Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
agenda.hpc.20160810
AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING August 10, 2016 5:00 PM City Council Meeting Room 130 S Galena Street, Aspen I. SITE VISITS A. None II. 4:30 INTRODUCTION (15 MIN.) A. Roll call B. Approval of minutes July 27, 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. 834 W. Hallam- Conceptual Historic Major Development, Growth Management, Residential Design Standard Review, Special Review, Variances, Establishment of Affordable Housing Credits, PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM JUNE 22ND IV. 5:45 NEW BUSINESS A. 134 W. Hopkins- Final Major Development, PUBLIC HEARING V. 6:45 ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: Resolution #24, 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 27, 2016 1 Jim DeFrancia called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance were Bob Blaich, Nora Berko, John Whipple and Jeffrey Halferty. Gretchen Greenwood, Micahel Brown and Willis Pember were absent. Staff present: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk MOTION: Jeffrey moved to approve the minutes of July 13th second by Bob. All in favor, motion carried. Disclosure John will recuse himself on 627 W. Main 232 E. Main Street – Demolition, Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial Design, Special Review and Variation Review, Public Hearing Affidavit of posting – Exhibit I Photo - Exhibit II Amy said there was a site visit to indicate where the property lines were and lot lines. HPC will be discussing demolition, special review and variation review. HPC is being asked whether the demolition criteria are met to remove the existing gas station which has been there over 60 years. The structure was never identified as a contributing building. Staff supports demolition finding that the criteria are met. Conceptual – height, scale, massing and proportion. Amy said the proposed building is 1 ½ stories tall and a good fit for the neighborhood. The two gabled roof modules are related to the width of other elements on the street. Most of the buildings on the block are of a Victorian era and the Cortina Lodge is next door. Everything on this block is landmarked except this site. The gabled roof that is closest to the Cortina is about 3 feet taller at the ridge. On the corner closer to Carl’s it is 7 feet taller than the Cortina but equal in height with Carl’s. There are a few dimensional variances that need to be considered. Floor area – On this P1 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 27, 2016 2 property one is able to build up to 1to1 floor area as it is just less than a 6,000 square foot lot but you can only achieve that if you have a mix of uses. In this case it is all commercial and commercial is only allowed .75 to 1. That would be 4,482 square feet. The applicant is proposing to go to the 1 to 1, an extra 1,494 square feet devoted to commercial use. That is something you can allow through special review. Staff supports that because the overall volume of the building is not changing. Most of that square footage is accommodated in a loft level. If it was denied and they removed it, you would still see the same project. Overall the building is a good fit for the neighborhood in terms of scale and there is no impact from the extra 1,500 square feet devoted to commercial. It also maximizes the use of the lot and staff supports that. Setbacks - The next dimension issue is setbacks. The Main Street zone district requires a 10 foot front yard and 5 feet on the sides and rear. The project is right on the joint between mixed use and commercial core. As soon as you cross the street on both sides there are no setback requirements but we are in the mixed use zone district. As you look down the block there is a lot of Victorian development and a number of the buildings have a nice deep front yard at least 15 feet. On the front yard the requirement is ten feet and HPC can through special review allow that to be reduced to five feet and that is the request. Special review allows you to make decisions based on what you think is the best fit for the neighborhood. This is not a hardship discussion, it is a discussion as to what is appropriate. The five feet proposed feels very close to the sidewalk in my opinion and that is where a deck is proposed with a deep overhanging eave. The wall itself would be ten feet back. Staff recommends to not allow the variance because we feel it is too close to the street and doesn’t provide the graceful setback that is found on other buildings on the block. The entry seems to be emphasized on the side street so we think that contributes to the feeling that there is not enough of a front expressed here. There is no real front door and that all leads to the concern of the appropriateness of the reduction in the front yard variance. On the sides the applicant would like to go to the property line on the west to touch Cortina. There would be a potential issue of snow dumping of this new structure towards that building and that isn’t allowed by Engineering or the Building Dept. The applicant said they have some techniques to stop that happening. On the east side facing Carl’s the building does meet the setback and in some areas more than meets it. The fixed awning over the doorway is a setback violation. They have it coming to the property line and P2 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 27, 2016 3 that isn’t allowed. You are only allowed an 18 inch overhang. The rear yard meets the setbacks. On the two side yards those variances can be granted based on finding a hardship. It is not based on what is the best fit for the neighborhood. You have to make findings that the variance is needed due to an unnecessary hardship that something is being denied that other people have. Staff is unable to make that recommendation. The applicant is required to address parking. There is currently no legal parking spaces on the site and they will be required to provide 3.8 spaces and they would pay cash-in-lieu. Thay also have to provide for adequate trash and recycling which are all accommodated in the back of the building along the alley. They are appropriately sized and supported by Environmental Health. The applicant needs to provide a certain amount of public amenity either onsite or cash-in-lieu payment. They are providing it onsite and this project will provide a dramatic transformation of this intersection. They will rebuild the sidewalk and add a green strip and add a We-cycle station and provide on street parking. They are improving beyond their property as well. In conclusion we support the project and it is a terrific addition to town. The only issue is the setback variances and that is significant enough to recommend continuance. Jeffrey said the We-cycle is an excellent addition especially on the corner and it will go away in the winter and become a parking space. Jim clarified that staff is recommending that there not be a variance for the front setback. On the east, the setback is OK but the awning overhang is not. Amy clarified if the awning was retractable they wouldn’t need a variance. Jim clarified on the west side they want to go to the property line but there is a potential snow accumulation in which they might be able resolve. Amy said on the west side that variance can only be granted through a finding of hardship. Applicant Mark Hunt, owner said they are excited about the project. We listened to what the community said and they liked the chalet style that respects Aspen and the West End. It is an architecture of today. We are looking at natural materials, metal, wood and glass. We are greatly improving the streetscape. P3 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 27, 2016 4 The We-cycle will be in the planting area not on the street. Regarding the setbacks on Main Street there is nothing but the awning. I would prefer not to put a canvas awning but there are other ways we can address that. In order for the architecture to be successful, the shadow line and overhang make it successful. Lopping that off will make it a very different building. It would be too glassy at that point. On the west side by the Cortina the space is funky. This is the first intersection where all the corners hold the street and we feel it is appropriate to butt the building and it fits in. Sara Adams from BendonAdams represented the applicant. Sara said the property is on the cusp of the commercial core and there are a lot of landmarks in this block. The gable form from the landmarks influenced our design. At this intersection there is a range of setbacks and building types and there are uses of commercial, affordable housing and residential but primarily commercial. A walkway was added at the front and we do understand the importance of having an entry on Main Street in addition to the entrance on Monarch Street. We have onsite public amenity and the first five feet of the front yard is green space. On Monarch Street all the curb and gutter and improvements to the sidewalk will be worked out with the Parks Dept. and the Engineering Dept. Our public amenity exceeds what is required by 300 square feet and our public amenity is mostly usable space. The project is well below the height limit and the deep overhang that is proposed is reminiscent of what you see at the Cortina Lodge and we think it creates a nice rhythm with the Cortina next door. The building face is set back 11 feet and the porch overhang is about five feet back on Monarch Street. The windows and deep overhangs interact with the street and allow the building to open up for the pedestrian and create vitality on this corner. On the Monarch Street side the building face is set back 5 feet closest to the intersection and then it steps back to seven feet. The intent is to create a very open building. We are requesting an increase of the commercial floor area. The mixed use zone district says it should be .75 to 1 but you are allowed to increase it up to 1 to 1 if you go through special review and find that it meets the character of the neighborhood. Changing the inside uses isn’t going to change the massing. We feel a 100% commercial project is more in line with feedback that council has been giving in their work sessions. Some of the reasons for the moratorium is the impact of residential in the mixed use zone district. We have a trash and a transformer along the alley. A flat roof is tucked close to the Cortina Lodge that will hide mechanical equipment. Parking is mitigated through cash-in- lieu. Regarding the setbacks adjacent to the Cortina it is 5 feet and the front P4 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 27, 2016 5 yard is five feet. The code allows for a five to ten foot setback on Main Street with special review. There are a range of different setbacks on Main Street especially as you get closer to the commercial core. We feel this project changes this corner for the better. Regarding snow melt we are looking into a system with gutters on the Cortina side. The code doesn’t allow snow to shed onto another property so we will be working with engineers to develop a snow shedding system that will not affect the Cortina and that will meet all the city codes. Dwayne Romero, represented the applicant Having the five foot setback and creating a five foot void narrow alley could perhaps become more of an operations and maintenance safety consideration. Snow loading and debris would fall into the center piece. More importantly are the safety issues. A five foot void would become an attractive nuisance. It would not be a public pathway. Jeffrey asked the applicant to address the entry on Main Street. Sara said the architects are studying an entry and adding the walkway was the first step. There is a significant grade change from the front to the back of the site. They have been working on how to do a smooth transition into the building that would meet ADA etc. We will come back at final with a design. John inquired about the potential use of the space. Mark said they had talked to a group to do a Tony Town but they have picked another town so we are unsure what will go into the space as the process takes a long time. It’s not a bowling alley or a lodge. Nora said if the front yard setback were to be pulled back five feet how would the upper floor be impacted. What can be done to the front? What can be mitigated so that there is less of a setback in the front? Mark said the only thing in the setback is the overhang. The easy solution is to cut the overhang off. If we were to do that we would explore a different building. We were trying to engage the guests to come out and we wanted an area where they could sit outside the store with a covering. The glass wall is 11 feet off the lot line. We are only dealing with the roof line that P5 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 27, 2016 6 hangs over. The overhang would be shortened to one foot and then architecturally the building becomes a glass building vs a chalet building. Nora asked if it is possible to do a retractable awning on the east side so you don’t need that variance. Mark said that could be accomplished. Bob clarified that the sidewalk will be added on the Monarch Street side which is a good public amenity. The concern I have which is not part of the project is that the sidewalk goes nowhere and maybe there is a way that the City could extend that sidewalk. There is public parallel parking on Monarch. Many people have had close calls backing out of Carl’s. It would be interesting if there was a way not to have parking on your side. Mark agreed that it is a dangerous area but the no parking would be a city issue. Jim DeFrancia said possibly the parking could be corrected on the Carl’s pharmacy side. Jim DeFrancia opened the public hearing. Joe Charel asked if there was a height variance on the proposal. Joe said two couples own the condo behind the proposal. Sara said they project is well below the height limit. Joe said if it is commercial is there going to be any city ordinance prohibiting 2:00 a.m. deliveries. We are subject to the trash etc. already. Right now it is a quiet neighborhood. Jim said the character of those kinds of uses would be a function of the occupant of the building and there are city codes that govern your concerns which they would be obligated to comply with. John Feza, condo owner. We appreciate the applicant trying to make Aspen great. We would like to protect our home and our investment. What is the height? P6 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 27, 2016 7 Sara said the maximum height is 28 to 32 feet. At the rear the proposal is 23 1/2 feet and at the front due to the grade change it is a little over 20 feet. Amy said the tallest part of the building is about the same height as Carl’s pharmacy which is about 26 ½ feet. John Feza said they were worried about the view and light coming in. Sara said there is a flat portion in the back that is at 14.3 and you are directly across from that. John Feza asked about the amount of square feet that the building would occupy. John Whipple explained that the only setback variances sought after are maintaining the zero setback along the western façade, Cortina Lodge and to the front the encroachment is the eave of the roof. Sara said the footprint is about 4,200 square feet. Mark clarified that the square footage is putting a loft in the peak inside but the building would remain as is. Amy said HPC can make a finding to allow the commercial building to go up to 6,000 square feet which is 1,500 square feet bigger than normally allowed by finding that it is basically compatible with the surrounding land uses and consistent with the purposes of the zone district. Jim DeFrancia closed the public comments. Commissioner comments Jeff commented that staff’s memo was clear as was the presentation. The project does conform to our guidelines especially in this district. Architecturally the chalet forms work with the Cortina Lodge and comply with some of the roof forms on Main Street. Having the entrance as staff suggested would help conform to the guidelines. The shadow of the roof eave does enhance the building and it breaks down the glazing. The steel overhang that faces Monarch which is the east can be worked out. I support the request for the variance as buildings are built against each other all the time. The snow concern is valid but they will have an architectural solution to that. The water runoff and drainage would need to be maintained. P7 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 27, 2016 8 Regarding the parking that area is a tough back out corner. The butterfly roof on the east has challenging drainage issues which will need to be addressed. Nora thanks the applicant for the presentation and the public input. I can support this application along with staff’s setback requests. My concern is the precedent question. The fact that the Cortina doesn’t have a setback is because it is an historic building. I like a little breathing space between buildings. My hesitation has always been creep. It is the lot line on the west side that I am struggling with because I don’t see a hardship. John said he can support the 1 to 1 ratio because it doesn’t change the size of the building. In terms of the setbacks I don’t like the vacant voids in between buildings in town. They are a dark void and end up with clutter, trash and ice maintenance. I am in favor of the zero lot line setback on the west. On the front façade we are a community that prides itself on the green technology and we want to preserve our views. The overhang is really “smart building” and I am in favor of the variance because it also makes usable space outside on the front and on the east side. No one wants to come out and have snow drop on their head and having the overhang protects that. John said he appreciates the fact that the applicant has come back and this project will suit the community well. Bob said he would support the variances and this is a commendable project and I would like to see it proceed. At some point the city should address parking in this area. On Carl’s side that sidewalk can be dangerous. The entire area should be looked at as it is also a public safety issue. Jim said he feels this is a great project and the applicant has done a fine job. I also support the west side variance with the snow melt solution. The way the front is designed you need some overhang to protect the glass and it creates a sense of openness on the corner. I appreciate the concerns addressed about the traffic which should be looked at by the City. Transportation and Engineering should look at the entire area with the sloping street. MOTION: Bob moved to approve resolution #22 as proposed; second by John. P8 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 27, 2016 9 Nora amended the motion to add that the east side have a retractable overhang. Jeff amended the motion to add a second entry on Main Street. John said at final they would need to come back with fenestration on the front door. John said for the south facing façade there is an energy efficiency hardship that would be placed on the applicant and the community for not giving any shoulder protection. On the west façade it would be a hardship having another trash collection void. We have tried to close down those for years and the core has closed down a lot of those. The core doesn’t need vacant gaps between buildings. Bob accepted the amendments and John second them. Amy reiterated the motion. An entry on the south elevation should be better expressed perhaps through fenestration. On the east no variance and to restudy the canopy element. On the south HPC finds that the variance is appropriate for energy efficiency under special review and on the west the proximity of the Cortina makes the five foot setback on this site problematic and undesirable. There is also a public safety consideration on that side. Roll call vote: Jeffrey, yes; John, yes; Bob, yes; Nora, yes; Jim, yes. Motion carried 5-0. 627 W. Main – Substantial Amendment to Major Development Approval, Public hearing continued from June 22nd. John recused himself. Amy stated that this is an addition to a Victorian in the Main Street historic district. This is an older project that has not been completely constructed. The upper floor of the addition is not built and the applicant would like to do a revision to what was previously approved in 2008. Staff’s concern with the proposal is that there is a cross gable form right behind the Victorian so you see a bulkiness from the street. The pitch of the roof is rather shallow, 8 x12 rather than 12 x 12. Staff did not recommend approval of this option in P9 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 27, 2016 10 your packet; however, another option was received by the deadline, Exhibit I which we are in support of. Exhibit I is a singled gable roof form over the upper floor addition and is simple and identical to what exists on the Victorian and it has the same roof pitch and is taller. The buildings on this street are relatively close together and it is difficult to get a full view down the side between this building and the landmark next door. Given that it will not have an overwhelming impact from the street and staff recommends approval. There are vertically oriented windows and we have been given information about exterior lighting. Steev Wilson, Forum phi Steev said at the last meeting we received good feedback and we created a building with a little separation. The previous approval was a long gable with dormers in it. We have the ten foot gap and the historic roof form which is very simple with a gable that goes all the way back. We will be matching that with another very simple gable and maintaining the ten foot separation. We will remove the dormers and we have an extra foot of ridge height in the project. There is a rear deck facing south getting a nice overhang to protect from the solar gain on the southern side. There will be can lighting underneath the roof form with sconces along the exterior doors. A very simple lighting plan. The landscape is unchanged from the original submission. The materials will be a dark asphalt shingle with a horizontal lap board painted wood. There will be an aluminum wood window on the back element to reduce maintenance for the owner. The upper portion of the building will be a vertical channel board wood siding about six inches wide. This is a much more modest proposal. Nora asked if a bonus was received. Steev said they received a 500 square foot bonus based on the premises of removing the paint from the brick of the Victorian house. Amy pointed out that it was a dramatic restoration to take that paint off. Nora pointed out that the stairway on the outside seems odd and the pop out on the east side seems out of place. Maybe an explanation is needed. Steev commented that the stairway has always been there and part of the original application and that remains unchanged. From the street facing P10 II.B. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 27, 2016 11 façade the back side of the building is slightly wider so you will always be in the shadow of the pop out but it won’t be visible from the main corridor. Jim DeFrancia opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Nora said she feels the proposal feels very unharmonious. Bob said this project has had numerous variations. Off all of them this is a better solution. It is not a great solution but I can’t find anything to vote against it. There is a lot going on with the project. Jim commented that if the finishes are properly done and the character of the building taken into account it might not be so awkward as it appears in concept. Jeffrey said the elimination of the cross gable is successful. The mass and scale is simpler. The materiality and changes in material are appropriate. To restore and remove paint and bring back a restoration is costly and quite an effort. The separation is good and the addition is sympathetic and not going up to the height limit. MOTION: Jeffrey moved to approve resolution #23 for 627 W. Main as presented with conditions as stated from staff and the approval of the lighting; motion second by Bob. Roll call vote: Nora, no; the compatibility is not there. Bob, yes; Jeffrey, yes; Jim, yes. Motion carried 3-1. MOTION: Bob moved to adjourn; second by Jeffrey. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 6:15 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk P11 II.B. 834 W. Hallam St. Staff memo 6/22/2016 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Justin Barker, Senior Planner THRU: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 834 West Hallam Street- Major Development (Conceptual), Demolition, Relocation, Residential Design Standard Review, Setback Variances, Public Hearing DATE: August 10, 2016 (Continued from June 22, 2016) ________________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY: 834 West Hallam Street is a designated landmark located on a 6,000 square foot parcel. The landmark is in its original location and has been altered over time. It is not located in the Main Street Historic District. The surrounding neighborhood is mostly a mix of single family and multi-family residential with the United States Forest Service located to the east. The property is zoned Mixed Use with a floor area restriction of 4,000 sf. The property was rezoned in 1994 from residential zoning to Mixed Use in order to legalize the restaurant use in existence at that time, with the condition that the floor area be restricted to 4,000 sf (the Mixed Use Zone district has a maximum 2:1 FAR or 12,000 sf). The applicant proposes to redevelop the site with seven (7) affordable housing units in order to create affordable housing credits. The applicant requests the following reviews from HPC: 1. Major Development Conceptual review 2. Demolition of non-historic additions to the landmark 3. Relocation of the historic home on the site toward Hallam Street and Eighth Street 4. Parking Reduction/Waiver for 1 parking space (7 required and 6 proposed) 5. East side setback variance (5’ required and 3’ proposed) 6. Minimum distance between buildings variance (10’ required and 7’ proposed) 7. Residential Design Standard review for multi-family buildings The proposed development has an FAR of about 5,300 sf. The applicant will need to request City Council amend the ordinance from 1994 to increase the allowable FAR of the property. The project has made significant strides in responding to staff and HPC concerns from past reviews. The overall mass and scale have been reduced and the architecture of the new construction relates well to the historic landmark. Staff recommends approval with conditions. APPLICANT: Bowden Properties, c/o Todd Stewart, 625 E. Main Street, Suite 102A, Aspen, CO 81611 P12 III.A. 834 W. Hallam St. Staff memo 6/22/2016 2 PARCEL ID: 2735-123-04-002. