. I understand that as the property owner that I am responsible for paying all fees for this development application. For flat fees and referral fees: I agree to pay the following fees for the services indicated. I understand that these flat fees are non-refundable. $.___________flat fee for __________________. $.____________ flat fee for _____________________________ $.___`____ flat fee for __________________. $._____________ flat fee for _____________________________ For Deposit cases only: The City and I understand that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to know the full extent or total costs involved in processing the application. I understand that addit ional costs over and above the deposit may accrue. I understand and agree that it is impracticable for City staff to complete processing, review and presentation of sufficient information to enable legally required findings to be made for project consideration, unless invoices are paid in full. The City and I understand and agree that invoices mailed by the City to the above listed billing address and not returned to the City shall be considered by the City as being received by me. I agree to remit payment within 30 days of presentation of an invoice by the City for such services. I have read, understood, and agree to the Land Use Review Fee Policy including consequences for no-payment. I agree to pay the following initial deposit amounts for the specified hours of staff time. I understand that payment of a deposit does not render and application complete or compliant with approval criteria. If actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, I agree to pay additional monthly billings to the City to reimburse the City for the processing of my application at the hourly rates hereinafter stated. $________________ deposit for_____________ hours of Community Development Department staff time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at $325.00 per hour. $________________ deposit for _____________ hours of Engineering Department staff time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at $325.00 per hour. City of Aspen: Property Owner: ________________________________ _______________________________________________ Chris Bendon Community Development Director Name: _______________________________________________ Title: _______________________________________________ City Use: Fees Due: $____Received $_______ 2001 N. Halsted St., Suite 304 Chicago, IL 60614 975 APCHA $4,550 14 325 1 Jessica Garrow Mark Hunt President 232 East Main Street, LLC mhunt@mdevco.com 975 Parks P194 IV.A. P 1 9 5 I V . A . Pitkin County Mailing List of 300 Feet Radius Pitkin County GIS presents the information and data on this web site as a service to the public. Every effort has been made to ensure that the information and data contained in this electronic system is accurate, but the accuracy may change. Mineral estate ownership is not included in this mailing list. Pitkin County does not maintain a database of mineral estate owners. Pitkin County GIS makes no warranty or guarantee concerning the completeness, accuracy, or reliability of the content at this site or at other sites to which we link. Assessing accuracy and reliability of information and data is the sole responsibility of the user. The user understands he or she is solely responsible and liable for use, modification, or distribution of any information or data obtained on this web site. This document contains a Mailing List formatted to be printed on Avery 5160 Labels. If printing, DO NOT "fit to page" or "shrink oversized pages." This will manipulate the margins such that they no longer line up on the labels sheet. Print actual size. From Parcel: 273707320008 on 03/14/2016 Instructions: Disclaimer: http://www.pitkinmapsandmore.com P196 IV.A. HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP INC PHOENIX, AZ 85016 2710 E CAMELBACK RD STE 200 CARLS REAL ESTATE LLC ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 1365 MINERS REAL ESTATE LLC ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 1365 SARDY HOUSE NEW LLC KEY BISCAYNE, FL 33149 240 CRANDON BLVD #167 CARVER RUTH A REV TRUST ASPEN, CO 81611 116 S ASPEN ST 201 E MAIN LLC PALISADE, CO 81526 PO BOX 38 232 BLEEKER LLC BOCA RATON, FL 33431 2385 NW EXECUTIVE CTR DR #370 303 EAST MAIN LLLP ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 8016 ASPEN CORNER OFFICE LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 604 W MAIN ST ASPEN BRANCH HOLDINGS LLC DENVER, CO 80206 3033 E FIRST AVE CHALAL JOSEPH B DELRAY BEACH, FL 334836507 1005 BROOKS LN MONARCH HOLDINGS LLC OSPREY, FL 34229 458 WALLS WY ASPEN COMM UNITED METHODIST CHURCH ASPEN, CO 81611 200 E BLEEKER ST HOFFMAN JOHN & SHARON KANSAS CITY, MO 64105-1166 210 W 5TH ST APT 211 1543 LLC DENVER, CO 80202 1543 WAZEE ST #400 ICONIC PROPERTIES JEROME LLC HOUSTON, TX 77077 1375 ENCLAVE PKWY MONARCH & HOPKINS LLC 50% ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 1247 MONARCH ASPEN LLC 50% ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 1247 209 BLEEKER LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 623 E HOPKINS AVE 304 EAST HOPKINS HOLDINGS LLC CHICAGO, IL 60614 2001 N HOLSTED #304 HODES ALAN & DEBORAH ASPEN, CO 81611 114 N ASPEN ST WHITMAN RANDALL A CORAL GABLES, FL 33156 4845 HAMMOCK LAKE DR KRIBS KAREN REV LIV TRUST ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 9994 GETTMAN ROSA H TRUST DENVER, CO 80246 325 S FOREST GARRETT GULCH EQUITY VENTURE LLC GAHANNA, OH 43230 501 MORRISON RD #100 MONARCH HOUSE LLC MIAMI, FL 331303510 120 SW 8TH ST CJB REALTY INVESTORS LLC MISSION HILLS, KS 66208 6544 WENONGA CIR SEMRAU FAMILY LLC ASPEN, CO 816112806 300 S SPRING ST #203 SEGUIN BUILDING CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA 304 E HYMAN AVE LE VOTAUX II CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA 117 N MONARCH ST P197 IV.A. JW VENTURES LLC ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 8769 SHVACHKO NATALIA NEW YORK, NY 10022 35 SUTTON PL #19B SEDOY MICHAEL NEW YORK, NY 10022 35 SUTTON PL #19B 308 EAST HOPKINS CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA 308 E HOPKINS AVE ROCKING LAZY J PROPS LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 202 E MAIN ST PEGOLOTTI DELLA ASPEN, CO 81611 202 E MAIN ST 4 TOOLBOX LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 208 E MAIN ST BLEEKER MILL DEVELOPMENT LLC NEW YORK, NY 10154 345 PARK AVE 33RD FL NUNN RONALD FAMILY LP BRENTWOOD, CA 94513 10500 BRENTWOOD BLVD AJAX JMG INVESTMENTS LLC BEVERLY HILLS, CA 902122974 9401 WILSHIRE BLVD 9TH FL JAFFE JONATHAN & KAREN LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651 88 EMERALD BAY MONARCH BUILDING LLC WOODY CREEK, CO 81656 PO BOX 126 PEARCE FAMILY TRUST ASPEN, CO 81611 216 E MAIN ST PEARCE MARGARET A ASPEN, CO 81611 216 E MAIN ST P198 IV.A.