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 834 West Hallam Street, Lots K and L Block 10, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado ZONE DISTRICT: MU, Mixed Use Figure 1 – Locator Map UPDATE SINCE JUNE 22, 2016 HPC HEARING: HPC reviewed this project at a public hearing on June 22, 2016. At that hearing, staff recommended continuation to further study the building layout, roof pitches and Residential Design Standard requirements for first story element and porches. The full staff report from that meeting is included below. HPC was comfortable with the proposed building layout, but recommended continuation based on the other two issues. The applicant has revised several of the roof pitches from a 7:12 pitch to a 12:12 pitch (attached as Exhibit H). Staff finds this to be more consistent with the historic structure and supports the revised design. P13 III.A. 834 W. Hallam St. Staff memo 6/22/2016 3 THE FOLLOWING MEMO IS FROM THE 6/22/16 HPC PACKET: The Residential Design Standards require a front porch to be at least 6 feet deep and 50 sq. ft. in size. The two new proposed porches are each 4.5 feet deep and 27 sq. ft. in size. The applicant has not proposed any changes to these elements. The historic porch is 4.5 feet deep and 37 sq. ft. in size. At a minimum, staff recommends the new porches provide the same square footage as the historic porch as a condition of approval for Final review. Larger porches will provide more usable outdoor space and is more consistent with the Residential Design Standards. Overall, staff recommends approval of the proposed project with a condition to increase the size of the new porches to a minimum of 37 square feet. Additional conditions are outlined in the draft resolution. Proposal: This application has been reviewed by HPC several times in the past, with the last review occurring in March 2015. The most recent proposal reviewed by HPC included 11 affordable housing units, two new detached structures, and almost 7,180 square feet of FAR. The current proposed project includes removing the non-historic additions from the historic structure, relocating the historic structure closer to the southwest corner, and constructing 2 detached buildings. There are 6 parking spaces proposed along the alley. The project is entirely affordable housing with 7 proposed units. Following are the proposed unit descriptions: Table 1: Unit breakdown unit # bedroom count net livable area category location in building Number of FTEs 1 2 746.75 sf 3 Landmark building (basement, first and second floors) 2.25 2 2 783.5 sf 2 Landmark building (basement, first and second floors) 2.25 3 3 960.25 sf 3 East building (basement and first floors) 3 4 3 961 sf 2 East building (basement, first and second floors) 3 5 1 725.75 sf 3 East building (third floor) 1.75 6 3 1,119 sf 3 East building (basement and second floors) 3 7 4 1,167.75 sf 3 Entire north building (basement, first and second floors) 3.5 18.75 total P14 III.A. 834 W. Hallam St. Staff memo 6/22/2016 4 CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT: Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan unless agreed to by the applicant. Staff Response: Conceptual review focuses on the height, scale, massing and proportions of a proposal. A list of the relevant HPC design guidelines is attached as “Exhibit A.” On the next page are historic maps and images that will assist in the review of this project. Figure 3 – 1904 Sanborn – rear addition to original house and outbuildings along alley have since been demolished Figure 2 – 834 W. Hallam in 1893 P15 III.A. 834 W. Hallam St. Staff memo 6/22/2016 5 Figure 4 – photo date unknown. Note original inset porch. Figure 5 – current condition. Note that the original porch was enclosed and a new porch was added to the front of the house. Additions were made to the side and rear of the Victorian. The building was converted from residential to restaurant use in 1972. P16 III.A. 834 W. Hallam St. Staff memo 6/22/2016 6 The applicant proposes to demolish all non-historic construction, to move the Victorian onto a basement at the southwest corner of the site, and to add two new detached buildings to the north and east of the Victorian. Seven affordable housing units are to be accommodated in the three structures. The Victorian will be restored, including reconstruction of the original inset porch. In March 2015, HPC raised questions about restoration of the side porch shown in the historic photograph (Figure 4). This has not been incorporated into the design. No additions are proposed for the historic structure. The building will be prominently sited, and will avoid impacts to the historic cottonwood trees along Main Street and 8th Street. The Victorian will house two of the affordable housing units. Two detached structures containing five units are proposed to the north and east of the Victorian. The two-story building along 8th Street will contain one four-bedroom unit and the trash enclosure for the entire project. The unit is accessed off 8th Street. The two- to three-story structure on the east side of the property will contain the remaining four units as well as exterior storage for all seven units. One of the units is accessed from Hallam Street, and the other three from interior walkways. During the review of this project, HPC has seen a number of options for the new construction. The commission has reviewed plans that housed all the new units in one large building behind or wrapping around the historic structure, plans that created a free standing building on the east of the Victorian and one at the rear, and the current plan, with a long structure along the east property line and a detached building at the northwest corner of the site. Staff believes that the best solution to support the character of the historic structure is to respect its form and scale with a contemporary structure, related to the Victorian in footprint as well as form, materials and/or fenestration, and a new detached building along the alley. This scenario was first presented to HPC in March 2015 (shown in Figures 6-8) and had staff support, except that the alley building was too large and lacked an architectural dialogue with the historic resource. Staff finds that reflecting the scale of the original home is of highest importance from the Hallam Street perspective, as achieved in this previous proposal, which also featured the appropriate roof pitch lacking in the current drawings. Having two smaller structures along Hallam is more in line with the historic 1893 image (Figure 2 on page 4) and traditional development patterns which would place larger additions or new structures at the back of the site. Staff recommends a restudy to consider the revised program with the building layout proposed in March 2015 (Figure 8). P17 III.A. 834 W. Hallam St. Staff memo 6/22/2016 7 Figure 6 Figure 7 P18 III.A. 834 W. Hallam St. Staff memo 6/22/2016 8 Figure 8 In previous reviews, staff and HPC have also expressed concern about the mass and scale of the proposed development. The applicant has made several adjustments including reducing the size of the third floor, reducing the number of units proposed, and reducing the overall square footage. The proposed floor area is now 1,283 sf over the allowable 4,000 sf for the site, compared to the 3,180 sf over originally proposed. Staff finds that the proposed roof pitches on the new structures do not relate well to the landmark. The design utilizes gable roof forms which was recommended by staff and HPC, but there are several different pitches, most of which do not relate to the simplistic form of the Victorian. Staff recognizes that the varied roof forms are likely used to reduce the overall height of the structure, which is appreciated. However, staff recommends restudying the roof forms to closer relate to the Victorian, particularly facing Hallam and 8th Street. P19 III.A. 834 W. Hallam St. Staff memo 6/22/2016 9 11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale with the historic buildings on the parcel. • Subdivide larger masses into smaller "modules" that are similar in size to the historic buildings on the original site. 11.5 Use building forms that are similar to those of the historic property. • They should not overwhelm the original in scale. 11.6 Use roof forms that are similar to those seen traditionally in the block. • Sloping roofs such as gable and hip roofs are appropriate for primary roof forms. • Flat roofs should be used only in areas where it is appropriate to the context. • On a residential structure, eave depths should be similar to those seen traditionally in the context. • Exotic building and roof forms that would detract from the visual continuity of the street are discouraged. These include geodesic domes and A-frames. Staff finds that the following guidelines for new structures on a historic landmark lot are not currently met by the design and recommends a restudy of the site plan and the architecture of the new building to complement and not to overwhelm the Victorian. DEMOLITION AND RELOCATION (EXHIBIT B): Staff finds that the review criteria (Exhibit B) are met to demolish non-historic additions and to relocate the historic home on the site. Conditions for the relocation, temporary storage of the building and a letter of credit shall be included in the draft resolution. VARIANCES (EXHIBIT C): Staff is supportive of the east side yard setback variances (3’2” provided and 5’ required) as it provides space to preserve the large cottonwood trees along the west property line. Staff finds that the distance between buildings variance (7’ provided and 10’ required) could potentially be unnecessary if the layout is revised as suggested by staff. Staff recommends this setback be revisited during the restudy of the building layout. SPECIAL REVIEW (EXHIBIT D): A parking reduction from 7 spaces to 6 spaces is requested. The applicant cannot fit any more parking along the rear of the property – 6 parking spaces (one ADA accessible) is the maximum that will fit in addition to the development. Consistent with the affordable housing development at 518 W. Main Street, Staff recommends a reduction in the parking requirement with the condition that the applicant pay the cash in lieu fee of $30,000 per space. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD REVIEW (EXHIBIT E): Neither of the two proposed new structures provide covered entry porches or first story elements that meet the requirements of the Residential Design Standards that apply to this project. The porches are required to be at least 6 feet deep and 50 sq. ft. in size. The RDS have been amended to allow loggias as a first story element, but are still required to be at least 6 feet deep. Staff is not supportive of variations for the depth requirements of the porches and first story elements or the P20 III.A. 834 W. Hallam St. Staff memo 6/22/2016 10 size requirements of the porches. Staff is supportive of the design variations for the historic landmark. REFERRALS (EXHIBIT F): Comments from the DRC are attached. There are significant concerns from the Water and Engineering Departments and from the Si Johnson Ditch Company about the proposed work related to the ditch. Any conceptual approval for this project shall include a condition that the proposed development be approved by the Si Johnson Ditch Company prior to the City Council hearing. NEXT STEPS: After HPC review, City Council is asked to amend the ordinance to allow more floor area – an increase from 4,000 sf to about 5,300 sf. After City Council review, the project will proceed back to HPC for final reviews. RECOMMENDATION: The project has made significant strides in responding to staff and HPC concerns from past reviews. The overall mass and scale have been reduced and the architecture relates more to the historic landmark than originally proposed. Staff believes that the project is almost there, but could use just a little more fine tuning. Staff recommends a continuation to restudy the building layout and roof pitches of the new construction to better relate to the historic landmark and to meet the Residential Design Standard requirements for porches and first story element. EXHIBITS: A. Relevant HPC Design Guidelines B. Demolition/Relocation Review Criteria C. Variance Review Criteria D. Special Review Criteria E. Residential Design Standard Review Criteria F. Development Review Committee comments G. Application P21 III.A. 834 W. Hallam Street Resolution No. __, Series 2016 Page 1 of 9 RESOLUTION NO. __ (SERIES OF 2016) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION GRANTING DEMOLITION, RELOCATION, CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT, RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD REVIEW, SPECIAL REVIEW AND VARIANCES FOR 834 W. HALLAM STREET, LOTS K & L, BLOCK 10, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2735-123-04-002 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Bowden Properties (Applicants), represented by Forum Phi and Stan Clauson Associates, for the following land use review approvals: • Demolition pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.415, • Relocation pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.415, • Major Development, Conceptual pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.415, • Residential Design Standard Review pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.410, • 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 – July 24, 2014, as applicable to this Project; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, Building Department, Fire Protection District, Environmental Health Department, Parks Department, Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, Public Works Department, and the Transportation Department as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and, WHEREAS, said referral agencies and the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the proposed Application and recommended conditions; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.304.060 of the Land Use Code, the Community Development Director may combine reviews where more than one (1) development approval is being sought simultaneously; and, WHEREAS, the HPC may approve variances according to Section 26.415.110; and WHEREAS, as a result of a Development Review Committee meeting, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, Environmental Health, City Engineering, Parks Department and Zoning; and, P22 III.A. 834 W. Hallam Street Resolution No. __, Series 2016 Page 2 of 9 WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission reviewed the Application at a duly noticed public hearing on August 10, 2016, continued from June 22, 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 No. __, 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:Approvals Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Historic Preservation Commission hereby grants Demolition, Relocation, Conceptual Major Development, Residential Design Standard Review, Special Review and Variance approval for the project as presented to HPC on August 10, 2016, with the following conditions: 1. HPC hereby grants variances from the east side yard setback (3 ft. provided) and the required distance between buildings for the new construction (7 ft. provided). 2. HPC hereby grants special review approval for the reduction of one (1) required parking space through the provision of cash-in-lieu mitigation. Six (6) spaces are required. 3. HPC hereby grants variations from the following Residential Design Standards: a. Street-oriented entrance, Section 26.410.040.D(1) – northwest building entrance may face Eighth Street. b. Covered entry porch, Section 26.410.040.D(1)b – Historic landmark existing porch less than required depth and size. For Final Review, the porches on the new construction shall be increased to a minimum of 37 square feet, with a minimum depth of 4’6”. c. Street facing principal window, Section 26.410.040.D(1)c – northwest building principal window may face Eighth Street. d. First story element, Section 26.410.040.D(2) – Historic landmark existing first story element less than required depth. Porches on new construction may remain 4’6” deep if size is increased to 37 square feet or more. 4. Prior to City Council review, the Applicant shall receive approval from the Si Johnson Ditch Company for the proposed development. 5. A report from a licensed engineer, architect or housemover demonstrating that the house can be moved must be submitted with the building permit application in addition to a bond, letter of credit or cashier’s check in the amount of $30,000 to ensure the safe relocation. P23 III.A. 834 W. Hallam Street Resolution No. __, Series 2016 Page 3 of 9 6. 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 2: 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 3: This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 10th day of August, 2016. ________________________________ Willis Pember, Chair Approved as to Form: ___________________________________ Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney P24 III.A. 834 W. Hallam Street Resolution No. __, Series 2016 Page 4 of 9 ATTEST: ___________________________ Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk Attachments: Exhibit I: Approved Conceptual Site Plan and Design P25 III.A. 834 W. Hallam Street Resolution No. __, Series 2016 Page 5 of 9 P26 III.A. 834 W. Hallam Street Resolution No. __, Series 2016 Page 6 of 9 P27 III.A. 834 W. Hallam Street Resolution No. __, Series 2016 Page 7 of 9 P28 III.A. 834 W. Hallam Street Resolution No. __, Series 2016 Page 8 of 9 P29 III.A. 834 W. Hallam Street Resolution No. __, Series 2016 Page 9 of 9 P30 III.A. Exhibit A – HP Design Guidelines Page 1 of 3 EXHIBIT A HISTORIC PRESERVATION GUIDELINES Site Design 1.16 Preserve historically significant landscape designs and features. • This includes the arrangement of trees, shrubs, plant beds, irrigation ditches and sidewalks in the public right-of-way. 1.17 Maintain historic irrigation ditches as an integral component of the streetscape. The character of an irrigation ditch should be maintained. • It is inappropriate to use an irrigation ditch as a planting bed, or to fill it with another material. • Ditches cannot by culverted except where crossed by a walkway or driveway, and a culvert must be approved by the Parks Department. Front porch 5.3 Avoid enclosing a historic front porch. • Keeping an open porch is preferred. • Enclosing a porch with opaque materials that destroy the openness and transparency of the porch is not acceptable. • Enclosing porches with large areas of glass, thereby preserving the openness of the porch, may be considered in special circumstances. When this is done, the glass should be placed behind posts, balusters, and balustrade, so the original character of the porch may still be interpreted. • The use of plastic curtains as air-locks on porches is discouraged. • Reopening an enclosed porch is appropriate. 5.4 The use of a porch on a residential building in a single-family context is strongly encouraged. • This also applies to large, multifamily structures. There should be at least one primary entrance and should be identified with a porch or entry element. Relocation 9.3 If relocation is deemed appropriate by the HPC, a structure must remain within the boundaries of its historic parcel. • If a historic building straddles two lots, then it may be shifted to sit entirely on one of the lots. Both lots shall remain landmarked properties. 9.4 Site the structure in a position similar to its historic orientation. • It should face the same direction and have a relatively similar setback. • It may not, for example, be moved to the rear of the parcel to accommodate a new building in front of it. 9.5 A new foundation should appear similar in design and materials to the historic foundation. • On modest structures, a simple foundation is appropriate. Constructing a stone foundation on a modest miner's cottage is discouraged because it would be out of character. P31 III.A. Exhibit A – HP Design Guidelines Page 2 of 3 • Where a stone foundation was used historically, and is to be replaced, the replacement should be similar in the cut of the stone and design of the mortar joints. 9.6 When rebuilding a foundation, locate the structure at its approximate historic elevation above grade. • Raising the building slightly above its original elevation is acceptable. However, lifting it substantially above the ground level is inappropriate. • Changing the historic elevation is discouraged, unless it can be demonstrated that it enhances the resource. 9.7 A lightwell may be used to permit light into below-grade living space. • In general, a lightwell is prohibited on a wall that faces a street (per the Residential Design Standards). • The size of a lightwell should be minimized. • A lightwell that is used as a walkout space may be used only in limited situations and will be considered on a case-by-case basis. If a walkout space is feasible, it should be surrounded by a simple fence or rail. Additions 10.2 A more recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed. Building Orientation 11.1 Orient the primary entrance of a new building to the street. • The building should be arranged parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid pattern of the site. 11.2 In a residential context, clearly define the primary entrance to a new building by using a front porch. • The front porch should be "functional," in that it is used as a means of access to the entry. • A new porch should be similar in size and shape to those seen traditionally. • In some cases, the front door itself may be positioned perpendicular to the street; nonetheless, the entry should still be clearly defined with a walkway and porch that orients to the street. Mass and Scale 11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale with the historic buildings on the parcel. • Subdivide larger masses into smaller "modules" that are similar in size to the historic buildings on the original site. 11.4 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building. • The primary plane of the front should not appear taller than the historic structure. • The front should include a one-story element, such as a porch. Building & Roof Forms 11.5 Use building forms that are similar to those of the historic property. • They should not overwhelm the original in scale. 11.6 Use roof forms that are similar to those seen traditionally in the block. P32 III.A. Exhibit A – HP Design Guidelines Page 3 of 3 • Sloping roofs such as gable and hip roofs are appropriate for primary roof forms. • Flat roofs should be used only in areas where it is appropriate to the context. • On a residential structure, eave depths should be similar to those seen traditionally in the context. • Exotic building and roof forms that would detract from the visual continuity of the street are discouraged. These include geodesic domes and A-frames. 11.7 Roof materials should appear similar in scale and texture to those used traditionally. • Roof materials should have a matte, non-reflective finish. Materials 11.8 Use building materials that contribute to a traditional sense of human scale. • Materials that appear similar in scale and finish to those used historically on the site are encouraged. • Use of highly reflective materials is discouraged. Architectural Details 11.9 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those of the historic property. • These include windows, doors and porches. • Overall, details should be modest in character. 11.10 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged. • This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings. • Highly complex and ornately detailed revival styles that were not a part of Aspen's history are especially discouraged on historic sites. P33 III.A. Exhibit B – Demolition & Relocation Page 1 of 3 EXHIBIT B DEMOLITION & RELOCATION DEMOLITION Demolition shall be approved if it is demonstrated that the application meets any one of the following criteria: a. The property has been determined by the city to be an imminent hazard to public safety and the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely manner, b. The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner’s efforts to properly maintain the structure, c. The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen, or d. No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic, architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance, and Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met: a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or historic district in which it is located, and b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated properties and c. Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the area. Staff Response: The applicant proposes to remove non-historic additions to the landmark and to restore the landmark using historic photographs (below). Staff finds that criterion d and criteria a-c are met and recommends demolition approval for non-historic additions. P34 III.A. Exhibit B – Demolition & Relocation Page 2 of 3 RELOCATION The following standards apply for relocating a historic property as per Section 26.415.090.C of the Municipal Code: C. Standards for the Relocation of Designated Properties Relocation for a building, structure or object will be approved if it is determined that it meets any one of the following standards: 1. It is considered a non-contributing element of a historic district and its relocation will not affect the character of the historic district; or 2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on which it is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the historic district or property; or 3. The owner has obtained a Certificate of Economic Hardship; or 4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given the character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district in which it was originally located or diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated properties; and Additionally, for approval to relocate all of the following criteria must be met: 1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding the physical impacts of relocation; and 2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and 3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary financial security. Staff Response: The historic home is located in its original location. The applicant proposes relocation to site the landmark in a prominent location on the lot. Relocation also allows room on the property for redevelopment that is detached from the landmark. A letter from Bill Bailey House Movers demonstrating the ability to move the home is included in the application. The landmark is proposed to remain onsite during construction and temporary relocation. Staff is supportive of relocation and finds that review criterion 4 and criteria 1 -3 are met. 9.1 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis. • In general, relocation has less of an impact on individual landmark structures than those in a historic district. • It must be demonstrated that relocation is the best preservation alternative. • Rehabilitation of a historic building must occur as a first phase of any improvements. P35 III.A. Exhibit B – Demolition & Relocation Page 3 of 3 • A relocated building must be carefully rehabilitated to retain original architectural details and materials. • Before a building is moved, a plan must be in place to secure the structure and provide a new foundation, utilities, and to restore the house. • The design of a new structure on the site should be in accordance with the guidelines for new construction. • In general, moving a building to an entirely different site or neighborhood is not approved. 9.2 Moving an existing building that contributes to the character of a historic district should be avoided. • The significance of a building and the character of its setting will be considered. • In general, relocating a contributing building in a district requires greater sensitivity than moving an individually-listed structure because the relative positioning of it reflects patterns of development, including spacing of side yards and front setbacks, that relate to other historic structures in the area. P36 III.A. Exhibit C - Variances Page 1 of 1 EXHIBIT C VARIANCES SETBACK VARIANCES The criteria for granting setback variances, per Section 26.415.110.B of the Municipal Code are as follows: 26.415.110.B.2 In granting a variance, the HPC must make a finding that such a variance: a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district; and/or b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district. Staff Response: The following setback variances are requested: East Setback: 3 ft. provided and 5 ft. is required. Distance between buildings: 7 ft. provided between new structures and 10 ft. is required. The applicant proposes to shift the entire development to the east to provide relief to the cottonwood trees that line Eighth Street. Staff is supportive of the east sideyard setback as it mitigates adverse impacts to the cottonwood trees. The requested distance between buildings variance (7’ provided and 10’ required) is between the two new structures. A distance of 10’ will be maintained between the historic structure and all new construction. Staff is supportive of the reduced setback between structures as long as appropriate construction methods are used to meet building code. P37 III.A. Exhibit D – Special Review Page 1 of 1 EXHIBIT D SPECIAL REVIEW PARKING WAIVERS: Parking reductions are permitted for designated historic properties on sites unable to contain the number of on-site parking spaces required by the underlying zoning. Commercial designated historic properties may receive waivers of payment in lieu fees for parking reductions. The parking reduction and waiver of payment-in-lieu fees may be approved upon a finding by the HPC that it will enhance or mitigate an adverse impact on the historic significance of architectural character of a designated historic property, an adjoining designated property or a historic district. Section 26.515.040 Special Review Standards. If the project requires review by the Historic Preservation Commission and the Community Development Director has authorized consolidation pursuant to Section 26.304.060.B, the Historic Preservation Commission shall approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the Special Review application. A. A Special Review for establishing, varying, or waiving off-street parking requirements may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: 1. The parking needs of the residents, customers, guests, and employees of the project have been met, taking into account the potential uses of the parcel, the projected traffic generation of the project, any shared parking opportunities, expected schedule of parking demands, the projected impacts on to the on-street parking of the neighborhood, the proximity to mass transit routes and the downtown area, and any special services, such as vans, provided for residents, guests and employees. 2. An on-site parking solution meeting the requirement is practically difficult or results in an undesirable development scenario. 3. Existing or planned on-site or off-site parking facilities adequately serve the needs of the development, including the availability of street parking. Staff Response: The project is required to provide 7 spaces onsite. The applicant proposes 6 parking spaces along the alley. Residents are able to apply for residential parking passes, and on-street parking is available within this neighborhood. Consistent with the affordable housing development at 518 W. Main Street, Staff recommends a reduction in the parking requirement with the condition that the applicant pay the cash in lieu fee of $30,000 per space. P38 III.A. Exhibit E – Residential Design Standards Page 1 of 3 EXHIBIT E RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS 26.410.020.D Variances 2. Variances from the Residential Design Standards, Section 26.410.040, which do not meet this Section may be granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Board of Adjustment or the Historic Preservation Commission, if the project is subject to the requirements of Chapter 26.415. An applicant who desires to consolidate other requisite land use review by the Historic Preservation Commission, the Board of Adjustment or the Planning and Zoning Commission may elect to have the variance application decided by the board or commission reviewing the other land use application. An applicant who desires a variance from the Residential Design Standards shall demonstrate and the deciding board shall find that the variance, if granted would: a. Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. In evaluating the context as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing board may consider the relationship of the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting or a broader vicinity as the board feels is necessary to determine if the exception is warranted; or b. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints. (Ord. No. 52-2003, § 5; Ord. No. 20-2005, § 1) Section 26.410.040.D. Building elements. The intent of the following building element standards is to ensure that each residential building has street-facing architectural details and elements, which provide human scale to the facade, enhance the walking experience and reinforce local building traditions. 1. Street oriented entrance and principal window. All single-family homes and duplexes, except as outlined in Subsection 26.410.010.B.4 shall have a street-oriented entrance and a street facing principal window. Multi-family units shall have at least one (1) street-oriented entrance for every four (4) units and front units must have a street facing a principal window. Staff Response: The primary façade for this project is Hallam Street. The proposal includes 2 street facing entrances along Hallam Street (one for each building fronting Hallam., and 2 street facing entrances along Eighth Street (one for each new structure). A variation is required for the northwest building because the entrance does not face Hallam Street. Staff is supportive of the variation and finds that the intent of the standard is met by providing entrances along Eighth Street. P39 III.A. Exhibit On corner lots, entries and principal windows should face whichever street has a greater block length. This standard shall be satisfied if all of the following conditions are met: a. The entry door shall face the street and be no more than ten (10) feet back from the front-most wall of the building. Entry doors shall not be taller than eight (8) feet. Staff Response: All entry doors located at grade meet this standard. b. A covered entry porch of f square feet, with a minimum depth of six (6') feet, shall be part of the front facade. Entry porches and canopies shall not be more than one (1) story in height. Staff Response: Entry porches are proposed for the two buildings that front Hallam Street. The front porch on the historic building does not meet the minimum size requirement (it is 37 requires a variance. The front porches on the two new buildings do not meet the minimum size or depth requirements and require variations Staff does not support variations provide front porches that meet the standards historic landmark. c. A street-facing principal window requires that a significant window or group of windows face street. Staff Response: The two buildings that face Hallam Street have principal street facing windows. The northwest building meets thi for the northwest building because it meets the intent of the standard. 2. First story element. All residential buildings shall have a first story street the width of which comprises at least twenty percent (20%) of the building's overall width and the depth of which is at least six (6) feet from the wall the first story element is projecting from. Assuming that the first story element includes interior living space, the height of the first story element shall not exceed ten (10) feet, as measured to the plate height. A first story element may be a porch or living space. Accessible it is a deck, porch or enclosed area) shall not be allowed over the first story element; however, accessible space over the remaining first story elements on the front façade shall not be precluded. Staff Response: The historic landmark d variation. The new buildings do not Exhibit E – Residential Design Standards Page 2 of 3 On corner lots, entries and principal windows should face whichever street has a greater block length. This standard shall be satisfied if all of the following conditions are met: shall face the street and be no more than ten (10) feet back from the most wall of the building. Entry doors shall not be taller than eight (8) feet. All entry doors located at grade meet A covered entry porch of fifty (50) or more square feet, with a minimum depth of six (6') feet, shall be part of the front facade. Entry porches and canopies shall not be more than one (1) story in height. Entry porches are proposed for the two buildings that front Hallam Street. The front porch on the historic building does not meet nimum size requirement (it is 37 sf) and es a variance. The front porches on the two the minimum size or variations. variations for the rear building and recommends that the applicant that meet the standards. Staff is supportive of the variation facing principal window requires that a significant window or group of The two buildings that face Hallam Street have principal street facing windows. building meets this standard facing Eighth Street. Staff is supportive of a varia building because it meets the intent of the standard. All residential buildings shall have a first story street the width of which comprises at least twenty percent (20%) of the building's overall width and the depth of which is at least six (6) feet from the wall the first story element is rojecting from. Assuming that the first story element includes interior living space, the height of the first story element shall not exceed ten (10) feet, as measured to the plate height. A first story element may be a porch or living space. Accessible it is a deck, porch or enclosed area) shall not be allowed over the first story element; however, accessible space over the remaining first story elements on the front façade Staff Response: The historic landmark does not meet the first story element and requires a do not provide first story elements that meets this standard and One Story Element On corner lots, entries and principal windows should face whichever street has a greater block length. This standard shall be satisfied if all of the following conditions are met: square feet, with a minimum depth of six (6') feet, shall be part of the front facade. Entry porches and canopies shall not be more than one (1) story in height. for the rear building and recommends that the applicant pportive of the variation request for the facing principal window requires that a significant window or group of The two buildings that face Hallam Street have principal street facing windows. Staff is supportive of a variation All residential buildings shall have a first story street-facing element the width of which comprises at least twenty percent (20%) of the building's overall width and the depth of which is at least six (6) feet from the wall the first story element is rojecting from. Assuming that the first story element includes interior living space, the height of the first story element shall not exceed ten (10) feet, as measured to the plate height. A first story element may be a porch or living space. Accessible space (whether it is a deck, porch or enclosed area) shall not be allowed over the first story element; however, accessible space over the remaining first story elements on the front façade element and requires a that meets this standard and Principal Window P40 III.A. Exhibit require variations. The standards have been amended to allow loggias to count as a first story element, however the depth requirement is still 6 ft. first story element and suggests a restudy to comply with the standard 4. Lightwells. All areaways, lightwells and/or stairwells on the street building shall be entirely recessed behind the front-most wall of the building. Staff Response: The project does not include any of these features between the front-most wall of the buildings and the street. Exhibit E – Residential Design Standards Page 3 of 3 The standards have been amended to allow loggias to count as a first story ver the depth requirement is still 6 ft. Staff is not supportive of variations for either first story element and suggests a restudy to comply with the standard. All areaways, lightwells and/or stairwells on the street-facing facade(s) of a building shall be entirely recessed behind the most wall of the building. does not include any of these most wall of the buildings and The standards have been amended to allow loggias to count as a first story variations for either P41 III.A. Exhibit G – DRC Comments Page 1 of 3 EXHIBIT F DRC COMMENTS ENGINEERING Transportation Impact Analysis: Provide a transportation impact analysis. – condition of approval for Final Drainage: Provide a full major drainage report that meets URMP and Engineering Design Standards. A green roof would help mitigate drainage impacts. Snow Storage: A minimum functional area equaling 30% of the paved area shall be provided contiguous to the paved and designed to accommodate snow storage. For heated areas, the functional area can be reduced to 10%. Sidewalk and Curb and Gutter: All sidewalk, curb and gutter must meet the Engineering Standards as outlined in Title 21 and the Engineering Design Standards adopted by Title 29. The Engineering Design Standards call for a 6 foot sidewalk property when located in a multi- family area. However, the Hallam Ave frontage is proposed to be a trail and should meet an 8 foot minimum cross section. The project manager for the trail connection is Tyler Christoff with the Engineering Department. Please coordinate with Tyler (544-3143). The minimum width of the planting strip is 5 ft. Since there are many trees on-site and adjacent to the property, the applicant should coordinate with the Parks and Engineering Departments to find alignment solutions. Curb and gutter will likely need to be replaced. Alley: Identify utility pedestals serving the property. Relocate all utility pedestals to within the property boundary. Locate any new electric transformer within the property boundary. Locate trash enclosure within the property boundary.- condition of approval for Final Parking must be located within the property boundary. The entrance to the alley needs to be improved in order to meet ADA and City standards. Parking Parking along ROW shall remain parallel. Site Access Alley access shall remain. No new curb cuts will be approved. Construction Management Engineering is concerned about the Construction Impacts of this site. Please submit a construction management plan prior to Council review. The plan must include a planned sequence of construction that minimizes construction impacts. The plan shall describe mitigation for parking, staging/encroachments, and truck traffic. Excavation Stabilization The proposed foundation is slab on grade. No excavation stabilization plan will be required. P42 III.A. Exhibit G – DRC Comments Page 2 of 3 Survey Requirements A survey requirement is to pothole and provide depth to utilities. Please comply with this requirement at building permit submittal. ACSD Service is contingent upon compliance with the District’s rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) are not connected to the sanitary sewer system. On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD. New sanitary sewer services lines will be required to serve this project. These services must be connected to the District’s main sanitary sewer line in Eighth Street. Oil and grease interceptors are required for establishments that install commercial grade kitchens. Old service lines must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to specific ACSD requirements. Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system. One tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements may be required where more than one unit is served by a single service line. Permanent improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or right of ways. Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and hard landscaping may impact public ROW or easements to be dedicated to the district. All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. Peg in our office can develop an estimate for this project once detailed plans have been made available to the district. Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the planned reserve capacity of the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an additional proportionate fee will be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection system or treatment capacity constraint. Additional proportionate fees would be collected over time from all development in the area of concern in order to fund the improvements needed. Glycol heating and snow melt systems must be designed to prohibit and discharge of glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. The glycol storage areas must have approved containment facilities. The district will be able to respond with more specific comments and requirements once detailed building and utility plans are available. PARKS A 15’ setback for the cottonwood trees along 8th Street Ditch protection fencing P43 III.A. Exhibit G – DRC Comments Page 3 of 3 Tree protection fencing Tree permit submitted for the removal of specific conifers and fruit tree on site A plan for the ditch going under the parking area close to the alley A plan for the sidewalk along 8th Street as well as one along Hwy 82 UTILITIES No alteration to the Ditch without written authorization, full review by City Raw Water Dept. and Water Dept. Engineer as needed. A transformer on site may be required so give consideration for transformer easement and access. Water services will need to meet all 2013 Water Distribution System Standards. All Tap Fees musty be paid prior to scheduling taps. A full review will be done at building permit (and ROW permit) and signed off by water and/or electric prior to commencement of construction. Coordinate all proposed Electrical work through City electric including providing Load Calculation forms. P44 III.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: May 29, 2007 P45 III.A. Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: May 29, 2007 General Information Please check the appropriate boxes below and submit this page along with your application. This information will help us review your plans and, if necessary, coordinate with other agencies that may be involved. YES NO Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: May 29, 2007 ATTACHMENT 3 - Dimensional Requirements Form (Item #10 on the submittal requirements key. Not necessary for all projects.) Project: Applicant: Project Location: Zone District: Lot Size: Lot Area: (For the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Existing:__________Proposed:___________________ Number of residential units: Existing:__________Proposed:___________________ Number of bedrooms: Existing:__________Proposed:___________________ Proposed % of demolition:__________ DIMENSIONS: (write n/a where no requirement exists in the zone district) Floor Area: Height Existing:_________Allowable:__________Proposed:________ Principal Bldg.: Existing:_________Allowable:__________Proposed:________ Accessory Bldg.: Existing:_________Allowable:__________Proposed:________ On-Site parking: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ % Site coverage: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ % Open Space: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Front Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Rear Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Combined Front/Rear: Indicate N, S, E, W Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Side Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Side Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Combined Sides: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Distance between buildings: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Existing non-conformities or encroachments and note if encroachment licenses have been issued: ____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ Variations requested (identify the exact variances needed): ______________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ P47 III.A. 715 W MAIN ST | SUITE 204 | ASPEN CO 81611 | 970.279.4157 | FORUMPHI.COM TO: Justin Barker, Senior Planner, City of Aspen Community Development Department FROM: Forum Phi RE: 834 West Hallam Street DATE: June 01, 2016 Justin: On behalf of 834 West Hallam Associates, LLC (the “Applicant”) please accept the enclosed updated HPC Land Use Application based on the “temporary relocation” standards for a historic structure located at 834 W Hallam Street. The subject property is listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. The existing building is located at 834 W Hallam Street, which is legally described as Lots K and L of Block 10. The structure was previously remodeled with a non-historic addition in 1980, was used as a restaurant, and is currently unoccupied. This proposal focuses on restoring the historic Victorian house located on the property, removing the non-historic addition, and converting it into two (2) affordable housing units. There will also be a new basement constructed underneath the historic structure. Additionally, we are proposing two (2) detached buildings to be developed on the same lot, both of which would contain affordable housing. The total number of affordable units the Applicant is proposing has been revised. The Applicant is now proposing seven (7) affordable housing units with a total of eighteen (18) bedrooms. Generous storage has been provided and the units will provide an exceptional affordable housing opportunity for local residents. This Applicant continues to propose the relocation of the historic Victorian closer to the street on both Hallam Street and 8th Street, giving it prominence on the site and visibility to those driving into Aspen. Sincerely, Steev Wilson, AIA P48 III.A. 715 W MAIN ST | SUITE 204 | ASPEN CO 81611 | 970.279.4157 | FORUMPHI.COM LAND USE APPLICATION SUBMISSION 834 WEST HALLAM ASSOCIATES, LLC A HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROJECT FEATURING ONSITE AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS. 01 JUNE 2016 An Application for Major Development Review – Conceptual Review P49 III.A. PROJECT OVERVIEW 834 West Hallam Associates, LLC (the “ Applicant”) submits this application for Major Development Review - Conceptual for redevelopment of an existing historic home. The subject site is an 6,010 SF parcel located at the corner of West Hallam Street and 8th Street at 834 West Hallam (the “Property”). The Property lies within the Mixed-Use (MU) zone district and an existing historic home is located on the parcel. The historic home will remain and be incorporated into the affordable housing development. The proposed redevelopment will include seven (7) affordable housing units along with accessory storage and exterior parking spaces. A parking deficit of one space is proposed due to site restrictions. A cash-in-lieu fee is proposed to meet the parking requirement. The proposed development is completely within the allowable Floor Area Ratios and Net Area Allowances for all of the uses provided within the redevelopment. The required 10-foot front setback and the 5-foot rear setbacks are all being met. We are requesting a variance of three (3) feet for the east setback in order to locate the historic home 2’-10” further in from the west setback, and to protect the existing cottonwood trees along West Hallam Street. A third level, consisting of 561.50 Net Livable square feet, is proposed for the far northeast portion of the site. This feature has been pulled back from each street facing façade with gable roofs above that are all under the 28- foot height limit. The variation in façade depths, as well as the heights of decks and roof elements, reduces the appearance of the massing of the development. The redevelopment will provide a new sidewalk along West Hallam Street, which will be constructed so that the the existing cottonwood trees will remain unharmed.. P50 III.A. City of Aspen Residential Design Standards Compliance 26.410.040. Multi-family Standards B. Design Standards. 1. Building Orientation (Flexible). This is a corner site with a five (5) foot west side setback along 8th Street and a ten (10) foot front yard setback along West Hallam Street. The historic home has a front yard along West Hallam. All additional proposed buildings are oriented to face towards West Hallam Street or 8th Street and are parallel to each street. 2. Garage Access (Non-flexible). All parking spaces for the proposed development are accessed via the alley. 3. Garage Placement (Non-flexible). N/A 4. Entry Connection (Non-flexible). We are proposing to restore the street-oriented historic front entrance. All proposed buildings have a street-oriented front entries and porches. All proposed units are accessible via pathways connected to the alley, proposed sidewalk and front sidewalk. 5. Principal Window (Flexible). The existing historic home has a street-facing principal window which will remain. As this is a corner lot with street frontage on two streets, all proposed street facing facades have at least one street-facing principal window. P51 III.A. City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Introduction The Property at 834 West Hallam Street is listed in the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. This lot is legally described as Lots K and L of Block 10. As required for submittal, this letter of compliance is for HPC Conceptual Review. Chapter 1 – Site Planning & Landscape Design 1.1 All projects shall respect the historic development pattern or context of the block, neighborhood or district. The existing non-historic addition will be removed. The removal of the non-historic element will ensure that the building footprint will be compatible with other strcutures located in the neighborhood. 1.2 Preserve the system and character of historic streets, alleys, and ditches. The existing unpaved alleyway will be maintained with a small portion to be graded for access to the proposed parking area. The existing Si Johnson ditch will not be disturbed. An extension of the inlet will be requested in order to provide an accessible walkway for residents. 1.3 Remove driveways or parking areas accessed directly from the street if they were not part of the original development of the site. No new curb cuts are proposed and no non-historic driveways currently exist. 1.4 Design a new driveway or improve an existing driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual impact. No new driveways are proposed. 1.5 Maintain the historic hierarchy of spaces. A walkway establishes the progression of public to semi-private spaces. Semi-pirvate entries lead to private spaces. 1.6 Provide a simple walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry on residential projects. The proposed walkway is five (5) feet wide to accommodate for ADA accessibility. Sidewalks are aligned to avoid required window wells. 1.7 Provide positive open space within a project site. Open space is proposed to be provided to the west of the historic home. 1.8 Consider stormwater quality needs early in the design process. Preliminary design will be provided for HPC consideration with a final design to be review prior to building permit submittal. 1.9 Landscape development on AspenModern landmarks shall be addressed on a case by case basis. N/A 1.10 Built-in furnishings, such as water features, fire pits, grills, and hot tubs, that could interfere with or block views of historic structures are inappropriate. P52 III.A. N/A 1.11 Preserve and maintain historically significant landscaping on site, particularly landmark trees and shrubs. Cottonwood trees along the Si Johnson ditch are to be preserved. 1.12 Provide an appropriate context for historic structures. Landscape design to be provided for final HPC review. An appropriate landscape design will be provided that honors the historic structure. 1.13 Additions of plant material to the landscape that could interfere with or block views of historic structures are inappropriate. Landscape design to be provided for final HPC review. Final landscape design will avoide interfering with or blocking views of historic strcutures. 1.14 Minimize the visual impacts of landscape lighting. Landscape lighting design to be provided for final HPC review. All lighting will comply with applicable City of Aspen Land Use Code provisions. 1.15 Preserve original fences. The existing non-historic wrought-iron fence on site is proposed to be removed. No additional fencing is proposed. 1.16 When possible, replicate a missing historic fence based on photographic evidence. N/A 1.17 No fence in the front yard is often the most appropriate solution. N/A 1.18 When building an entirely new fence, use materials that are appropriate to the building type and style. N/A 1.19 A new fence should have a transparent quality, allowing views into the yard from the street. N/A 1.20 Any fence taller than 42” should be designed so that it avoids blocking public views of important features of a designated building. N/A 1.21 Preserve original retaining walls No retaining walls exist on the site.. 1.22 When a new retaining wall is necessary, its height and visibility should be minimized. P53 III.A. A 30” retaining wall is proposed along the northwest portion of the property to meet the City of Aspen Engineering requirements for parking. The height and visibility of the retaining wall will be minimized to the greatest extent possible. 1.23 Re-grading the site in a manner that changes historic grade is generally not allowed and will be reviewed on a case by case basis. There will be no major change to the historic grading of the site. 1.24 Preserve historically significant landscapes with few or no alterations. N/A 1.25 New development on these sites should respect the historic design of the landscape and its built features. N/A 1.26 Preserve the historic circulation system. The general orientation of the historic home will be preserved thereby preserving the historic circulation of the site. 1.27 Preserve and maintain significant landscaping on site. The large cottonwood trees located along the Si Johnson ditch are to be preserved. Chapter 2 - Building Materials 2.1-2.6 The primary historic building material is painted cedar shingle. Tthe lower level of the home has horizontal cedar siding while the upper portion on the front facade is sided with round sawn cedar shingle siding. The historic materials are to remain as practical and any necessary repairs will be made with historically sensitive materials and techniques. No synthetic material will be used for repair or replacement. The existing roof is composed of asphalt shingles. No historic materials will be covered. Chapter 3 - Windows 3.1-3.8 All historic windows are to remain. Where historic windows have been previously removed, these windows will be replaced to match the existing historic windows. These windows are double-hung type with wood trim and sills. All historic windows will receive repairs where required, with no changes to character-defining features. Chapter 4 - Doors 4.1-4.7 The historic entrance doors at the front and rear of the structure were removed with the 1980's addition. The replacement doors will match the images of the historic home that we have found at the Aspen Historical Society. The closest matching hardware from the historic image will be selected for the new doors. Chapter 5 - Porches P54 III.A. 5.1-5.4 The historic front porch will be restored based on the images of the building that we have obtained from the Aspen Historical Society. 5.5-5.6 The porch at the front of the structure was previously enclosed and will be restored to its original design visible in the historic image provided with this application. The materials will be consistent with those on the rest of the historic structure. Gaurds or handrails that did not exist on the historic home will not be provided. Chapter 6 - Architectural Details 6.1-6.5 Distinct architectural details exist on the historic structure, specifically the windows, wood siding and trim. These details represent those typical of the late 1800s Victorian era and will be maintained and repaired only where required. Any repairs and/or replacements to historic features will be documented prior to submission of a building permit and construction. Chapter 7 - Roofs 7.1-7.10 The existing roof structure and chimney will be maintained in its current condition over the portion of the existing home that is historic. Repairs will be made where required. Chapter 8 - Secondary Structures 8.1-8.8 The property does not currently contain a secondary structure. We are proposing two (2) detatched affordable housing buildings to be constructed on the lot. Chapter 9 - Building Relocation & Foundations 9.1- 9.8 The historic home is proposed to be located to the west. The relocation if the historic structure will allow the other improvements to the Lot to be made and will ensure appropriate preservation efforts are made to the historic home. All relocation work will be completed by an experience contractor. The proposed design includes the addition of a lower level beneath the historic building. The original foundation for the historic building was previously removed with the construction of the existing basement. The visible portions of the proposed foundation will appear similar in design and materials to the historic foundation. Chapter 10 - Building Additions 10.1-10.2 In 1980, additions were constructed on the North, East, and South side of the building, enclosing the historic recessed front porch. The existing non-historic addition will be removed and the recessed porch restored. 10.3-10.15 P55 III.A. The proposed development will be located in two buildings that are detached from the historic structure. These buildings will be differentiated from the historic home through separate materials, colors, and styles. The removal of the existing non-historic addition and the proposed detached development will preserve and enhance the character of the historic structure. The historic resource will be relocated to the South- West corner of the lot which has frontage on both 8th Street and West Hallam Street, giving it prominence over the new buildings. The proposed floor area is approximately 5,283.25 square feet. This is below the maximum allowable floor area for the parcel which, based on parcel size, is 12,020 square feet. Chapter 11 - New Buildings on Landmarked Properties/Historic Landmark Lot Splits 11.1-11.2 The primary entrance for the proposed building which is adjacent to the historic building is oriented towards West Hallam Street and has a street-oriented entry porch that is similar in scale to the historic entry porch. 11.3-11.4 The new buildings are similar in scale to the historic building. The street-facing elevations of the proposed buildings are similar in scale to the historic building. 11.5-11.6 The proposed buildings relate to the historic home through form and materials. 11.7 The proposed design does not mimic the historic style. Chapter 12 - General Guidelines 12.1 The proposed development will be in compliance with the applicable ADA requirements. 12.2-12.3 Exterior lighting will be simple in form and detail. Existing lights on the historic structure will remain. Any proposed site lighting will be shielded and/or low intensity and meet applicable land use code requirements. Visual impacts from interior lighting will be subdued. 12.4 Mechanical and service areas will be located within the proposed buildings. All service areas will be visually blocked from the primary street facade. All facades of the historic structure will remain free of mechanical and service equipment. 12.5 N/A 12.6-12.9 P56 III.A. The project is for affordable housing and will not utilize any signage. 26.415.080 Demolition of designated historic properties or properties within an historic district The proposed areas to be demolished are non-historic additions to the original Victorian structure completed in 1980. It is clear that this addition did not exist when the house was originally built as seen on the Sanborn map shown below. The other structures shown on lots K and L no longer exist on the site. P57 III.A. Chapter 26.430 SPECIAL REVIEW A. The general application information required under Section 26.304.030 A. A special review for establishing, varying or waiving off-street parking requirements may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: 1. The parking needs of the residents, customers, guests and employees of the project have been met, taking into account potential uses of the parcel, the projected traffic generation of the project, any shared parking opportunities, expected schedule of parking demands, the projected impacts on the on-street parking of the neighborhood, the proximity to mass transit routes and the downtown area and any special services, such as vans, provided for residents, guests and employees The parking needs of the residents will be met through the provision of six (6) provided parking spaces. The residents of the affordable housing complex will benefit from the readily accessible public transportation. The applicant also proposes providing a sidewalk along 8th Street as well as a pathway between the proposed development to give residents direct access to the City of Aspen sidewalk network. 2. An on-site parking solution meeting the requirement is practically difficult or results in an undesirable development scenario. With our existing curb cut for the alley and the lot size, we are taking up the entire width of the property to provide six (6) parking spaces. In order to provide the one (1) additional parking space required, we would have to rearrange the parking by removing three (3) interior parking spaces to create a driveway, and subsequently we would need to relocate those parking spaces further into the lot, taking away valuable space for the affordable housing units. The deficit of one required parking space is proposed to be be provided through cash-in-lieu. 3. Existing or planned on-site or off-site parking facilities adequately serve the needs of the development, including the availability of street parking. There is ample street parking in this neighborhood. It is unlikely that residents and visitors would have a problem finding a space within one block of the development. B. A sketch plan showing the configuration of the development on the lot and those features of the site which are relevant to the special review application. See site plan on the next page. C. There are no similar properties with the same Zone district within the neighborhood. P58 III.A. P59 III.A. 26.540 Affordable Housing Credits 26.540.070 Review Criteria for establishing an affordable housing credit Review criteria for establishing an affordable housing credit An Affordable Housing Credit may be established by the Planning and Zoning Commission if all of the following criteria are met. The proposed units do not need to be constructed prior to this review. A. The proposed affordable housing unit(s) comply with the review standards of Section 26.470.070.4(a-d). City of Aspen Land Proposed units meet the requirements of section 26.470.070 (a-d). Shown in attached plans. B. The affordable housing unit(s) are not an obligation of a Development Order and are not otherwise required by this Title to mitigate the impacts of development. Proposed units are not required to mitigate development impacts. 26.470.070.4 Growth Management/Affordable Housing 4. Affordable housing. The development of affordable housing deed-restricted in Accordance with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines shall be approved, Approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the Following criteria: a. The proposed units comply with the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be required for this standard. The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority may choose to hold a public hearing with the Board of Directors. All units comply With the Aspen/pitkin county housing authority. APCHA has provided a recommendation of approval with conditions as contained in memorandum dated 28 April 2016. b. Affordable housing required for mitigation purposes shall be in the form of actual newly built units or buy-down units. Off-site units shall be provided within the City limits. Units outside the City limits may be accepted as mitigation by the City Council, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.2. If the mitigation requirement is less than one (1) full unit, a cash-in lieu payment may be accepted by the Planning and Zoning Commission upon a recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. If the mitigation requirement is one (1) or more units, a cash-in-lieu payment shall require City Council approval, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.3. A Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit may be used to satisfy mitigation requirements by approval of the Community Development Department Director, pursuant to Section 26.540.080 Extinguishment of the Certificate. Required affordable housing may be provided through a mix of these methods. N/A, no mitigation is required. c. Each unit provided shall be designed such that the finished floor level of fifty percent (50%) or more of the unit's net livable area is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher. This dimensional requirement may be varied through Special Review, Pursuant to Chapter All units are 50% or more above most restrictive grade. d. The proposed units shall be deed-restricted as "for sale" units and transferred to qualifed purchasers according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. The owner may be entitled to select the frst purchasers, subject to the aforementioned qualifcations, with approval from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. The deed restriction shall authorize the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority or the P60 III.A. City to own the unit and rent it to qualifed renters as defned in the Affordable Housing Guidelines established by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, as amended. The proposed units may be rental units, including but not limited to rental units owned by an employer or nonproft organization, if a legal instrument in a form acceptable to the City Attorney ensures permanent affordability of the units. The City encourages affordable housing units required for lodge development to be rental units associated with the lodge operation and contributing to the long-term viability of the lodge. Units owned by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, the City of Aspen, Pitkin County or other similar governmental or quasi-municipal agency shall not be subject to this mandatory "for sale" provision. Owner will deed restrict the unit's as for sale units. e. Non-Mitigation Affordable Housing. Affordable housing units that are not required for mitigation, but meet the requirements of Section 26.470.070.4(a-d). The owner of such nonmitigation affordable housing is eligible to receive a Certifcate of Affordable Housing Credit pursuant to Chapter 26.540. Proposed units meet the requirements of section 26.470.070 (a-d). 26.710.180 Mixed-Use (MU) The following variance requests are to consider the projection of the new front porch into the existing 10' front yard setback and establishment of the east side yard setback at 3' instead of 5'. D. Dimensional requirements 4. Minimum front yard setback (feet): 10, which may be reduced to 5, pursuant to Special Review, Chapter 26.430. In order to comply with the Residential Design Standards (RDS) 26.410.040.D.2 regarding first story elements and maintain continuity with the surrounding structures, the proposed building along West Hallam Street includes a front porch. 5. Minimum side yard setback (feet): 5 The Castle Creek Bridge Corridor improvement plan set forth by the City of Aspen Engineering Department encourages the preservation of mature trees along the entrance to Aspen. There are several mature trees on the 8th Street (West) side of the lot. In order to preserve these trees and have minimal impact on their root structure we propose reducing the side yard setback on the east side of the lot from 5' to 3'. Thus shifting the area impacted by construction away from the trees and their root systems. P61 III.A. Status of Alley The existing alley is accessed via 8th street. It extends from 8th street to the East edge of Lots K & L of Block 10. The driving surface of the alley is currently gravel and will remain unchanged. Any improvements to the alley will be coordinated with the Engineering Department at the City of Aspen. P62 III.A. 970.797.4881 | CFOX@FORUMPHI.COM CAET FOX UNIT CATEGORIES & REDUCTIONS NEW DATE: June 1, 2016 PROJECT ADDRESS: 834 West Hallam Owner: Architect: Project Manager: Matt Brown Steev Wilson Steven May swilson@forumphi.com smay@forumphi.com P: (970) 279-4109 P: (970) 319-8094 F: (866) 770-5585 F: (866) 770-5585 OVERVIEW UNIT ONE - TWO BEDROOM, 2 BATH – CATEGORY 3 (EXISTING HISTORIC HOME) Storage: 41.75 SF Lower: 251 SF Main: 229.75 SF Second: 266 SF Total: 746.75 SF - 2.25 Credits UNIT TWO - TWO BEDROOM, 2 BATH – CATEGORY 2 (EXISTING HISTORIC HOME) Storage: 41.75 SF Lower: 251.50 SF Main: 266 SF Second: 266 SF Total: 783.50 SF - 2.25 Credits UNIT THREE - THREE BEDROOM, 2.5 BATH – CATEGORY 3 Storage: 55 SF Lower: 433.75 SF Main: 526.50 SF Total: 960.25 SF - 3.0 Credits UNIT FOUR - THREE BEDROOM, 2.5 BATH – CATEGORY 2 Storage: 55 SF Lower: 206 SF Main: 73.75 SF Second: 681.25 SF Total: 961 SF – 3.0 Credits UNIT FIVE – ONE BEDROOM, 1 BATH – CATEGORY 3 Storage: 67.25 SF Main: 90.50 SF Second: 73.75 SF Third: 561.50 SF Total: 725.75 SF - 1.75 Credits P63 III.A. 2 UNIT SIX - THREE BEDROOM, 2 BATH – CATEGORY 3 Storage: 41.75 SF Lower: 521.50 SF Main: 88.75 SF Second: 508.75 SF Total: 1,119 SF – 3.5 Credits UNIT SEVEN - FOUR BEDROOM, 2 BATH – CATEGORY 3 Storage: 41.75 SF Lower: 408.50 SF Main: 284.25 SF Second: 475 SF Total: 1,167.75 SF - 3.0 Credits TOTAL UNITS 7 Units TOTAL NET LIVABLE SQUARE FEET 6,464 SF TOTAL GROSS SQUARE FEET 7,605 SF TOTAL FAR SQUARE FEET 5,283.25 SF TOTAL CREDITS 18.75 Credits P64 III.A. C D CD CD UP UP UP UP UP UP 1 2 3 4 UNIT 6 LOWER LEVEL 521.50 SF UNIT 1 LOWER LEVEL 251 SF UNIT 7 LOWER LEVEL 408.50 SF CLOS. BATH 1 CLOS. CLOSET CLOSETBATH 2 BEDROOM 2 BEDROOM 3 BATH 1 BEDROOM 1 BEDROOM 2CLOSET BATH 1 BEDROOM 1 STOR. BEDROOM 2 BATH 2 BATH 1 CLOSET UNIT 3 LOWER LEVEL 433.50 SF UNIT 2 LOWER LEVEL 251.50 SF BEDROOM 1 BATH 1 STORAGE UNIT 4 LOWER LEVEL 209.50 SF BEDROOM 1 STORAGE CLOSET STOR. BEDROOM 1 CLOSET CLOSET LOWER LEVEL 834 HALLAMARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNINGFORUMPHI.COM LOWER LEVELFORUM PHI P 6 5 I I I . A . RG RG R G RG C D 1 2 3 4 ENTRY ENTRY ENTRY KITCHEN LIVING KITCHEN LIVING CLOSET TRASH ENCLOSURE LIVING KITCHEN ENTRY UNIT 7 STORAGE 41.75 SF UNIT 2 STORAGE 41.75 SF UNIT 3 STORAGE 55 SF UNIT 1 STORAGE 41.75 SF UNIT 4 STORAGE 55 SF UNIT 5 STORAGE 67.25 SF ENTRY ENTRY ENTRY BATH 1 BEDROOM 1 POWDER UNIT 6 STORAGE 41.75 SF DN UP UP DN UP DNUP DN UP DN DN UP F F F F UNIT 1 MAIN LEVEL 229.75 SF UNIT 2 MAIN LEVEL 266 SF UNIT 4 MAIN LEVEL 74.25 SF UNIT 5 MAIN LEVEL 90.50 SF UNIT 6 MAIN LEVEL 88.75 SF UNIT 7 MAIN LEVEL 284.50 SF UNIT 3 MAIN LEVEL 526.25 SF LIVING KITCHEN STORAGE MAIN LEVEL 834 HALLAMARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNINGFORUMPHI.COM MAIN LEVELFORUM PHI P 6 6 I I I . A . RG RG CD CD CDCD CDCD 1 2 3 4 BALCONY DECK DECK DN DN UP DN DN DN F F UNIT 1 SECOND LEVEL 266 SF UNIT 2 SECOND LEVEL 266 SF BEDROOM 2 STOR. BATH 2 UNIT 4 SECOND LEVEL 715 SF BATH 2 BEDROOM 2 BEDROOM 3 CLOSET CLOS. LIVING KITCHEN UNIT 5 SECOND LEVEL 73.75 SF UNIT 7 SECOND LEVEL 475 SF CLOS. BEDROOM 3 KITCHEN LIVING BATH 3 BEDROOM 3 CLOS. BATH 2 UNIT 6 SECOND LEVEL 506.75 SF STORAGE CLOS. BEDROOM 2 STOR. BATH 2 CLOS. CLOSET CLOS. POWDER STOR. STOR. BEDROOM 4 SECOND LEVEL 834 HALLAMARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNINGFORUMPHI.COM SECOND LEVELFORUM PHI P 6 7 I I I . A . CD R G 1 2 3 4 BEDROOM 1 LIVINGKITCHEN CLOSET STOR. DECK STOR. DN F BATH 1 UNIT 5 THIRD LEVEL 561.50 SF THIRD LEVEL 834 HALLAMARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNINGFORUMPHI.COM THIRD LEVELFORUM PHI P 6 8 I I I . A . 5' - 0 " 10 ' - 0 " 5'-0"3'-0" KEEP EXISTING SLOPE CONDITION TO STREET PROPOSED 5" ROLL CURB SIDEWALK PARKING 1 PARKING 3 PARKING 4 PARKING 5 PARKING 6 N O R T H 8 T H S T R E E T ALLEY FRONT YARD SIDE YARD SIDE YARD 7917 7916 7915 7914 7913 7912 7911 7910 7909 EXISTING UTILITIES BUS STOP BACK YARD 8'-6 " 5'-0 " PROPOSED 8'-6" EXTENSION OF CULVERT INLET TO CLEAR WALKWAY AREA TO BE GRADED FOR PARKING PROPOSED RETAINING WALL EXISTING CULVERT INLET 5'-0" DITCH EASEMENT PARKING 2 SITE PLAN 834 HALLAMARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNINGFORUMPHI.COM SITE PLANFORUM PHI P 6 9 I I I . A . 28 ' - 0 " 28' HEIGHT LIMIT 1 834 HALLAMARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNINGFORUMPHI.COM ELEVATIONFORUM PHI P 7 0 I I I . A . 28 ' - 0 " 28' HEIGHT LIMIT 2 834 HALLAMARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNINGFORUMPHI.COM ELEVATIONFORUM PHI P 7 1 I I I . A . 28 ' - 0 " 28' HEIGHT LIMITMID POINTMID POINT 3 834 HALLAMARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNINGFORUMPHI.COM ELEVATIONFORUM PHI P 7 2 I I I . A . 28' HEIGHT LIMITMID POINT 4 834 HALLAMARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNINGFORUMPHI.COM ELEVATIONFORUM PHI P 7 3 I I I . A . 834 HALLAMARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNINGFORUMPHI.COM PERSPECTIVEFORUM PHI P 7 4 I I I . A . 834 HALLAMARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNINGFORUMPHI.COM PERSPECTIVEFORUM PHI P 7 5 I I I . A . 19'-0" 28 ' - 1 0 " 19'-0" 28 ' - 1 0 " 19'-0" 20 ' - 1 1/ 8 " 6'-25/8" 4' - 0 5/ 8 " 12'-11/4" 24 ' - 9 7/ 8 " 17'-3" 39 ' - 4 3/ 4 " 4'-53/8" 22'-41/2" 64 ' - 1 0 3/ 4 " 1 2 4 3 5 8 6 7 9 10 14 15 16 13 12 7 8 500.25 sq ft 613.50 sq ft 1,366.75 sq ft PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE SETBACK LINE PROPERTY LINE S E T B A C K L I N E PR O P E R T Y L I N E SE T B A C K L I N E P R O P E R T Y L I N E BUILDING A BUILDING B BUILDING C 11 RG RG R G RG 328.50 sq ft 568.75 sq ft 131.50 sq ft 1,317.25 sq ft SETBACK LINE PROPERTY LINE SE T B A C K L I N E P R O P E R T Y L I N E S E T B A C K L I N E PR O P E R T Y L I N E PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE BUILDING A BUILDING B BUILDING C F F F F TRASH ENCLOSURE 14.50 sq ft 49.00 sq ft 32.75 sq ft17.50 sq ft 2.00 sq ft 0.50 sq ft 8' - 0 " 19'-0"28'-10"19'-0"28'-10" 8' - 0 " 19'-0"20'-11/8"6'-25/8"4'-05/8"12'-11/4"24'-97/8" 8' - 6 " 17'-3"39'-43/4" 8' - 0 " 4'-53/8"24'-97/8" 8' - 0 " 22'-41/2" 8' - 6 " 40'-51/4"24'-51/2" 152.00 sq ft 224.50 sq ft 6.25 sq ft 136.75 sq ft 197.00 sq ft 14.75 sq ft14.75 sq ft 137.25 sq ft 14.75 sq ft 160.75 sq ft 49.75 sq ft 17.50 sq ft 14.75 sq ft 96.75 sq ft 198.50 sq ft 146.75 sq ft 334.75 sq ft 35.50 sq ft 198.50 sq ft 0.25 sq ft 178.50 sq ft 440.25 sq ft 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13 14 15 16 12 COUNTABLE FAR PLAN LEGEND DECK GARAGE EXEMPT Proposed Floor Area Calculations 834 W Hallam Building A Proposed Subgrade Level Exposed Wall Calculations Subgrade Level Wall Label Subgrade Wall Area (Sq Ft) Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)Total Wall Area (Sq Ft) 1 152.00 0.00 152.00 2 224.00 6.25 230.25 3 136.25 14.50 150.75 4 197.00 31.50 228.50 Subgrade Wall Area (Sq Ft)709.25 Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)52.25 Overall Total Wall Area (Sq Ft)761.50 % of Exposed Wall (Exposed / Total)6.86% Building A Proposed Subgrade Floor Area Calculations Subgrade Floor Area (Sq Ft)613.50 % of Exposed Wall (Exposed / Total)6.86% Subgrade Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft) 42.10 Building B Proposed Subgrade Level Exposed Wall Calculations Subgrade Level Wall Label Subgrade Wall Area (Sq Ft) Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)Total Wall Area (Sq Ft) 5 137.25 14.75 152.00 6 160.75 0.00 160.75 7 49.75 0.00 49.75 8 17.50 14.75 32.25 9 96.75 0.00 96.75 10 198.50 0.00 198.50 Subgrade Wall Area (Sq Ft)660.50 Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)29.50 Overall Total Wall Area (Sq Ft)690.00 % of Exposed Wall (Exposed / Total)4.28% Building B Proposed Subgrade Floor Area Calculations Subgrade Floor Area (Sq Ft)500.25 % of Exposed Wall (Exposed / Total)4.28% Subgrade Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft) 21.39 Building C Proposed Subgrade Level Exposed Wall Calculations Subgrade Level Wall Label Subgrade Wall Area (Sq Ft) Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)Total Wall Area (Sq Ft) 11 146.75 0.00 146.75 12 334.75 0.00 334.75 13 35.50 0.00 35.50 14 198.50 0.25 198.75 15 178.50 0.50 179.00 16 440.25 99.25 539.50 Subgrade Wall Area (Sq Ft)1,334.25 Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)100.00 Overall Total Wall Area (Sq Ft)1,434.25 % of Exposed Wall (Exposed / Total)6.97% Building C Proposed Subgrade Floor Area Calculations Subgrade Floor Area (Sq Ft)1,366.75 % of Exposed Wall (Exposed / Total)6.97% Subgrade Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft) 95.29 Total Floor Area Calculations Deck Area (Sq Ft)Floor Area (Sq Ft)Multiplied % Exposed Floor Area Ratio (Sq Ft) Building A Subgrade Floor Area (Sq Ft)613.50 6.86%42.10 Main Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)568.75 568.75 Upper Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)522.50 522.50 Deck Floor Area (Sq Ft)0.00 Building B Subgrade Floor Area (Sq Ft)500.25 4.28%21.39 Main Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)328.50 328.50 Upper Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)490.50 490.50 Deck Floor Area (Sq Ft)31.75 Building C Subgrade Floor Area (Sq Ft)1,366.75 6.97%95.29 Main Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)1,317.25 1,317.25 Upper Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)1,355.75 1,355.75 Third Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)575.00 575.00 Deck Floor Area (Sq Ft)162.25 Total Deck Area (Sq Ft)194.00 Total Area (Sq Ft)7,638.75 5,317.03 N LOWER LEVEL 1/8" = 1'-0"MAIN LEVEL 1/8" = 1'-0" 4 8 161 STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS SURVEYOR MECHANICAL COPYRIGHT CONTRACTOR CIVIL SHEET TITLE 5/26/16 PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY:CMF 5/24/16SD NOT FOR CONST. TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD DATE OF PUBLICATION Z-014 FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS 834 Hallam St., Aspen, CO,81611, USA 834 Hallam 715 West Main Street, Suite 204Aspen, Colorado 81611P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 PARCEL ID273-512-304-002 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Subdivision: CITY AND TOWNSITEOF ASPEN Block 10 Lot K-L ZONE DISTRICTMixed Use P 7 6 I I I . A . RG RG 522.50 sq ft 1,355.75 sq ft 490.50 sq ft 23.50 sq ft 46.75 sq ft 8.25 sq ft SETBACK LINE PROPERTY LINE S E T B A C K L I N E PR O P E R T Y L I N E SE T B A C K L I N E P R O P E R T Y L I N E PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE BUILDING A BUILDING B BUILDING C F F DECK DECK DECK R G 575.50 sq ft 115.50 sq ft SETBACK LINE PROPERTY LINE SE T B A C K L I N E P R O P E R T Y L I N E S E T B A C K L I N E PR O P E R T Y L I N E PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE BUILDING C F DECK COUNTABLE FAR PLAN LEGEND DECK GARAGE EXEMPT Proposed Floor Area Calculations 834 W Hallam Building A Proposed Subgrade Level Exposed Wall Calculations Subgrade Level Wall Label Subgrade Wall Area (Sq Ft) Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)Total Wall Area (Sq Ft) 1 152.00 0.00 152.00 2 224.00 6.25 230.25 3 136.25 14.50 150.75 4 197.00 31.50 228.50 Subgrade Wall Area (Sq Ft)709.25 Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)52.25 Overall Total Wall Area (Sq Ft)761.50 % of Exposed Wall (Exposed / Total)6.86% Building A Proposed Subgrade Floor Area Calculations Subgrade Floor Area (Sq Ft)613.50 % of Exposed Wall (Exposed / Total)6.86% Subgrade Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft) 42.10 Building B Proposed Subgrade Level Exposed Wall Calculations Subgrade Level Wall Label Subgrade Wall Area (Sq Ft) Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)Total Wall Area (Sq Ft) 5 137.25 14.75 152.00 6 160.75 0.00 160.75 7 49.75 0.00 49.75 8 17.50 14.75 32.25 9 96.75 0.00 96.75 10 198.50 0.00 198.50 Subgrade Wall Area (Sq Ft)660.50 Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)29.50 Overall Total Wall Area (Sq Ft)690.00 % of Exposed Wall (Exposed / Total)4.28% Building B Proposed Subgrade Floor Area Calculations Subgrade Floor Area (Sq Ft)500.25 % of Exposed Wall (Exposed / Total)4.28% Subgrade Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft) 21.39 Building C Proposed Subgrade Level Exposed Wall Calculations Subgrade Level Wall Label Subgrade Wall Area (Sq Ft) Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)Total Wall Area (Sq Ft) 11 146.75 0.00 146.75 12 334.75 0.00 334.75 13 35.50 0.00 35.50 14 198.50 0.25 198.75 15 178.50 0.50 179.00 16 440.25 99.25 539.50 Subgrade Wall Area (Sq Ft)1,334.25 Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)100.00 Overall Total Wall Area (Sq Ft)1,434.25 % of Exposed Wall (Exposed / Total)6.97% Building C Proposed Subgrade Floor Area Calculations Subgrade Floor Area (Sq Ft)1,366.75 % of Exposed Wall (Exposed / Total)6.97% Subgrade Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft) 95.29 Total Floor Area Calculations Deck Area (Sq Ft)Floor Area (Sq Ft)Multiplied % Exposed Floor Area Ratio (Sq Ft) Building A Subgrade Floor Area (Sq Ft)613.50 6.86%42.10 Main Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)568.75 568.75 Upper Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)522.50 522.50 Deck Floor Area (Sq Ft)0.00 Building B Subgrade Floor Area (Sq Ft)500.25 4.28%21.39 Main Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)328.50 328.50 Upper Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)490.50 490.50 Deck Floor Area (Sq Ft)31.75 Building C Subgrade Floor Area (Sq Ft)1,366.75 6.97%95.29 Main Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)1,317.25 1,317.25 Upper Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)1,355.75 1,355.75 Third Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)575.00 575.00 Deck Floor Area (Sq Ft)162.25 Total Deck Area (Sq Ft)194.00 Total Area (Sq Ft)7,638.75 5,317.03 N SECOND LEVEL 1/8" = 1'-0"THIRD LEVEL 1/8" = 1'-0" 4 8 161 STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS SURVEYOR MECHANICAL COPYRIGHT CONTRACTOR CIVIL SHEET TITLE 5/26/16 PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY:CMF 5/24/16SD NOT FOR CONST. TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD DATE OF PUBLICATION Z-015 FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS 834 Hallam St., Aspen, CO,81611, USA 834 Hallam 715 West Main Street, Suite 204Aspen, Colorado 81611P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 PARCEL ID273-512-304-002 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Subdivision: CITY AND TOWNSITEOF ASPEN Block 10 Lot K-L ZONE DISTRICTMixed Use P 7 7 I I I . A . 834 W Hallam Street, Aspen CO Conceptual Landscape Plan 15 June 2016 For planning purposes only, not for construction Parking Screening Mixed Low Perennial Beds Benches Planters ADA Decorative Porous Pavers Patio Deck Daylit Ditch Existing Cottonwoods to Remain P78 III.A. 834 W Hallam Street, Aspen CO Walkability, Recreation, and Trails Stan Clauson Associates, Inc. 7 June 2016 20 min. walk 10 min. walk Site Key Parks and Open Space 1. Marolt Open Space 2. Bugsy Barnard Park 3. Hillyard Park 4. Aspen Institute 5. Pioneer Park 6. Across the Pond Park 7. Aspen Golf Course and Nordic Center 8. Community Garden 9. Mary B. Mine 10. Little Cloud Park 11. Triangle Park 12. Aspen Center for Environmental Studies 13. Pitkin Reserve 14. Red Butte Cemetery 15. Aspen Ice House 16. Yellow Brick Park 17. Rio Grande Trail Trail Type Paved On Road Unpaved 2 1 3 5 11 12 4 13 14 7 159 8 10 6 17 16 P79 III.A. 834 HallamARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM WEST PERSPECTIVEFORUM PHI PRESENTATION NAME 12:12 Pitch 7:12 to 12:12 Pitch P 8 0 I I I . A . 834 HallamARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM SOUTHWEST PERSPECTIVEFORUM PHI PRESENTATION NAME 12:12 Pitch 7:12 to 12:12 Pitch P 8 1 I I I . A . 834 HallamARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM SOUTH PERSPECTIVEFORUM PHI PRESENTATION NAME 12:12 Pitch 7:12 to 12:12 Pitch P 8 2 I I I . A . 1 834 HALLAMARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM ELEVATIONFORUM PHI P 8 3 I I I . A . 2 8 '-0 " 28' HEIGHT LIMIT 2 834 HALLAMARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM ELEVATIONFORUM PHI P 8 4 I I I . A . 1 0 '-0 " 7 " 2 8 '-0 " MID POINTMID POINT 28' HEIGHT LIMIT 3 834 HALLAMARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM ELEVATIONFORUM PHI P 8 5 I I I . A . 2 8 '-0 " 28' HEIGHT LIMIT MID POINT 4 834 HALLAMARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING FORUMPHI.COM ELEVATIONFORUM PHI P 8 6 I I I . A . HPC Review 8.10.2016 134 W. Hopkins Page 1 of 11 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 134 W. Hopkins Avenue, Final Major Development, PUBLIC HEARING DATE: August 10, 2016 ________________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY: 134 West Hopkins Avenue is located on the corner of Hopkins Avenue and First Street. The building was most likely constructed 1890-1893 and it is in its original location. The house was owned by the same family for almost 90 years and appears to have been in fairly original condition until the mid-80s, when the property was sold and remodeled, primarily through the construction of a new rear addition. Some original exterior materials were replaced and the roof shape of the original dormers was changed from shed to gabled. It appears that new clapboards may have been installed on top of the original at that time and various other new details were introduced. Though the 1980s rear addition was small it did connect directly to the rear of the Victorian and it is difficult to distinguish the old part of the home from the new without a closer look. In March 2015, HPC granted Conceptual approval which included demolishing the additions and paring down to the original structure. Some restoration is to occur, for instance recreating the original dormers. The house is approved to be relocated towards the corner, about 2’6” towards First Street and just under 7’ towards Hopkins Avenue. A new basement and a new two story addition with a one story connector element were 134 W. Hopkins Ave. is indicated above with a star. Properties highlighted in orange are historic landmarks. P87 IV.A. HPC Review 8.10.2016 134 W. Hopkins Page 2 of 11 FINAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT accepted. HPC granted setback variances and a small floor area bonus as part of this review. HPC did debate the applicant’s proposal to construct a 6’x 8’ outdoor deck on the connector element, but the project was accepted by a 4-2 vote. The project was Called- Up by City Council and remanded to HPC for another look at the deck issue, given the corner exposure of the project. In November 2015 HPC conducted a Remand hearing and upheld the Commission’s original approval by a vote of 4-1. As part of the Final review application the owner has elected to eliminate the deck on the connector and enlarge a rooftop deck previously seen by HPC, entirely on the roof of the new addition. The applicant has addressed many items brought up during Conceptual and refined the proposal. Staff finds some information is needed in order to recommend Final approval. APPLICANT: West Hopkins LLC, P.O. Box 61510, Potomac, MD 20859, represented by CCY Architects and Klein Coté Edwards Citron LLC. PARCEL ID: 2735-124-19-001 ADDRESS: 134 West Hopkins Avenue, Lot 1 of the 134 and 134 ½ West Hopkins Landmark Lot Split, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: R- 6 Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan unless agreed to by the applicant. Staff Response: Final review focuses on landscape plan, lighting, fenestration, and selection of new materials. A list of the relevant design guidelines is attached as “Exhibit A.” In addition to those topics, HPC required the applicant to provide further information on the following at Final Review: o Provide details of the fence along First Street. o Provide details of the at grade skylight. o The Hopkins Street entrance shall be the primary entrance. o Provide details of the foundation material and document the existing relationship to grade. P88 IV.A. HPC Review 8.10.2016 134 W. Hopkins Page 3 of 11 Responses to these items are as follows. A wood picket fence 3’ tall with gaps between the pickets equal to half the picket width is proposed. This fence only surrounds the front yard. A large at grade skylight is located along the west side of the connector, with a smaller version proposed on the east. The skylights can be walked on, though it is not clear on the plans where access into the house is provided from the west skylight. This must be clarified for the HPC hearing to ensure that the Victorian front porch is the primary entry to the house. Staff has some concerns with the proximity of the west skylight to the historic structure and recommends an opaque surface be created along the north boundary of the Victorian as a more sensitive transition between new and old. This element will glow when the basement space below it is illuminated. Visibility from the street is limited due to a screen wall that is proposed around it. The last issue highlighted at Conceptual was a requirement to provide more detail about the foundation material for the historic house. There is currently an original red sandstone foundation. The applicant does indicate that foundation will be recreated. Specific details will be required for building permit. For Final review, as noted above, the deck on the connector has been eliminated and relocated to the roof. The architect has also taken a closer look at ways to reinforce compatibility between new and old through material selection and fenestration. Below are the Conceptual west elevation (top) and the Final west elevation (bottom). The deck railing is removed on the connector. Windows that previously faced west on the upper floor stair column have been removed. Other windows have been revised to more directly reflect the proportions of the large double hungs on the historic house. Siding on the new addition is coursed at a 4” exposure on the ground floor of the new and old. On the upper floor of the addition the siding has an 8” exposure. Staff finds the proposal has improved in these regards and meets the guidelines and the notion of choosing two aspects of compatibility (in this case fenestration and materials) but departing in another area (in this case form). P89 IV.A. HPC Review 8.10.2016 134 W. Hopkins Page 4 of 11 At Conceptual the applicant provided a historic structure study that was very detailed as to the evolution of the building and identification of new and old materials. Staff considers this report to encompass representations that must be translated into a more detailed preservation plan for the resource, which will be required at building permit. The elevations submitted for review show the details of the historic structure schematically and cannot be interpreted to represent approval to change or remove any elements. For building permit, correctly drawn elevations of the resource, with the treatment of all exterior materials are required. It appears that the existing clapboard siding may have been installed on top of the original. It appears that the front porch, in particular the spandrel details installed between the posts, is not entirely original. The architect should explain what is being preserved and ideally remove inaccurate changes that have occurred. There is no north elevation of the Victorian provided in the drawings. The original north elevation was destroyed by the 1980’s addition, however the large areas of glass that seem to be proposed on the back of the Victorian may not be appropriate and needs to be clarified. This drawing must be provided to staff by noon the day before the HPC hearing. Finally, the drawings indicate a number of skylights on the roof of the Victorian. While these were shown at Conceptual they were not a topic for that session. HPC’s guidelines do not support skylights being installed on a Victorian resource like this. Staff recommends these skylights be eliminated. P90 IV.A. HPC Review 8.10.2016 134 W. Hopkins Page 5 of 11 A relatively simple lighting plan and fixtures are proposed. A recessed can is indicated at the front porch of the Victorian along with two path lights. HPC has not supported pathway lighting in the foreground of a resource like this one, considering it to be out of character. Staff recommends these lights be removed. Regarding the landscape plan, there is limited private yard left beyond the development. Staff recommends a reduction or elimination of the Cotoneaster shrubs surrounding the west and south sides of the Victorian. The proposed fence provides screening. The shrubs are more formal and numerous than would necessarily be characteristic of a Victorian home. The shrubs on the west have the potential to introduce too much moisture alongside the house and block views of it. ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC approve the application if the following information is provided by Tuesday, Aug. 9th at noon and is found to be in keeping with the guidelines: A north elevation of the Victorian and plans and elevations clearly indicating all entry points into the structure from the west. Additional conditions of approval would include: 1. Reduce the west skylight by creating an opaque area on the north side of the Victorian. 2. Remove the skylights on the Victorian roof. 3. Eliminate the path lights in front of the Victorian. 4. Reduce the number of shrubs around the west and south sides of the Victorian. 5. Prior to building permit, submit elevations for staff review that correctly represent the details of the historic resource and treatment of all materials. Non-historic conditions should be reversed to the extent possible. The details of the historic foundation replica must be provided. Indicate the location and materials for all gutters, flashing and snow clips. 6. Per Resolution #10, Series of 2015, HPC has granted the following variations: o A 116.4 square foot floor area bonus is approved so that the total allowable floor area for the property is 1,919.6 square feet o Front yard (Hopkins Ave.) – A reduction of the required 10’ setback so that at minimum of 9’2” is provided, measured to the historic bay window o Side yard (First St.) - A reduction of the required 5’ setback so that a minimum of 1’3.5” is provided, measured to the historic bay window o Side yard (interior lot line) – A reduction of the required 5’ setback so that a minimum of 1’3.5” is provided o Combined sideyards- A reduction of the required 10’ setback so that a minimum of 2’7” is provided 7. Per Resolution #10 Series of 2015, on site relocation has been approved with the following provisions: a. Temporary storage of the home offsite on a parcel within 2 blocks of the subject lot, is approved as represented. P91 IV.A. HPC Review 8.10.2016 134 W. Hopkins Page 6 of 11 b. A protection plan from an engineer or house mover shall be submitted with the building permit. c. Provide a letter from a structural engineer demonstrating that the building is able to moved. d. At building permit, provide a $30,000 letter of credit, cashier’s check or personal check to insure the safe relocation of the house. 8. The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development plan vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits). Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in the creation of a vested property right. No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 134 W. Hopkins Avenue Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this approval. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter. P92 IV.A. HPC Review 8.10.2016 134 W. Hopkins Page 7 of 11 EXHIBITS: Exhibit A: Design Guidelines Exhibit B: Application text and drawings Exhibit C: Historic resource study Exhibit A: Relevant HPC Design Guidelines for 134 W. Hopkins, Final review Historic Preservation Guidelines 1.2 A new replacement fence should use materials that appear similar to that of the original. Any fence which is visible from a public right-of-way must be built of wood or wrought iron. Wire fences also may be considered. A wood picket fence is an appropriate replacement in most locations. A simple wire or metal fence, similar to traditional "wrought iron," also may be considered. Chain link is prohibited and solid "stockade" fences are only allowed in side and rear yards. 1.3 A new replacement fence should have a “transparent” quality allowing views into the yard from the street. A fence that defines a front yard is usually low to the ground and "transparent" in nature. On residential properties, a fence which is located forward of the front building facade may not be taller than 42" from natural grade. (For additional information, see the City of Aspen's "Residential Design Standards".) A privacy fence may be used in back yards and along alleys, but not forward of the front facade of a building. Note that using no fencing at all is often the best approach. Contemporary interpretations of traditional fences should be compatible with the historic context. 1.4 New fence components should be similar in scale with those seen traditionally. Fence columns or piers should be proportional to the fence segment. 1.9 Maintain the established progression of public-to-private spaces when considering a rehabilitation project. This includes a sequence of experiences, beginning with the "public" sidewalk, proceeding along a "semi-public" walkway, to a "semi-private" porch or entry feature and ending in the "private" spaces beyond. Provide a walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry. Meandering walkways are discouraged, except where it is needed to avoid a tree. Use paving materials that are similar to those used historically for the building style. Concrete, wood or sandstone may be appropriate for certain building styles. 1.10 Preserve historic elements of the yard to provide an appropriate context for historic structures. The front yard should be maintained in a traditional manner, with planting material and sod, and not covered with paving, for example. P93 IV.A. HPC Review 8.10.2016 134 W. Hopkins Page 8 of 11 1.13 Revisions or additions to the landscape should be consistent with the historic context of the site. Select plant and tree material according to its mature size, to allow for the long-term impact of mature growth. Reserve the use of exotic plants to small areas for accent. Do not cover grassy areas with gravel, rock or paving materials. 1.14 Additions to the landscape that could interfere with historic structures are inappropriate. Do not plant climbing ivy or trees too close to a building. New trees should be no closer than the mature canopy size. Do not locate plants or trees in locations that will obscure significant architectural features or block views to the building. It is not appropriate to plant a hedge row that will block views into the yard. 1.15 Minimize the visual impacts of site lighting. Site lighting should be shielded to avoid glare onto adjacent properties. Focus lighting on walks and entries, rather than up into trees and onto facade planes. 2.1 Preserve original building materials. Do not remove siding that is in good condition or that can be repaired in place. Only remove siding which is deteriorated and must be replaced. Masonry features that define the overall historic character, such as walls, cornices, pediments, steps and foundations, should be preserved. Avoid rebuilding a major portion of an exterior wall that could be repaired. Reconstruction may result in a building which no longer retains its historic integrity. 2.5 Repair deteriorated primary building materials by patching, piecing-in, consolidating or otherwise reinforcing the material. Avoid the removal of damaged materials that can be repaired. Isolated areas of damage may be stabilized or fixed, using consolidants. Epoxies and resins may be considered for wood repair and special masonry repair components also may be used. 2.6 Maintain masonry walls in good condition. Original mortar that is in good condition should be preserved in place. Repoint only those mortar joints where there is evidence of a moisture problem or when mortar is missing. Duplicate the original mortar in strength, composition, color, texture, joint width and profile. Mortar joints should be cleared with hand tools. Using electric saws and hammers to remove mortar can seriously damage the adjacent brick. Do not use mortar with a high portland cement content, which will be substantially harder than the brick and does not allow for expansion and contraction. The result is deterioration of the brick itself. 2.7 Match the original material in composition, scale and finish when replacing materials on primary surfaces. If the original material is wood clapboard, for example, then the replacement material must be wood as well. It should match the original in size, the amount of exposed lap and finish. P94 IV.A. HPC Review 8.10.2016 134 W. Hopkins Page 9 of 11 Replace only the amount required. If a few boards are damaged beyond repair, then only those should be replaced, not the entire wall. 3.1 Preserve the functional and decorative features of a historic window. Features important to the character of a window include its frame, sash, muntins/mullions, sills, heads, jambs, moldings, operation and groupings of windows. Repair frames and sashes rather than replacing them, whenever conditions permit. Preserve the original glass, when feasible. 3.3 Preserve the historic ratio of window openings to solid wall on a facade. Significantly increasing the amount of glass on a character-defining facade will negatively affect the integrity of a structure. 3.4 Match a replacement window to the original in its design. If the original is double-hung, then the replacement window should also be double- hung, or at a minimum, appear to be so. Match the replacement also in the number and position of glass panes. Matching the original design is particularly important on key character-defining facades. 3.5 In a replacement window, use materials that appear similar to the original. Using the same material as the original is preferred, especially on character- defining facades. However, a substitute material may be considered if the appearance of the window components will match those of the original in dimension, profile and finish. 3.6 Preserve the size and proportion of a historic window opening. Reducing an original opening to accommodate a smaller window or increasing it to receive a larger window is inappropriate. Consider reopening and restoring an original window opening where altered. 3.7 Match, as closely as possible, the profile of the sash and its components to that of the original window. A historic window often has a complex profile. Within the window's casing, the sash steps back to the plane of the glazing (glass) in several increments. These increments, which individually only measure in eighths or quarters of inches, are important details. They distinguish the actual window from the surrounding plane of the wall. 3.8 Use a storm window to enhance energy conservation rather than to replace a historic window. Install a storm window on the interior, when feasible. This will allow the character of the original window to be seen from the public way. If a storm window is to be installed on the exterior, match the sash design and material of the original window. It should fit tightly within the window opening without the need for sub-frames or panning around the perimeter. 4.1 Preserve historically significant doors. Maintain features important to the character of a historic doorway. These may include the door, door frame, screen door, threshold, glass panes, paneling, hardware, detailing, transoms and flanking sidelights. Do not change the position and function of original front doors and primary entrances. P95 IV.A. HPC Review 8.10.2016 134 W. Hopkins Page 10 of 11 If a secondary entrance must be sealed shut, any work that is done must be reversible so that the door can be used at a later time, if necessary. Also, keep the door in place, in its historic position. If the secondary entrance is sealed shut, the original entrance on the primary facade must remain operable. 7.3 Minimize the visual impacts of skylights and other rooftop devices. Flat skylights that are flush with the roof plane may be considered only in an obscure location on a historic structure. Locating a skylight or a solar panel on a front roof plane is not allowed. A skylight or solar panel should not interrupt the plane of a historic roof. It should be positioned below the ridgeline. 7.9 New or replacement roof materials should convey a scale, color and texture similar to those used traditionally. Replacement materials should be similar to those used historically on comparably styled buildings. If a substitute is used, such as composition shingle, the roof material should be earth tone and have a matte, non-reflective finish. Flashing should be in scale with the roof material. If copper flashing is to be used, it should be treated to establish a matte, non- reflective finish. 9.5 A new foundation should appear similar in design and materials to the historic foundation. On modest structures, a simple foundation is appropriate. Constructing a stone foundation on a modest miner's cottage is discouraged because it would be out of character. Where a stone foundation was used historically, and is to be replaced, the replacement should be similar in the cut of the stone and design of the mortar joints. 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the primary building is inappropriate. An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is inappropriate. An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style should be avoided. An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate. 10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining visually compatible with these earlier features. A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material or a differentiation between historic, and more current styles are all techniques that may be considered to help define a change from old to new construction. 10.11 On a new addition, use exterior materials that are compatible with the historic materials of the primary building. The new materials should be either similar or subordinate to the original materials. P96 IV.A. HPC Review 8.10.2016 134 W. Hopkins Page 11 of 11 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. 14.8 Minimize the visual impact of light spill from a building. Prevent glare onto adjacent properties by using shielded and focused light sources that direct light onto the ground. The use of downlights, with the bulb fully enclosed within the shade, or step lights which direct light only on to walkways, is strongly encouraged. Lighting shall be carefully located so as not to shine into residential living space, on or off the property or into public rights-of-way. P97 IV.A. P 9 8 I V . A . P 9 9 I V . A . P100 IV.A. P101 IV.A. P 1 0 2 I V . A . P 1 0 3 I V . A . P 1 0 4 I V . A . P 1 0 5 I V . A . P 1 0 6 I V . A . P 1 0 7 I V . A . P 1 0 8 I V . A . P 1 0 9 I V . A . P 1 1 0 I V . A . P 1 1 1 I V . A . P 1 1 2 I V . A . P 1 1 3 I V . A . 012016.03.07 ASPEN, COLORADO 134 W. HOPKINS AVENUE HPC FINALWEST HOPKINS, LLC. 2016.07.20 REV. DRAWING INDEX: 01- COVER SHEET 02- ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN 03- MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 04- UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN ROOF PLAN 05- BASEMENT LEVEL 01 PLAN BASEMENT LEVEL 02 PLAN 06- SOUTH ELEVATION (WEST HOPKINS AVE.) 07- WEST ELEVATION (1ST ST.) 08- NORTH ELEVATION (ALLEY) 09- EAST ELEVATION 10- 1ST STREET PERSPECTIVE 11- EXTERIOR MATERIALS 12- EXTERIOR LIGHTING PLAN L0-01- LANDSCAPE PLAN 13- NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT MAP 14- NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT PHOTOGRAPHS 15- TERRACE SKYLIGHT DETAIL Corner Perspective from 1st and West Hopkins P 1 1 4 I V . A . 2016.07.20 REV.02ASPEN, COLORADO 134 W. HOPKINS AVENUE HPC FINALWEST HOPKINS, LLC. ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN @ 1/4” SCALE NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE PROPERTY LINE SET BACK LINE 5 ' - 0 " 5'-0" 5' - 0 " 5' - 0 " 10'-0" 5 ' - 0 " PROPOSED PATIO W/ SKYLIGHTS TO BELOW RE: MAIN LEVEL PLAN AND DETAILS PROPOSED HISTORIC RESOURCE LOCATIONPROPOSED 2-CAR GARAGE PROPOSED CONNECTOR PROPOSED ADDITION NEIGHBOR'S LIGHT WELL 1ST STREET H O P K I N S A V E N U E EXISTING HISTORIC RESOURCE LOCATION (SHOWN HATCHED) N O R T H E X I S T I N G 4' - 8 1 / 4 " 3' - 7 5 / 8 " EX I S T I N G 1' - 1 5 / 8 " EXISTING 6'-10" PROPOSED LIGHT WELLS SKYLIGHT TO BELOW LINE OF PROPOSED ADDITION ABOVE 2' - 2 " EXISTING 26'-8 7/8" RE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TREE REMOVAL AND MITIGATION RE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TREE REMOVAL AND MITIGATION RE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TREE REMOVAL AND MITIGATION RE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TREE PROTECTION RE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TREE PROTECTION RE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TREE PROTECTION RE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TREE PROTECTION FRONT ENTRY & PORCH 3'-9". EXISTING 16'-10" 3'-1". 9'-2" 1' - 3 1 / 2 " . 1' - 3 1 / 2 " . SLOPES CONCRETE APRON- RE: LANDSCAPE PLAN CONCRETE WALKWAY RE: LANDSCAPE PLAN STEPPING STONES- RE: LANDSCAPE PLAN GENERAL NOTES: 1) REFER TO LANDSCPAE PLAN FOR PLANTING PLAN 2) REFER TO LIGHTING PLAN FOR EXTERIOR LIGHTING PROPOSED LIGHT WELL 2016.03.07 P 1 1 5 I V . A . 032016.03.07 ASPEN, COLORADO 134 W. HOPKINS AVENUE HPC FINALWEST HOPKINS, LLC. 2016.07.20 REV. MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN @ 1/4” SCALE UP UP SKYLIGHT TO BELOW PROPOSED LIGHT WELLS (LIGHT WELLS SHOWN DASHED AT LOCATIONS APPROVED FOR CONCEPTUAL) NEW HISTORIC RESOURCE LOCATION PROPOSED GARAGE PROPOSED CONNECTOR RE: AT GRADE SKYLIGHT DETAIL SLOPES SLOPES DRAIN GENERAL NOTES: 1) REFER TO LANDSCPAE PLAN FOR PLANTING PLAN 2) REFER TO LIGHTING PLAN FOR EXTERIOR LIGHTING 36"TALL PICKET FENCE: SPACING BETWEEN PICKETS 1/2 OF PICKET WIDTH RE: MATERIALS BOARD PROPOSED LIGHT WELL OPEN TO BELOW 6'-1". P 1 1 6 I V . A . 2016.07.20 REV.04ASPEN, COLORADO 134 W. HOPKINS AVENUE HPC FINALWEST HOPKINS, LLC. ROOF PLAN @ 1/4” SCALE UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN @ 1/4” SCALE PROPOSED ADDITION EDGE OF CONNECTOR ROOF EDGE OF CONNECTOR ROOF FLUSH-MOUNTED SKYLIGHT RE: MATERIALS OPEN TO BELOW OPEN TO BELOW LOFT 17'- 9" (CONNECTOR) PROPOSED DECK 16 5 / 1 6 " / 1 2 " 14 " / 1 2 " 5" / 1 2 " [No Slope] 14" / 12"14" / 12" 5 1/4" / 12" 14" / 12" 15 1 1 / 1 6 " / 1 2 " PROPOSED SKYLIGHT GLASS ROOF PROP. SKY LIGHT PROP. SKY LIGHT PROP. SKY LIGHT PROP. SKY LIGHT 5" / 12" FLUSH-MOUNTED SKYLIGHT (TYP.) RE:MATERIALS (No Slope) (No Slope) (No Slope) (No Slope) SEAMLESS LOW IRON GLASS RAILING 2016.03.07 P 1 1 7 I V . A . 2016.07.20 REV.05ASPEN, COLORADO 134 W. HOPKINS AVENUE HPC FINALWEST HOPKINS, LLC. BASEMENT LEVEL 02 PLAN @ 1/4” SCALE BASEMENT LEVEL 01 PLAN @ 1/4” SCALE BASEMENT LEVEL 01 PROPOSED LIGHT WELL UP DN PROPOSED LIGHT WELLS (LIGHT WELLS SHOWN DASHED AT LOCATIONS APPROVED FOR CONCEPTUAL) BASEMENT LEVEL 02 PROPOSED LIGHT WELL UP LIGHT WELL PROPOSED LIGHT WELLS (LIGHT WELLS SHOWN DASHED AT LOCATIONS APPROVED FOR CONCEPTUAL) 2016.03.07 P 1 1 8 I V . A . 062016.03.07 ASPEN, COLORADO 134 W. HOPKINS AVENUE HPC FINALWEST HOPKINS, LLC. 2016.07.20 REV. SOUTH ELEVATION (W.HOPKINS AVE.) @ 1/4” SCALE MAIN LEVEL 100'-0" UPPER LEVEL 110'-0" BASEMENT 01 88'-0" BASEMENT 02 76'-0" GARAGE LEVEL 98'-0" 2'-0" PROPOSED SHORING; TYPICAL ALL SIDES 36"TALL PICKET FENCE: SPACING BETWEEN PICKETS 1/2 OF PICKET WIDTH RE: MATERIALS BOARD (FOREGROUND HIDDEN FOR DRAWING CLARITY) 4" CLAPBOARD SIDING (EXISTING) CEDAR SHINGLE ROOFING (NEW) SANDSTONE FOUNDATION (EXISTING) 23 ' - 6 " 1' - 6 " 8" SHAKES (EXISTING) 1' - 9 " . P 1 1 9 I V . A . 072016.03.07 ASPEN, COLORADO 134 W. HOPKINS AVENUE HPC FINALWEST HOPKINS, LLC. 2016.07.20 REV. WEST ELEVATION (1ST STREET) @ 1/4” SCALE MAIN LEVEL 100'-0" UPPER LEVEL 110'-0" BASEMENT 01 88'-0" BASEMENT 02 76'-0" GARAGE LEVEL 98'-0" PROPOSED SHORING; TYPICAL ALL SIDES 2'-0" 36"TALL PICKET FENCE: SPACING BETWEEN PICKETS 1/2 OF PICKET WIDTH RE: MATERIALS BOARD SANDSTONE FOUNDATION (EXISTING) 4" CLAPBOARD SIDING (EXISTING) WOOD SHINGLE ROOFING (NEW) HORIZONTAL WOOD RAINSCREEN SIDING- 8" COURSING (MATCHES EXISTING) ALUMINUM CLAD WOOD WINDOWS 8" SHAKES (EXISTING) 23 ' - 6 " 1 ' - 6 " HORIZONTAL WOOD RAINSCREEN SIDING- 4" COURSING (MATCHES EXISTING) 21 ' - 9 " . P 1 2 0 I V . A . 2016.07.20 REV.08ASPEN, COLORADO 134 W. HOPKINS AVENUE HPC FINALWEST HOPKINS, LLC. NORTH ELEVATION (ALLEY) @ 1/4” SCALE MAIN LEVEL 100'-0" UPPER LEVEL 110'-0" BASEMENT 01 88'-0" BASEMENT 02 76'-0" GARAGE LEVEL 98'-0" 2'-0"PROPOSED SHORING; TYPICAL ALL SIDES HORIZONTAL WOOD RAIN-SCREEN SIDING- 8" COURSING (MATCHES EXISTING0 GARAGE DOOR ALUMINUM CLAD WOOD WINDOWS GLASS FACADE PANEL HORIZONTAL WOOD RAIN-SCREEN SIDING- 4" COURSING (MATCHES EXISTING) 23 ' - 6 " 1' - 6 " 2016.03.07 P 1 2 1 I V . A . 2016.07.20 REV.09ASPEN, COLORADO 134 W. HOPKINS AVENUE HPC FINALWEST HOPKINS, LLC. EAST ELEVATION @ 1/4” SCALE MAIN LEVEL 100'-0" UPPER LEVEL 110'-0" BASEMENT 01 88'-0" BASEMENT 02 76'-0" GARAGE LEVEL 98'-0" 2'-0" PROPOSED SHORING; TYPICAL ALL SIDES GLASS FACADE PANEL HORIZONTAL WOOD RAIN-SCREEN SIDING- 8" COURSING (MATCH EXISTING) 36"TALL PICKET FENCE: SPACING BETWEEN PICKETS 1/2 OF PICKET WIDTH RE: MATERIALS BOARD CEDAR SHINGLE ROOFING (NEW) 4" CLAPBOARD SIDING (EXISTING) HORIZONTAL WOOD RAIN-SCREEN SIDING- 4" COURSING (MATCHES EXISTING) 23 ' - 6 " 1' - 6 " 21 - 9 " . 2016.03.07 P 1 2 2 I V . A . 2016.07.20 REV.10ASPEN, COLORADO 134 W. HOPKINS AVENUE HPC FINALWEST HOPKINS, LLC. 1ST STREET PERSPECTIVE- NTS 2016.03.07 P 1 2 3 I V . A . 112016.03.07 ASPEN, COLORADO 134 W. HOPKINS AVENUE HPC FINALWEST HOPKINS, LLC. 2016.07.20 REV. City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines • 45 Site LightingTraditionally, outdoor lighting on 19th century sites was minimal or non-existent. While electricity was available in Aspen in the late 1880s, based on available historic photographs, exterior lights, including porch lights, were not commonly found. To maintain historic character, all outdoor lighting must be minimized. Landscape lighting on AspenModern properties varies based on architectural style and time period of development. For additional information, see the City’s Lighting Standards. 1.14 Minimize the visual impacts of landscape lighting. • Landscape and pathway lighting is not permitted in Zone A (refer to diagram) on Aspen Victorian properties unless an exception is approved by HPC based on safety considerations. • Landscape, driveway, and pathway lighting on AspenModern properties is addressed on a case- by-case basis. • Landscape light fixtures should be carefully selected so that they are compatible with the building, yet recognizable as a product of their own time. • Driveway lighting is not permitted on Aspen Victorian properties. • Landscape uplighting is not allowed. Fences Originally, wood picket fences were commonly used to define front yards on Aspen Victorian properties. These fences provided a subtle delineation of private yard versus public right-of-way and were low in height, transparent in design, and did not create walled off private areas. The fence’s vertical slats were set apart with spaces between, and the overall height of the fence was approximately three feet. Many properties traditionally had open lawns with no fencing. Some Post-WWII properties may have original fences that provide less transparency than those used in the 19th century, or have other unique characteristics. Fencing on these properties will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. 1.15 Preserve original fences. • Fences which are considered part of the historic significance of a site should not be moved, Landscape lighting that suits this AspenModern home. A picket fence is an appropriate choice for a Victorian era home. cHapter 1: sIte plannIng & landscape desIgn EXTERIOR MATERIALS- NTS MATERIAL LEGEND: 01- SANDSTONE FOUNDATION (EXISTING) PER CONDITION OF APPROVAL 2.D IN HPC RESOLUTION #10, SERIES OF 2015 02- PICKET FENCE (PROPOSED TO MATCH PHOTO) PER CONDITION OF APPROVAL 2.A IN HPC RESOLUTION #10, SERIES OF 2015. 03- 4” CLAPBOARD SIDING (EXISTING) 04- HORIZONTAL RAIN-SCREEN SIDING (4” & 8” COURSING MATCHES EXISTING) 05- FLUSH MOUNTED SKYLIGHT 06- CEDAR SHINGLE ROOFING 07- GLASS FACADE PANEL (NON-REFLECTIVE / MATTE) 08- ALUMINUM CLAD WOOD WINDOWS 09- GARAGE DOOR 6 7 8 9 5 4 3 1 2 GENERAL NOTES: 1) RE: ELEVATIONS FOR MATERIAL LOCATIONS 2) PHYSICAL SAMPLES AND MOCK-UPS TO BE PROVIDED FOR REVIEW AT HPC MEETING P 1 2 4 I V . A . 122016.03.07 ASPEN, COLORADO 134 W. HOPKINS AVENUE HPC FINALWEST HOPKINS, LLC. 2016.07.20 REV. NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE PROPERTY LINE SET BACK LINE 1ST STREET H O P K I N S A V E N U E NORTH FRONT ENTRY & PORCH B) LANDSCAPE BOLLARD C) WALL SCONCE A) SURFACE MOUNTED FIXTURE LIGHTING KEY D) RECESSED CAN E) INSET WALL LIGHT A B B EEE C C C D PATHWAY LIGHTING (FOR SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS) D 7857 7859 7875 33⁄4” Ø 17⁄8” Ø LUMINAIRE INFORMATION HOUSING INFORMATION 1126 River Road New Windsor, NY 12553USAI®www.usailighting.com info@usailighting.com © 2010. USAI, LLC. All rights reserved. All designs protected by copyright. T 845–565–8500 F 845–561–1130 Adjustable Sliver Low Voltage Halogen 1” Regress Distribution chart PHOTOMETRICS: LTL No.: 13826.ies 50W MR16 GU5.3 40º (tilted 25º)Clear lens 58.8% Effi ciency VOLTAGE: Specify 120V or 277V. CEILING CUT OUT: 33/8" Ø LISTINGS: Dry/damp location. IC/Airtight housing meets Washington state airfl ow requirement and ASTM E283. IBEW union made. NOTES: • Maximum ceiling thickness 1 inch. Consult factory for other ceiling conditions. • Maximum 2 lens options (size A). • Use 325CCR trimless adapter for a smooth fl ush Sliver installation. • 120V not compatible with AFCI circuit. APPLICATION: Accent luminaire for Residential, Commercial, Retail or Hospitality environments. MATERIALS: Trim: Die cast aluminum / steel. Torsion spring mounting. Lens: Clear. 7857 - Chrome cone 7859 - White cone 7875 - Vertical groove black baffl e LAMP: (not included) When using IR lamps, 37W Max. (1) 50W max. MR16 GU5.3 TRANSFORMER: Low voltage solid state electronic. Note: Due to transformer / dimmer match some dimmers may cause transformer hum. Check with dimmer manufacturer for suitability. ADJUSTMENT: 360° horizontal and 25° vertical tilt. 40° tilt available, consult factory. For trimless application add 325CCR 25° 260 520 780 1040 0 1300 New Construction 325NC 105/8" 121/2" 41/8" IC/Airtight 325IC 121/2" 171/2" 8" Remote Transformer 325RM Retrofi t 325RT-35 (35W max.) 23/4" 11" 41/4” 105/8" 121/2" 41/8" Retrofi t 325RT-50 31/4" 133/16” 41/4” HOW TO SPECIFY 7857 - Chrome Cone 7859 - White Cone 7875 - Vertical Groove Black Baffl e Sliver Adjustable, 50W Max. MR16 GU5.3 8177A - Hex Cell Louver 9143A - Frosted Lens 9153A - Anti UV Filter 9155A - Linear Spread Lens 9156A - Prismatic Spread Lens 9157A - Solite Lens 9199A - Frosted Borosilicate Lens ER - Emergency Relay 325CCR - Trimless Adapter 10 - White 12 - Brushed Stainless Steel 21 - Black 22 - Textured White 28 - Metalized Grey 325NC - New Construction 325IC - IC/Airtight 325RM - Remote Transformer 325RT-35 - Retrofi t (35W max.) 325RT-50 - Retrofi t 120V 277V Trim Finish AccessoriesHousingVoltage – – – – – – – – 120V not compatible with AFCI circuit. Products Applications Information Search Tools Partners Search by product # Back to Ceiling Luminaires © Copyright BEGA-US 2016 All rights reserved Surface ceiling - narrow beam Lamp ß Temp°C A B C 6402LED.538 EXPRESS 6.5W LED 30°3 3/4 5 1/8 6503LED EXPRESS 31W LED 28°7 1/2 8 5615MH (1) 20W T4 GU6.5 MH 10°5 5 7/8 5617MH (1) 39W T4 GU6.5 MH 12°6 7 1/8 5619MH (1) 70W T4 G8.5 MH 12°7 1/2 8 5621MH (1) 150W T6 G12 MH 26°8 5/8 8 7/8 Surface ceiling - wide beam Lamp ß Temp°C A B C 6450LED EXPRESS 10.5W LED 42°5 5 7/8 6509LED EXPRESS 19.6W LED 39°6 7 1/8 5611P (1) 13W CF triple-4p 87°5 7 7/8 6053P (1) 26W CF triple-4p 57°7 1/2 10 6014P (1) 32W CF triple-4p 43°8 5/8 11 5616MH (1) 20W T4 GU6.5 MH 70°5 5 7/8 5618MH (1) 39W T4 GU6.5 MH 76°6 7 1/8 5620MH (1) 70W T4 G8.5 MH 71°7 1/2 8 5622MH (1) 150W T6 G12 MH 59°8 5/8 8 7/8 Surface ceiling - cylindrical downlight Designed for down lighting atriums, canopies, passages, and other interior and exterior locations featuring symmetrical distribution - narrow beam or wide beam. Surface mounted ceiling luminaires with die-cast aluminum housing. Clear tempered glass and anodized aluminum reflector. See individual product page for LED driver and color temperature information. Fluorescent units include integral electronic ballasts. U.L. listed, suitable for wet locations. Protection class: IP65 Finish: Standard BEGA colors. Click product # for details Click product # for details Page 1 of 1Bega 3/3/2016http://www.bega-us.com/groupdetail.aspx?groupid=102&familyid=19 Products Applications Information Search Tools Partners Search by product # Back to Recessed Luminaires © Copyright BEGA-US 2016 All rights reserved Lamp ß Temp°C A B C 2272LED EXPRESS 6.5W LED 5 7/8 5 7/8 4 1/8 2372LED EXPRESS 10.9W LED 7 1/2 7 1/2 4 2277P (1) 26/32/42W CF triple-4p 9 7/8 9 7/8 5 3/8 2278MH (1) 39W T6 G12 MH 9 7/8 9 7/8 5 3/8 2279MH (1) 70W T6 G12 MH 11 7/8 11 7/8 6 5/8 Recessed wall with shielded light source Designed for low mounting heights for interior and exterior locations featuring high output asymmetrical light distribution. Recessed luminaires with fully shielded light source. Die-cast aluminum step baffle faceplate. See individual product page for electrical information. U.L. listed, suitable for wet locations. Protection class: IP65 Finish: Standard BEGA colors. Click product # for details Page 1 of 1Bega 3/3/2016http://www.bega-us.com/groupdetail.aspx?groupid=29a&familyid=13 NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE PROPERTY LINE SET BACK LINE 1ST STREET H O P K I N S A V E N U E NORTH FRONT ENTRY & PORCH B) LANDSCAPE BOLLARD C) WALL SCONCE A) SURFACE MOUNTED FIXTURE LIGHTING KEY D) RECESSED CAN E) INSET WALL LIGHT A B B EEE C CC D PATHWAY LIGHTING(FOR SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS) D A SURFACE MOUNTED FIXTURE B LANDSCAPE BOLLARD C WALL SCONCE D RECESSED CAN E INSET WALL LIGHT EXTERIOR LIGHTING PLAN @ 3/16” SCALE P 1 2 5 I V . A . C DESIGN DATE#DESCRIPTION ISSUE DATE: SHEET NUMBER REVIEWED: PROJECT NUMBER: DRAWN: 1 WORKSHOP REVISIONS XXXX 2 3 4 5 6 7 A B C D E W E S T H O P K I N S L L C 1 3 4 W H o p k i n s A v e . A S P E N , C O C O P Y R I G H T D E S I G N W O R K S H O P, I N C. HPCFINAL F 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 W W W . D E S I G N W O R K S H O P . C O M Landscape Architecture Land Planning Urban Design Tourism Planning M a r 0 3 , 2 0 1 6 - 4 : 0 2 p m F: \ P R O J E C T S _ A - L \ 0 0 0 0 - 1 3 4 W H o p k i n s \ D - C A D \ 0 2 . S h e e t s \ d w - M 9 2 2 4 - H P C P l a n . d w g Asheville Aspen Austin Denver Salt Lake City Lake Tahoe 120 East Main StreetAspen, Colorado 81611-1787 Facsimile (970) 920-1387 (970)-925-8354 L0-01 March 7, 2016 MP MA LANDSCAPEPLAN NORTH 0 ORIGINAL SCALE: 2'4'16' 1"=4'-00" 30’ viewshed triangle Turf grass sod planted in ROW Existing mature cottonwood on neibhoring parcel--to be protected during site construction Ninebark shrubs Ninebark shrubsPerennial groundcover Perennial groundcover Concrete driveway Cotoneaster shrubs not to exceed 42” Cotoneaster shrubs not to exceed 42” Skylight 3’ wide stepping stones 3 steps up to patio to match building FFE Skylight Lightwell Lightwell Lightwell Site wall not to exceed 42” 3’ pathway aligned with front door cast in place light grey concrete with seeded exposed aggregate W H o p k i n s A v e Property Line Proposed cottonwood tree Proposed cottonwood treeProposed cottonwood tree S 1st Street Existing spruce trees Existing spruce tree P 1 2 6 I V . A . 132016.03.07 ASPEN, COLORADO 134 W. HOPKINS AVENUE HPC FINALWEST HOPKINS, LLC. 2016.07.20 REV. P 1 2 7 I V . A . 142016.03.07 ASPEN, COLORADO 134 W. HOPKINS AVENUE HPC FINALWEST HOPKINS, LLC. 2016.07.20 REV. P 1 2 8 I V . A . 152016.03.07 ASPEN, COLORADO 134 W. HOPKINS AVENUE HPC FINALWEST HOPKINS, LLC. 2016.07.20 REV. INTINTINTINT EXTEXTEXTEXT GLASS FLOOR (SLOPED 1/4" PER FT.) LINEAR DRAIN SLOPED PAVERS T.O. WALL . GAP FOR PLANTING, RE: LANDSCAPE 42 " M A X . 18 " . 12" BOARD FORMED CONCRETE WALL 2 4 PR O P E R T Y LI N E 22 8 M i d l a n d A v e n u e P. O . B o x 5 2 9 Ba s a l t , C o l o r a d o 8 1 6 2 1 97 0 - 7 2 9 - 0 6 2 8 fa x 9 7 0 - 9 2 7 - 8 5 7 8 in f o @ c c y a r c h i t e c t s . c o m TI T L E : DA T E : SC A L E : PR O J E C T N O . : DR A W N B Y : A R C H I T E C T S C C C C C C C C Y Y Y Y CO T T L E C A R R Y A W A R C H I T E C T S , L T D . 1 1 / 2 " = 1 ' - 0 " W E S T H O P K I N S L L C . GA L S S F L O O R D E T A I L 03 / 0 2 / 1 6 14 0 3 1 CT / N M 0 0 1 PR O J E C T P H A S E 1 1/2" = 1'-0" GLASS FLOOR DETAILGLASS FLOOR DETAILGLASS FLOOR DETAILGLASS FLOOR DETAIL 1111 TERRACE SKYLIGHT DETAIL @3”=1’-0” SCALE GENERAL NOTE: 1) DETAIL PROVIDED PER CONDITION OF APPROVAL 2.B IN HPC RESOLUTION #10, SERIES OF 2015. P 1 2 9 I V . A . Project Description: 134 W. Hopkins Ave. HPC Application for Certificate of Appropriateness Major HPC Development Reissued 3/7/16 by CCY Architects; Revised 7/20/16 Overview This proposal is for the rehabilitation of and addition to a historic home on 134 W. Hopkins Ave. The general concept is to shift the historic home to the southwest and towards the corner on a new foundation and create an addition to the north and back of the historic home. In the process, we will remove the non-historic additions from the 1980’s and add a garage (with living space above) to the north towards the alley separated from the historic home by a connecting element. This new addition will be separated from the historic home by an outdoor street-facing terrace allowing the historic home to be the predominate element on the corner; the primary entrance to the home will remain via the historic front porch. The rear of the addition will respect the 5’-0” garage-only set-back from the alley and habitable space above the garage will conform to the 10’-0” alley set-back. A modification to the existing non-conforming side yard set-backs will be required. The proposal is in keeping with the City of Aspen’s Historic Preservation Guidelines as well as Section 26.410- Residential Design Standards. The proposed residence is 1919.6 sf FAR, including the FAR bonus of 116.4 sf for an exemplary project. The design takes significant steps to preserve and rehabilitate the historic resource, taking care to only connect to the historic home where it had been previously disturbed by earlier non- historic additions. The overall roof configuration of the historic resource will be reconstructed to its Pre-1980’s form as outlined in the November 2014 Historical Analysis prepared by Reid Architects, Inc. Building materials for the addition are envisioned as primarily board-formed concrete and wood siding with aluminum clad wood windows. The addition will have a flat roof in keeping with other new construction in the vicinity so as not to overwhelm the steeply sloped historic roof relative to mass and scale. The applicant is committed to creating an exemplary project and intends to undertake extensive steps to rehabilitate the historic resource to the greatest extent possible. Since receiving conceptual approval for the project, the applicant has worked with HPC Staff to create stronger compatibility between the new addition and the historic resource. The specific refinements to the design include: 1) Exterior Materials: In evaluating the neighborhood streetscape, it was observed that the board-formed concrete anchoring the base of the new addition lacked precedent. Wood siding, scaled to match the siding courses on the historic resource, create a better fit. 2) Window Fenestration: The West Elevation (1st Street) has been updated on the new addition to reflect the historic resource at the street level including a projected bay- window element. Additionally, upper level picture windows on the new addition have been updated with mullions vertically dividing the window into proportions compatible with the historic resource. 3) Connector Deck: This feature approved at conceptual has been removed from the project to reduce perceived mass at the connector. The area associated with this element has been reallocated to the roof deck atop the new addition. The roof deck atop the new addition is set-back 24” from the exterior wall. P130 IV.A. Project Description: 134 W. Hopkins Ave. Page Two Compatibility Rather than imitating the historic home, the new addition will relate to the fundamental characteristics of the historic resource while conveying the stylistic trends of today. The proposed addition features the following points of compatibility with the historic resource: 1) Form: Combination of simple rectangular volumes. 2) Materials: Similar in scale and finish to the historic resource 3) Proportion: Windows and doors similar in size and shape to those of the historic home. Relocation Based on the findings from the November 2014 Historical Analysis prepared by Reid Architects, Inc., the structure has been determined structurally sound for temporary off-site relocation. Off- site relocation reduces the possibility for damage to the historic resource during construction as normal construction sequencing (excavation, utilities, foundations, and framing) proceeds efficiently without having to move the historic resource multiple times from one side of the site to the other for construction coordination. The owner is in the process of securing a temporary receiver site for the historic resource two-blocks away on the now vacant Boomerang Lot Split: Lot 1 which may end up having a 501 W. Hopkins address if/when developed in the future. Tree Mitigation CCY Architects met with Ben Carlson, City of Aspen- Parks & Open Space, on-site November 20, 2014. Mr. Carlson made the following observations: 1) The (2) Coniferous trees and (1) group of multi-stem Aspens located on property to the western side of the historic resource are eligible for removal at full mitigation value in order to make way for the proposed development. 2) Construction management plans shall include provisions for tree protection of the (4) Conifers in the northwest corner and (1) large Cottonwood in the southeast corner of the Right of Ways. Design Workshop met with Ben Carlson, City of Aspen-Parks & Open Space on-site February 29, 2016. The following observations or clarifications from CCY’s 11/20/14 meeting were made: 1. The two (2) shrubs closest to the large Cottonwood tree are not eligible for transplant as the process would damage the roots of the protected Cottonwood. If removed, roots to be ground for sensitivity reasons. 2. A 30’ sight triangle along the corner of the R.O.W. must be left clear of shrubs and trees, according to City regulations. 3. Sod and neighborhood appropriate shade trees (such as Cottonwood) are recommended within the R.O.W. Spacing recommendations for large trees are: 8’ from the curb, and 20’ O.C. 4. The existing Russian Olive shrub planted on the SW corner of the R.O.W. is an invasive species and will not incur mitigation costs. 5. The Pine tree closest to the west façade of the existing house will not incur mitigation costs as it has deformations. 6. The single trunk and multi-trunk Aspen trees in both the NE and SW corner of the existing house are likely to incur mitigation costs, and will be calculated with each trunk as an individual tree. 7. Bushes, such as the Serviceberries, with a DBH below 4” can be removed without mitigations costs. 8. Shrubs may be added within the property line as long as they are below 42” in height. P131 IV.A. 134 W. Hopkins Ave. RDS Compliance Reissued 3/7/16 by CCY Architects 26.410.040.A- Site Design 1. Both street-facing facades are parallel to street. 2. 100% of the front façade is within 5 feet of the minimum front yard setback. 3. Fences are not more than 42 inches high measured from natural grade. 26.410.040.B- Building Form 1. Exempt from Secondary mass 26.410.040.C- Parking, garages and carports 1a. Garage accessed from an alley 1b. Double-stall doors designed to appear like single-stall doors 26.410.040.D- Building Elements 1. Entry is from the street with a street facing principal window from the street with the greater block length (Hopkins) 1a. Historic 8-foot tall Entry door is about 6-feet back from the front most wall of the building. 1b. Historic 1-story entry porch is 6 x 11 (66 square feet) and part of the front façade. 1c. Historic street facing principal window faces the street. 2. The first story element is a historic entry porch comprising 46% of the building’s overall width and is 6 feet from the wall the element is projecting from. 3a. Street facing windows do not span through an area where a second floor would typically exist- between 9 and 12 feet above the finished first floor. 3b. There are no non-orthogonal windows on any of the building facades. 4. Lightwells are in the side-yard facing the neighbor; not the street and entirely recessed behind the front-most wall of the building. Light well locations adjusted following conceptual approval; re: Floor Plans. 26.410.040.E- Context 1a. Application of exterior materials and details are consistent on all sides of the building. 1b. Materials are true to their characteristics. 2. Inflection does not apply as the parcel is less than 6,000 square feet. P132 IV.A. 134 W. Hopkins Ave. HPC Compliance Checklist Reissued 3/7/16 by CCY Architects; Revised 7/20/16 1.4 Design a new driveway or improve an existing driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual interest. Re: Landscape Plan- Light grey concrete with minimal seams proposed as appropriate for driveways on Aspen Victorian properties. 1.6 Provide a simple walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry on residential projects. Re: Landscape Plan- 36” wide light grey concrete walkway runs perpendicular from street to the front entry. 1.14 Minimize the visual impacts of landscape lighting. Re: Lighting Plan- Exception requested for pathway lighting based on safety considerations. 1.18 When building an entirely new fence, use materials that are appropriate to the building type and style. Re: Elevations and Materials Board- Picket fence proposed with spacing between the pickets ½ the width of the picket. 7.1 Preserve the original form of a roof. Applicant proposes to restore the roof to its original form as described by the Historical Analysis report prepared by Reid Architects. 7.2 Preserve the original eave depth. Overhangs will be preserved. 9.1 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis. Applicant proposes to relocate the building on-site to rehabilitate the existing foundation, provide light wells for sub-grade space pursuant to the Residential Design Standards, and restore the house to its pre-1980s form (re: Historical Analysis by Reid Architects). Before the building is moved, the applicant will submit a construction management plan for approval detailing the methodology to secure the structure while providing a new foundation, utilities and historic restoration. The proposed design of a new addition shall be in accordance with the guidelines for new construction. The applicant requests moving the building, on a temporary basis only, to a different site for construction coordination as outlined in the Project Description “Relocation” paragraph in the submitted application materials. 9.3 If relocation is deemed appropriate by the HPC, a structure must remain within the boundaries of its historic parcel. The site plan and floor plans submitted with the application propose the historic structure remains entirely within the boundaries of the historic parcel. 9.4 Site the structure in a position similar to its historic orientation. Applicant proposes to site the structure in a position similar to its historic orientation. Applicant proposes to shift the structure slightly closer to the corner of the historic parcel to highlight the restored and rehabilitated structure on its prominent corner location. Further, neighboring buildings currently step towards the corner from the east to west as the general cadence or P133 IV.A. pattern of the neighborhood streetscape (re: 134 W. Hopkins Ave. Aerial Map and 134 West Hopkins Avenue- Neighborhood Context, Images 1-3). 9.6 When rebuilding a foundation, locate the structure at its approximate historic elevation above grade. Applicant proposes to maintain the historic elevation above grade. 9.7 A light well may be used to permit light into below grade living space. Refer to Item 9.1 above. The size of the light well shall be the minimum allowed by code for egress and will not be used as a walk out space. 10.1 Preserve an older addition that has achieved historic significance in its own right. Refer to Historical Analysis by Reid Architects; the historic addition shall be preserved. 10.2 A more recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed. Refer to Historical Analysis by Reid Architects; the non-historically significant addition (circa 1980s) has been proposed for removal. 10.3 Design a new addition such that one’s ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. Refer to Project Narrative, “Compatibility.” New addition interprets the historic character of the primary building relative to materials and proportion. The new addition does not imply an earlier building period of the primary building or seek to imply an inaccurate version thereof. Likewise, the new addition is removed from the primary building with a connector so as not to cover any historically significant features. 10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. See response to Item 10.3 above. 10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building. The addition is similar to the height of the primary building; the new addition is 21” taller than the primary building and separated by 12’-7 ½”. 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. The addition is separated from the historic building by a 12’-7 ½” long connector or link. Viewed from 1st Street, the 1-story connector is 18’-0” long. 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. The addition is located to the rear of the historic building and set back from the primary facades in order to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. The connector is setback 10’-0” from the NW corner of the historic building facing 1st Street. 10.9 Roof forms should be similar to those of the historic building. The historic building utilizes a “Mansard” or flat roof to tie the gabled and hip roof elements together. The proposed flat roof of the addition is consistent with this historic flat roof typology as well as other flat roofed structures in the project vicinity. Further, the proposed flat roof allows the new addition to remain similar in height to the historic building. A sloping roof on the P134 IV.A. new addition would tend to be less compatible with the historic building relative to perceived scale and ridge height. 10.10 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features. No historically important architectural features will be destroyed or obscured by the new addition. The historic structure will be restored and rehabilitated to its pre-1980s form. P135 IV.A. 134 West Hopkins Avenue Response to all conditions of approval included in HPC Resolution #10, Series of 2015. Prepared 3/7/2016 by CCY Architects; Revised 7/20/16 1) Agreed a. Glass railing on the on the connector deck to be low iron glass with no seams as noted on the drawings and materials board- This condition is no longer applicable as the connector deck has been removed; re: Project Description. 2) Items to address during final review: a. First Street fence details- Refer to drawings and materials board b. Details of at grade skylight provided in drawings c. The Hopkins Street entrance is the primary entrance d. Details of foundation material and existing relationship to grade documented in “134 West Hopkins Historical Analysis- November 2014” by Reid Architects, Inc. submitted with this application. Also refer to drawings and materials board. 3) Agreed 4) Agreed a. Agreed b. Agreed c. Refer to letter from KLA&A Structural Engineers dated 3/4/16. d. Agreed 5) Agreed 6) Agreed a. Agreed b. Agreed c. Agreed d. Agreed 7) Agreed P136 IV.A. 150 South Main Street Buffalo, WY 82834 421 East Fourth Street Loveland, CO 80537 1717 Washington Avenue, Suite 100 Golden, CO 80401 1875 Lawrence St. Suite 700 Denver, CO 80202 G:\134 West Hopkins\Doc\160304 Relocation Memo.docx Job Name: 134 West Hopkins Memorandum To: Company: E-mail: Chris Touchette CCY Architects ctouchette@ccyarchitects.com From: Brett McElvain, P.E. Date: March 4, 2016 Pages Including Cover: 1 re: Existing Building Relocation Cc: Comments: Chris, On March 2, 2016 we conducted a visual observation of the Victorian residence located at 134 West Hopkins after reviewing the November 14 “Historical Analysis Report” by Reid Architects. The purpose of the observation was to determine if there were any obvious reasons that would prohibit the building from being relocated. From our observation, we did not find any conditions that would lead us to believe the building could not be moved by a competent contractor with experience in moving structures of this type. When the non-historic additions are removed from the historic resource, we recommend conducting a follow-up observation with the moving contractor to discuss structural challenges (if any) uncovered by demolition. If you have any questions or need clarifications, please call. Brett McElvain, P.E. Engineering Principal P137 IV.A. 134 West Hopkins • Historical Analysis prepared by Reid Architects, inc • november 2014 P138 IV.A. P139 IV.A. page 1 of 2711/2014 134 West Hopkins Avenue Chronology 1890 A different house exists on this site, based on the Sanborn map footprint and location. c.1880 1880s photo in guidelines book attributed to this house is, in fact, not this house. 1893 The footprint of this house appears on the Sanborn map. Based on materials investigation: The floor, wall and roof framing in the structure consistent with the historic footprint are consistent with construction materials and methods from 1880 to 1900. In addition, the main level double hung windows, bays and some trim and siding materials are also consistent with the period. c.1900 to 1988 This house was owned by Ann Anderson (related to the Popish family) during this period. 1988 Ann Anderson’s son sold the house to Julie Wycoff. 1989 The house is remodeled by Julie Wycoff under HPC review. • The lot underwent a lot split and the house adjacent at 134 1/2 was located on lot B, with a large addition at the rear. The site plan created a very narrow setback between the buildings and placed the 134 1/2 addition on the sideyard lot line. • At 134 a small shed addition was removed from the building. A new 375 sq ft kitchen and 200 sq ft bedroom were added to the north side of the building, along with a basement under the addition. • During the remodel the north roof plane was completely altered and the existing dormers were reconstructed from shed roofs to gable roofs, new windows were installed in the dormers. A fourth dormer was added on the northeast roof plane. The north wall of the sandstone foundation was replaced by a CMU foundation wall. • A restoration of the exterior was also undertaken. Based on a conversation with Ms. Wycoff, the existing siding was preserved and cleaned up and painted. Materials analysis of the siding and other details suggest that the siding is not actually historic. For instance, the fact that the siding is continuous with the new addition suggests that new materials were added, in addition the siding is face nailed, which is unusual and the materials analysis identified the species as redwood, which is not a native material and unlikely to have been used in the late 1800s. The siding and trim has several decorative details that are distinctive and may have been replicated on both the historic house and the 1989 addition. - see the following for a detailed analysis. • The double front door was restored as part of the 1989 rehabilitation and a historic but non-original door was installed in one of the openings. 1994 Sold to Ann & John Canas 1997 Sold to William & Payton Bundinger 2002 Sold to James Marciano 2004 Sold to West Hopkins LLC aka Michele Snyder P140 IV.A. 134 West Hopkins Avenue page 2 of 27 11/2014 Sanborn Maps 1890 Sanborn Map A long rectangular building is located on two city lots in 1890 1893 Sanborn Map A square-ish building is now located on one city lot in 1893 This footprint is similar to the historic footprint of the house P141 IV.A. page 3 of 2711/2014 134 West Hopkins Avenue Sanborn Maps 1898 Sanborn Map 1898 Sanborn Map The same building appears on one city lot in 1898 This footprint is similar to the historic footprint of the house Detail of footprint in 1898 P142 IV.A. 134 West Hopkins Avenue page 4 of 27 11/2014 Plan Diagrams 1989 Addition • CMU walls • Concrete slab floor • Full head height c. 1893 Footprint • Stacked red sandstone foundation • Dirt floor • Crawlspace height • Area of excavated basement • Area of crawlspace property line west hopkins avenue so u t h f i r s t s t r e e t there is no evidence that the sandstone foundation wall has been altered or added to and its construction is consistent with the c. 1893 date. the sandstone foundation wall is full height in this area. kBasement Plan P143 IV.A. page 5 of 2711/2014 134 West Hopkins Avenue Plan Diagrams so u t h f i r s t s t r e e t west hopkins avenue 1989 Addition c. 1893 Footprint • Original framing, windows, and interior partitions • Siding is the same throughout property line kMain Level Plan P144 IV.A. 134 West Hopkins Avenue page 6 of 27 11/2014 Plan Diagrams 1989 Addition c. 1893 Footprint • Shed dormers with small rectangular windows appear to be in generally the same locations as the current gable dormers • Interior is new throughout • All dormers have modern framing • No historic wall remain on north side of the 1893 house property line kwest hopkins avenue so u t h f i r s t s t r e e t Upper Level Plan P145 IV.A. page 7 of 2711/2014 134 West Hopkins Avenue Plan Diagrams 1989 Addition area of flat roof extended to the north c. 1893 Footprint property line k dormers changed from shed roof to gable during 1989 construction west hopkins avenue so u t h f i r s t s t r e e t Existing Roof Plan P146 IV.A. 134 West Hopkins Avenue page 8 of 27 11/2014 Plan Diagrams 1989 Addition original hipped roof at rear of house original area of flat roof c. 1893 Footprint property line k shed roof dormers, similar locations to current gable roof, but may not be exactly the same footprint west hopkins avenue so u t h f i r s t s t r e e t Historic Roof Plan P147 IV.A. page 9 of 2711/2014 134 West Hopkins Avenue Historic Photos 1984 - Assessor’s Office Photo 1934 - Detail from composite panorama of Aspen In this 1984 assessor’s photo the historic house seems to remain in similar condition to the 1934 photo. The shed roof dormers, and turned porch posts can be seen. A shed addition extends off the rear, which was removed as part of the 1989 addition. In this 1934 photo the south and west sides of the house can be seen at the bottom of the photo. The configuration has a front gable, a side gable wing and a hipped roof rear volume. An area of flat roof is located in the center of the footprint. This photo appears on pg 24 of the Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines and is erroneously labeled as 134 W. Hopkins. It is actually the Berg House at 635 E. Hopkins. P148 IV.A. 134 West Hopkins Avenue page 10 of 27 11/2014 Existing Elevations EXISTINGSOUTH ELEVATION EXISTINGEAST ELEVATION south elevation west elevation new construction new construction historic historic east elevation north elevation P149 IV.A. page 11 of 2711/2014 134 West Hopkins Avenue looking northeast looking northwest looking southwest looking southeast form was derived from: • the location of the existing stone foundation • the 1934 historic photo • indications in the existing roof structure P150 IV.A. page 12 of 27 11/2014134 West Hopkins Avenue P151 IV.A. page 13 of 2711/2014 134 West Hopkins Avenue photos Photo Analysis window added or enlarged in 1989 dormer converted to a gable in 1989 window is new porch reconstructed in 1989 current porch decking added in 2013 ish double front door restored in 1989 porch posts and decorative fascia restored in 1989 based on materials testing and conversation with owner who did the work in 1989 original double hung window original bay with old roof shingles and original double hung according to the owner, in 1989 the siding was original and was treated and restored. Materials testing performed in 2014 revealed that the material is redwood and not likely original, though may have been replacement materials before 1989. The details of the siding, corner boards, decorative shingles, etc. presumably were derived from the original configuration. south elevation P152 IV.A. 11/2014134 West Hopkins Avenue photos page 14 of 27 Photo Analysis original bay with old roof shingles and original double hung dormer converted to gable in 1989, double hung is new decorative shingles in west gable end a mix of new and possibly historic materials, based on materials testing original red sandstone foundation wall, appears to be intact in original location and configuration original double hung window historic part of west elevation P153 IV.A. page 15 of 2711/2014 134 West Hopkins Avenue photos Photo Analysis all new construction on north side new rear wall is an extension of the front gable, all new construction, includes an extension of the flat roof to the north one story shed addition upper level deck over section of 1989 addition north elevation P154 IV.A. 11/2014134 West Hopkins Avenue photos page 16 of 27 Photo Analysis clapboards run continuously to new addition at rear of the house dormer above (not shown) converted to gable in 1989, double hung window is new original red sandstone foundation wall, appears to be intact in original location and configuration original double hung window original double hung window rear addition begins approximately here new double hung window on rear addition east elevation P155 IV.A. page 17 of 2711/2014 134 West Hopkins Avenue photos Photo Analysis Dormer converted to gable in 1989, detail shows contemporary double hung. All dor- mer framing is new, dormers are likely to be in the same location as the original shed roof dormers. Typical of three. Detail of historic double hung at porch wall, original hardware can be found on all the his- toric windows that remain. Detail of historic window sill at porch wall. New porch decking can be seen below. Detail at the top of the south bay window. Historic wood shingles can be seen along with decorative bead board panel, some of which may be historic. Photo also shows decorative corner bead on window trim, this detail is repeated throughout. P156 IV.A. 11/2014134 West Hopkins Avenue photos page 18 of 27 Photo Analysis Detail at south bay historic double hung meeting rail. Detail at porch decorative fascia, (not original based on materials testing), cornice return on eave end and west facing bay with wood shingle roofing. Detail of historic red sandstone foundation wall. New porch infill panels can also be seen. Detail of decorative siding under west facing window. Note that these panels are inset from the face of siding, which may indicate that these are original decorative details. Materials testing indicated that the species is appropriate for the period. P157 IV.A. page 19 of 2711/2014 134 West Hopkins Avenue photos Photo Analysis Detail of decorative shingles over west facing bay. The cornice board, in this case ends short of the wood shingles, implying that there may be other original material behind. A similar condition exists on the south bay. Detail of the decorative shingles on the west gable end. Diagonal beadboard references the decorative details on the sides of and below the south and west bays. Detail of foundation wall at original northwest corner where it meets the 1989 CMU foundation wall Detail at the original northeast corner transitioning to the new cmu foundation wall on east side. Note the continuous siding from old to new and shift in watertable board. P158 IV.A. 11/2014134 West Hopkins Avenue photos page 20 of 27 Photo Analysis Detail at existing northwest corner where line of original hip continues up to flat roof section. 1989 addition extends off north face of hipped roof to the north. 1989 addition copies the siding, cornerboard and trim details from the historic house. Detail of meeting rail at east facing historic window. In this case the bottom sash has been installed upside down. See sill condition at right. Upside down bottom sash. P159 IV.A. page 21 of 2711/2014 134 West Hopkins Avenue photos Photo Analysis Detail at one of the exploratory holes on the interior of the historic section of the house. Rough sawn framing, plaster & lath and new layer of drywall can be seen. Detail of interior wall with original plaster & lath and new layer of drywall, typical through- out the historic house on the main level. Detail of interior of foundation wall at full height section. Both sandstone and brick can be seen. Wall construction extends to basement floor in this location. Detail at CMU wall along north line of historic house footprint. This wall replaces the sandstone foundation along almost the full length of the north wall. P160 IV.A. page 22 of 27 11/2014134 West Hopkins Avenue P161 IV.A. page 23 of 2711/2014 134 West Hopkins Avenue Appendix • Preservation Plan for 134 W. Hopkins • Materials and Historical Report by Anthony & Assoc. completed 11/2014 note that this report refers to the eroneously identified photo, the conclusions drawn in the report are still valid and are based on field observations and materials testing. P162 IV.A. page 24 of 27 11/2014134 West Hopkins Avenue P163 IV.A. page 25 of 2711/2014 134 West Hopkins Avenue Preservation Plan The historic house at 134 W. Hopkins is in excellent condition. The current redevelopment plan provides the opportunity to restore the historic house to its original form and to create a clearer distinction between old and new. Following is a summary of the actions that will be undertaken to improve the preservation of the house. The Site - The proposal is to move the house a small amount to the west and south. The move will improve the relationship of this house, to the house at 134 1/2, which was placed on the adjacent lot in 1989. The move will also allow the additional floor area to be handled more sensitively and to create a better distinction between old and new. Since new subgrade area is being added either way, the historic foundation will be impacted, regardless of the move. In order to minimize the visual impact of the move, the house will be set on a new foundation, designed to retain the red sandstone finish materials. Before the move the foundation will be photographed and otherwise documented to ensure the proper reinstallation. The new foundation wall will be faced with the existing stone, maintaining the same relationship to the siding and the same exposure above grade. Salvaged stone materials will be cleaned and installed with the same stacking character, the same corner details and the same mortar details. The existing mortar will be sampled and a new mix will be created to replicate the existing joint character and hardness. The move itself will be undertaken by Bailey House Movers, who have a long history of success with historic house moving in the Aspen area. The owner has the option of moving the house off site temporarily to a location just a couple of blocks away on West Hopkins. The owner also has the option to keep the house on-site and shift it to accommodate construction activities. The temporary off-site relocation may allow the construction activities to be performed more quickly. Either way, the move will be undertaken under the requirements of the Aspen HPC. It should be noted that the house will be lifted at the base of the wall, requiring some destruction of the siding materials and first floor framing. Since it has been determined that the siding materials are not original, there will be no additional loss of visible original materials. Restructuring the main floor framing will allow the house to retain its current relationship to grade and the foundation wall, which is critical on the exterior. There are some questions that are outstanding about the nature of materials that may be concealed under the siding layer. These issues will be investigated and appropriately resolved before the physical preparations for the move are made. The area of decorative siding under the west bay will not be damaged by the move. The house appears to be structurally sound and the simple geometry of the plan should contribute to the success of the move. Before the move, the structural engineer will design any temporary shoring which may be needed to ensure the success of the move. In addition, the windows and doors will be protected and the area of the 1989 addition will be closed in to prevent any deterioration during the move and storage of the house. The house will be placed on the new foundation in the same orientation and at the same relationship to the grade, to preserve the historic character of the siting of the house. Other aspects of the site which support that historic character will be restored to their current condition, such as the walkway to the house, the flat topography and the historically appropriate plantings. Historic Building Materials - The historic materials on the house have been identified through materials testing and the verbal description of the 1989 addition. These original materials are centered on the main level double hungs and some of the decorative siding and roofing related to the bays. Much of the other material is of newer vintage. Since the current details of the siding and trim are appropriate, much of what is there will be retained. Early in the construction phase, any questions about what may be under the siding will be assessed and changes to the current preservation plan will be made accordingly. The 1989 addition will be removed and the siding will be terminated appropriately on the historic house. The new addition will be designed to create a clear distinction between old and new, rectifying the current condition, where the siding and details are continuous. P164 IV.A. page 26 of 27 11/2014134 West Hopkins Avenue Preservation Plan 1 1 . 2 5 . 2 0 1 4 S U B M I S S I O N D A T E W E S T H O P K I N S L L C . 1 3 4 W E S T H O P K I N S A V E N U E A P P L I C A T I O N F O R C E R T I F I C A T E O F A P P R O P R I A T E N E S S F O R M A J O R H P C D E V E L O P M E N T S I T E P L A N - 1 / 4 ” = 1 ’ - 0 ” N E I G H B O R ' S H O U S E P R O P E R T Y L I N E S E T B A C K L I N E 5 ' - 0 " 5 ' - 0 " 5'-0" 5'-0" 1 0 ' - 0 " 5 ' - 0 " P R O P O S E D P A T I O W / S K Y L I G H T S T O B E L O W P R O P O S E D H I S T O R I C R E S O U R C E L O C A T I O N P R O P O S E D 2 - C A R G A R A G E P R O P O S E D C O N N E C T O R 1 2 ' - 7 1 / 2 " P R O P O S E D A D D I T I O N N E I G H B O R ' S L I G H T W E L L 1 S T S T R E E T HOPKINS AVENUE E X I S T I N G H I S T O R I C R E S O U R C E L O C A T I O N ( S H O W N H A T C H E D ) N O R T H EXISTING 4'-8 1/4" 3'-7 5/8" EXISTING 1'-1 5/8" E X I S T I N G 6 ' - 1 0 " P R O P O S E D L I G H T W E L L S S K Y L I G H T T O B E L O W L I N E O F P R O P O S E D A D D I T I O N A B O V E 2'-2" E X I S T I N G 1 6 ' - 1 0 " E X I S T I N G 2 6 ' - 8 7 / 8 " R E : P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N : T R E E R E M O V A L A N D M I T I G A T I O N R E : P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N : T R E E R E M O V A L A N D M I T I G A T I O N R E : P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N : T R E E R E M O V A L A N D M I T I G A T I O N R E : P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N : T R E E P R O T E C T I O N R E : P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N : T R E E P R O T E C T I O N R E : P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N : T R E E P R O T E C T I O N R E : P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N : T R E E P R O T E C T I O N F R O N T E N T R Y & P O R C H n o t t o s c a l e P165 IV.A. page 27 of 2711/2014 134 West Hopkins Avenue Preservation Plan Windows - As stated above the main level double hung windows are all original and will be protected and preserved. The one window in the back bedroom, where the bottom sash is upside down, will be corrected. The upper level has no original windows. The south gable end window was either added or altered by the 1989 project. A window does show in the 1984 photo, but it is unclear if this was an original window. A new design will be proposed for this location. The dormers were altered in the 1989 project and will be restored to their original shed design with windows similar those shown in the photographs. Any new windows used in these cases will be selected to be similar to the historic windows. No new windows are proposed for the main level east, west or south. The north elevation will be redesigned and any new windows that will be added in that area will be designed to be compatible with the historic context of the house. To increase the energy performance of the historic windows, wood storm windows may be created and installed. Doors - The two entry doors will be preserved and will remain in place. One of these doors was installed as part of the 1989 addition. Porches - The existing porch retains the design and location of the original. Much of the original material has been lost. At this time the existing porch posts and decorative fascia will be retained. The one area where the porch can be returned to a more appropriate character is the decking. Currently the deck is trex and runs east to west. This material will be replaced to run north/south and to have a more traditional material and edge character. Architectural Features - As previously stated, much of the exterior character is defined by materials that are not original to the house. The decorative details are, however, consistent with traditional details and were likely recreated from the original examples. The existing details will be preserved and if information about the original details can be found through additional exploration, this will be undertaken and the plan will be adjusted accordingly. The new addition will be designed to be of its time and be differentiated from the historic house, clarifying the current distinction between old and new. Roof- The intent of the design is to restore the original roof form. This will serve to create a better distinction between old and new, and will give the house back its full historic form. The restoration of the dormers will also eliminate significant features that currently change the impression of the original character of the house. Building Relocation - See site discussion above. The relocation will take place in accordance with the design guidelines. Building Additions - Currently, the addition is not clearly distinguishable from the historic house. There is only a small step on the west side, a continuous wall on the east side, and no clear distinction on the north side, particularly on the upper level. The new design will restore the primary volume of the historic house and create a strong distinction between old and new through the use of a one story linking element, set in from both corners of the historic house. The style of the new addition is contemporary and in its simple massing and form will accentuate the subtle details of the historic house. The materials palette is restrained and limited, which doean’t compete with the more dectorative and traditional detailing of the historic house. Only a small amount of floor area remains to form an above grade addition to the historic house, the bulk of which will be set at the back of the site. The majority of the other new space will be located subgrade. minimizing the impacts to the primary volume of the historic house. P166 IV.A. Report: Structural and Architectural Materials Assessment for 134 West Hopkins Avenue, Aspen, Colorado Submitted to: Reid Architects, Inc 412 North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81612 Submitted by: Anthony & Associates, Inc. P.O. Box 271400 Fort Collins, CO 80527-1400 November 4, 2014 P167 IV.A. Anthony & Associates, Inc. 1 Report – 134 West Hopkins Avenue Structural and Architectural Materials Assessment for 134 West Hopkins Avenue, Aspen, Colorado BACKGROUND Anthony & Associates, Inc. (A&A) was asked by Ms. Suzannah Reid of Reid Architects Inc. to conduct a structural and architectural materials assessment of 134 West Hopkins Avenue (the Building) in Aspen, Colorado. The purpose of the investigation was to determine the construction history and the approximate age of alterations to the building. The Building, which is believed to have been constructed ca. 1880s, is a wood-frame building with a modified rectangular footprint. It is clad with a combination of wood trim, horizontal wood siding, decorative wood shingles, and wood beadboard. SCOPE OF WORK There were questions regarding the construction history and age of the Building. The completed scope of work and this report provides information on the approximate age and construction history of the Building based on an examination of the structural wood and architectural components and associated metal fasteners and hardware. The scope of work included the following tasks: Conducting a site visit to photograph and document existing conditions, followed with an assessment report. Examining accessible roof and floor framing to determine dimensions, spacing, and fastener type as well as to identify evidence of alterations. Examining exterior architectural wood elements such as window sashes, siding, and trim to determine fastener type and identify evidence of alterations, Examining structural wall framing (through probes) in areas of interest as determined by the architect. Removing a minimum of 10 wood species samples to identify the wood species or wood species groups for structural and architectural elements of interest. P168 IV.A. Anthony & Associates, Inc. 2 Report – 134 West Hopkins Avenue FIELD PROCEDURES Anthony & Associates, Inc. provided a historic preservation specialist to conduct an investigation of the structural and architectural materials of the Building. Access to the attic, wall framing, and crawl space was the responsibility of the architect and/or owner. An on-site meeting was conducted with the architect at the beginning of the field investigation to verify the objectives. The investigation was based on a combination of visual inspection, species identification, and historical research. These methods are described below. Visual Inspection Visual examination of the structural and architectural elements of the Building allows for identifying components that are incongruous with surrounding material and that may be indicative of an alteration or repair. Identifying structural member dimensions, spacing, and the types of fasteners used can also provide information on the construction sequence and approximate age of the materials. Species Identification The Building is a wood frame structure with wood siding and trim. Identifying wood species can aid in interpretation of historic construction or repair campaigns. Wood species will be identified by removing small samples from which the species or species group can be identified under microscopic examination. A sufficient number of samples will be removed to identify species of key architectural and structural wood elements to aid in developing historical documentation. Historical Research Other materials may be present that can help to determine the age of modifications and the construction sequence of the Building. Material with stamps, maker’s marks, logos, or other identifying components can be researched to find date ranges for production and/or distribution. FINDINGS General Construction – Architectural Elements The long axis of the Building is oriented approximately north to south, with an addition known to have been constructed in the 1980s at the north end (Figure 1). The southern- most section is believed to be the original structure built sometime in the 1880s. The construction and/or alteration dates of the center section are unknown. The various sections are apparent along the west elevation. See Figures A-1 through A-3 in the Appendix for drawings and plans of the Building with the labeled sections. P169 IV.A. Anthony & Associates, Inc. 3 Report – 134 West Hopkins Avenue Figure 1. West elevation showing the 1980s addition (red) to the north, the center section (yellow), and the southern section (green). The majority of areas on all elevations are clad in horizontal board siding (Figure 2). Figure 2. Horizontal board siding on the east elevation. The roof is asphalt-composite shingle except for areas over the bay windows which are wood shingle (Figures 3 and 4). Gable areas on the south and west elevations have decorative wood shingles and trim (Figure 3). The west elevation gable also has beadboard siding (Figure 4). Areas of beadboard siding can also be found under and around the bay windows on the west and south elevations (Figure 5). P170 IV.A. Anthony & Associates, Inc. 4 Report – 134 West Hopkins Avenue Figure 3. Decorative wood shingle siding on the south elevation gable, and wood shingle roofing on the south bay window projection. Figure 4. Decorative wood shingle siding and beadboard siding on the west elevation gable, and wood shingle roofing on the west bay window projection. Figure 5. Decorative beadboard under the bay window on the west elevation. P171 IV.A. Anthony & Associates, Inc. 5 Report – 134 West Hopkins Avenue General Construction – Structural Elements The structural wood framing, as determined from probes on the interior and from visual inspection of the basement, is composed of wood members spaced approximately 16 inches on center. The wall studs were typically rough-sawn (Figure 6) and, of those measured, ranged in size from 1 ¾” x 3 ¾” to 1 13/16” x 3 7/8” (actual). The wall finish in most areas was horsehair plaster and lathe (visible in Figure 6), although in some locations modern gypsum board was placed over the plaster. Modern dimension lumber framing measuring 1 7/16” x 3 5/16” (nominal 2 x 4s) was identified in some of the second floor probes (Figure 7). Figure 6. Rough-sawn, full dimension lumber inside probe 4, first floor. Figure 7. Modern dimension lumber in probe 8, second floor. Access to floor joists and other wood members in the basement was extremely limited due to the presence of radon-mitigation materials and insulating foam (Figure 8). The P172 IV.A. Anthony & Associates, Inc. 6 Report – 134 West Hopkins Avenue accessible floor joists were either rough-sawn, full-dimension 2 x 6s or were modern surfaced members (nominal 2 x 6, but actual 1 ⅜” x 5 ½”). Figure 8. Access to wood framing in the basement was limited due to mechanical systems, radon mitigation systems, and insulation. Species Identification Thirty-eight samples were removed for species identification. Given the assumed age of the Building, historic materials such as siding would likely have been produced from trees with native ranges extending into Colorado, such as western yellow pine (a hard pine species group that includes ponderosa pine and lodgepole pine) and/or Engelmann spruce; however, western yellow pine is still used today for architectural siding and trim, so decisions regarding the age of the exterior architectural wood cannot be based on species alone. A complete list of species identification samples and their locations can be found in the Appendix. Multiple samples of the horizontal siding were removed in order to compare the material on the known 1980s addition with that on the other sections of the Building. All of the horizontal board siding was identified as redwood (Sequoia sempervirens). Redwood is native to the California and Oregon coast and as such, is indicative of replacement material. Vertical and horizontal trim elements from various locations on the Building were sampled for species identification based on discussions with the architect. Vertical window and corner trim samples were identified as western yellow pine (Pinus spp.). While western yellow pine was commonly used as construction material in Colorado from the earliest periods of Euro-American settlement, it is also still used today for exterior millwork. The vertical trim in all locations of the Building appears to be in excellent condition with no evidence of weathering, and the samples of vertical trim P173 IV.A. Anthony & Associates, Inc. 7 Report – 134 West Hopkins Avenue appear to have only two applications of latex-based paint applied, indicating that the vertical trim elements are likely replacement material (Figure 9a-9c). Figure 9a-9c. Sample 26 (a), removed from the vertical trim around the north window, west elevation showing two applications of a latex-based coating (b), and wood in good condition with no visible weathering under the paint (c). The decorative beadboard trim was sampled in several locations in order to determine the wood species. A sample of beadboard from the west elevation gable (above the bay window) was identified as fir (Abies spp.), while the other samples of beadboard removed from below and around the bay windows on the west and south elevations were identified as redwood. The generally excellent condition of the beadboard trim on the west gable suggests that it is replacement material. The redwood beadboard may also be replacement material because redwood does not grow in Colorado; however, some of the beadboard on the sides of the south elevation bay window has visible evidence of weathering that telegraphs through the paint. It is possible that the redwood beadboard in some areas could be historic and was a specialty item brought in by train ca. 1890 – 1915. Species identification samples were removed from upper and lower sashes of the windows on the historic and center sections in an attempt to identify whether the windows may date to the same period. The samples from the sashes were all identified as eastern white pine (Pinus strobus). Eastern white pine is not native to Colorado or the western region of the U.S. The natural range of eastern white pine includes the eastern portions of the U.S. and Canada; its range extends as far west as Minnesota. Given the use of eastern white pine and the presence of wavy glass in a few of the sashes, it seems likely that the windows were ordered from the eastern U.S. via the Sears and Roebuck catalog or a similar publication and delivered by train to Aspen ca. 1890 - 1915. Two samples from the western column and a sample of the spandrel on the front porch (south elevation) were removed for species identification. Although in excellent condition, the west column has a visible timber repair (Figure 10) near the bottom. Both (a) (b) (c) P174 IV.A. Anthony & Associates, Inc. 8 Report – 134 West Hopkins Avenue the repair material and the column material above were sampled; the bottom repair portion was identified as southern yellow pine, a U.S. east-coast tree species, and the top portion of the column was identified as western hemlock, a U.S. west-coast tree species. Neither tree species is native to Colorado, suggesting that the columns are not original to the historic construction. The decorative spandrel sample was identified as western yellow pine, which, as previously mentioned, was used historically and continues to be used today as millwork. Figure 10. A visible timber repair on the west column of the porch. The rough-sawn species samples removed from the floor, wall, and roof framing were identified as fir (Abies spp.), Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii), and western yellow pine (Pinus spp.). All three species have native ranges that extend into Colorado and the Aspen area. The surfaced, modern dimension lumber that was sampled in the roof framing and the floor framing was identified as Douglas-fir. Douglas-fir, while also having a native range that extends into Colorado, is primarily produced from the west coast today. Based on the dimensions, the surfaced Douglas-fir members post-date 1964 (Smith and Wood 1964). Age of the Structural and Architectural Wood Elements Determining the exact age of the structural and architectural wood elements by visual inspection alone is generally not possible. In conjunction with species identification and historical research and documentation, however, it is sometimes possible to determine the sequence in which materials were added or altered by examining the materials and fasteners in detail. A key identifier can be the type of fastener used to hold wood members or architectural elements together. Wire nails, in common use today, were not widely produced and used in construction until the 1890s. However, in rural parts of the country such as Aspen, common use of wire nails did not occur until after the turn of the 20th century. P175 IV.A. Anthony & Associates, Inc. 9 Report – 134 West Hopkins Avenue While wire nails have flat, circular heads and round shafts, machine cut nails were typically stamped or cut from a sheet of metal, resulting in square or rectangular heads and square shafts. Machine cut nails were primarily used prior to the widespread manufacture and use of round wire nails. Given the assumed date of construction, the use of machine cut nails would not be unusual; however, all of the visible fasteners on the siding and trim are wire nails (Figure 11). These findings, in combination with the generally excellent condition of the trim and the species identification results, suggest that the majority of the siding and trim is replacement material. Figure 11. Round wire nail heads visible due to face-nailing of the wood siding. Square cut nails were identified in two locations: at the junction of the bay window and the Building on the west elevation, and through a first floor joist accessed from the basement (Figure 12). The bay window is in what is considered the original portion of the house, while the nail in the floor joist comes from the central section with the unknown date of construction. The presence of a square cut nail in this section is evidence that the central section was likely built before 1920. Figure 12. A square cut nail above a rough-sawn floor joist in the center section of the Building. P176 IV.A. Anthony & Associates, Inc. 10 Report – 134 West Hopkins Avenue Although some of the window glass in the original section and the center section appears to be replacement material, several of the sashes have wavy glass (Figure 13). Wavy glass is indicative of the manufacturing process and is either crown glass or cylinder glass. Crown glass was blown by hand and was generally not produced after 1850 in the U.S. Cylinder glass is typically associated with windows manufactured ca. the 1870s to the 1910s. Based on their large size, the wavy glass panes in the bay window sashes appear to have been produced based on the Lubbers process (ca. 1890s to 1910s, Bock 1998). Window hardware in the majority of the windows on the original section and center addition also are congruous with a manufacturing date range ca. 1890s to 1910s (Figure 14). Figure 13. Wavy glass in the bathroom window upper sash, east elevation (center section), can be identified by looking at the distortions in the reflections (red). Figure 14. Window hardware in a bay window that appears to date to the period between 1890 and 1915. P177 IV.A. Anthony & Associates, Inc. 11 Report – 134 West Hopkins Avenue For the structural framing elements, dimensions can sometimes give an indication of age. Modern dimension lumber is marketed by nominal size (e.g., 2 x 4s or 2 x 8s), but the actual size of the lumber is smaller, due in part to surfacing of the wood. Rough- sawn lumber, or lumber that has no surface finish, often varies in width and thickness. Sawmills began to use planers ca. 1870 to size rough-sawn lumber into more uniform dimensions before shipping, and modern lumber is surfaced on all four sides. National lumber size standards did not exist until 1924 (Smith and Wood 1964). In 1900, the most common thickness for joists, rafters, and wall studs was 2 (actual) inches; modern lumber joists, rafters, and studs are typically 1 ½ inches in thickness. Measurement of the accessible wall and floor framing studs shows a range of widths and thicknesses in the rough sawn lumber, which indicates the lumber was likely milled prior to the 1924 national size standard. Historical Research The Colorado OAHP Compass database, Sanborn maps, U.S.G.S. topographic maps, and historical databases were consulted in an effort to more precisely identify the original construction date and the date(s) of alteration. The 1886 Sanborn Map of Aspen does not include the block on which the Building is located; the earliest evidence of a residence located on the property is the 1890 Sanborn Map, which shows a small, single story rectangular wood frame dwelling with a stove pipe (Figure 15). Figure 15. 1890 Sanborn Map of Aspen (sheet 3) showing the Building footprint (red). This finding is inconsistent a photograph in a document published by the City of Aspen in 2000 of the Building. The photograph, assumed to have been taken ca. 1880s, shows a 1 ½-story dwelling with what appears to be a “T-shaped” footprint (see Figure 18a on page 13). Additionally, the photo caption describes the Building as a vernacular structure with an “L-shaped plan” (City of Aspen: 2000). P178 IV.A. Anthony & Associates, Inc. 12 Report – 134 West Hopkins Avenue The next available Sanborn map from 1893 shows a 1 ½-story wood frame dwelling with a larger footprint (Figure 16). Figure 16. 1893 Sanborn Map of Aspen (sheet 5) showing the Building footprint (red). The footprint of the Building remains consistent on the Sanborn Maps from 1893 to 1898. Sanborn maps produced at a later date are not available online but can be reviewed for possible additional information regarding alterations and/or additions to the Building. An 1893 map by Augustus Koch shows the Building to be in a similar configuration as it is today (Figure 17). Figure 17. 1893 map of Aspen showing the Building with a bay window and an addition to the north (Koch 1893). P179 IV.A. Anthony & Associates, Inc. 13 Report – 134 West Hopkins Avenue Figure 18a-18b. 134 West Hopkins Street, ca 1880s (City of Aspen 2000), and the Building in 2014. A close examination of Figure 18a reveals that there is an addition located to the north of the west-facing gable. Figure 19 is a close-up of that image, with the addition circled in red. Figure 19. A close-up of the historic photograph showing an addition to the north of the Building. SUMMARY OF THE WOOD INVESTIGATION The findings of the wood investigation can be summarized as follows: Based on a limited number of samples removed, the existing exterior siding is redwood (Sequoia sempervirens), a tree species not native to Colorado. The presence of wire nails and the generally excellent condition of the siding indicates that it is replacement material. (a) (b) P180 IV.A. Anthony & Associates, Inc. 14 Report – 134 West Hopkins Avenue The existing exterior architectural trim and beadboard (excluding decorative elements from the porch) is a combination of western yellow pine (Pinus spp.), redwood, fir (Abies spp.), and Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii). Some of the redwood beadboard has minor weathering visible through the paint, indicating that the beadboard around the bay windows may be significantly older than the existing horizontal siding. While it may be historic, since redwood is not a locally available tree species, it likely does not date to the original construction. It also is not visible in the assumed ca. 1880s historic photograph of the Building. Samples removed from the decorative porch elements (the porch columns and the spandrel) reveal a mix of species including southern yellow pine (Pinus spp.), western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), and western yellow pine. Based on the species identification results, the porch columns are likely replacement material. No determination of age can be made for the spandrel. The window sashes that were sampled for species identification were identified as eastern white pine (Pinus strobus), a tree species that is not native to Colorado, indicating that the windows were likely manufactured on the east coast and shipped by train. The presence of wavy glass in some of the sashes and the window hardware indicate that the windows were likely installed ca. 1890-1915 but do not date to the original construction. The wood species of the rough-sawn structural framing indicates that the material likely came from locally available sources. Examination of the structural framing through probes and in the basement indicates that the wall studs and floor joists on the first floor are rough-sawn with varying dimensions. Although the thicknesses and widths vary, the wall studs are close to full 2–inch by 4-inch members and the floor joists are close to full 2-inch by 6-inch members (or larger) members, indicating that they were likely milled prior to the 1924 national size standard. Examination of the structural framing on the second floor reveals a combination of rough-sawn and modern surfaced lumber (post-1964), indicating that the second level of the Building has undergone relatively recent alterations. Square cut nails were found associated with the floor framing supporting the first floor, center section, indicating a construction date prior to 1920. A review of the available Sanborn insurance maps indicates that a 1-story, wood- frame dwelling with a rectangular footprint existed on the lot in 1890. A historic photograph believed to have been taken ca. 1880s shows a 1 ½-story wood frame dwelling with a north section or addition, but without bay windows. It seems P181 IV.A. Anthony & Associates, Inc. 15 Report – 134 West Hopkins Avenue likely, then, that the date of the photograph is incorrect and it was probably taken between 1890 and 1893. Based on the visual inspection, wood species identification, and historical research, it seems likely that the Building was altered from a small single-story rectangular dwelling to a larger 1½-story structure between 1890 and 1893. The center section, while present in the historic photograph, may have been expanded prior to 1893. Based on the 1893 map of Aspen produced by Augustus Koch for the Aspen Times, the bay window on the west elevation may have been present as early as 1893. What is now the center section appears to be present in the drawing as well. Victorian decorative elements were subsequent alterations, based on the historic photograph, but were likely in place prior to 1915. P182 IV.A. Anthony & Associates, Inc. 16 Report – 134 West Hopkins Avenue REFERENCES Bock, Gordon 1998 “Glass in the Past,” Old House Journal. Electronic document, http://www.thehomeinspector.com/Clients/OldGlass.html, accessed 10/29/14. City of Aspen 2000 City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. Electronic document, http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved= 0CCAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aspenpitkin.com%2FPortals%2F0%2F docs%2FCity%2FComdev%2FHPC%2Fintroduction.pdf&ei=ae9TVMDbHdWly AT2sIGADQ&usg=AFQjCNGBe8mQ7yrdikR2xRnV9f1AKMlm8Q&sig2=SbJxgC lfUsFxf5MJfOuiEg&bvm=bv.78677474,d.aWw, accessed 10/22/14. Koch, Augustus 1893 “Birds-eye View of Aspen, Pitkin Co., Colo. 1893,” Aspen Times. Library of Congress electronic document, http://www.loc.gov/item/75694514/, accessed 10/28/14. Sanborn-Perris Map Company, Ltd. 1890 Aspen, Pitkin Co., Colorado. Sanborn-Perris Map Company, Ltd., 117 Broadway, New York. Electronic document, http://libcudl.colorado.edu:8180/luna/servlet/UCBOULDERCB1~21~21, accessed 10/24/14. Sanborn-Perris Map Company, Ltd. 1893 Aspen, Pitkin Co., Colorado. Sanborn-Perris Map Company, Ltd., 117 Broadway, New York. Electronic document, http://libcudl.colorado.edu:8180/luna/servlet/UCBOULDERCB1~21~21, accessed 10/24/14. Sanborn-Perris Map Company, Ltd. 1898 Aspen, Pitkin Co., Colorado. Sanborn-Perris Map Company, Ltd., 117 Broadway, New York. Electronic document, http://libcudl.colorado.edu:8180/luna/servlet/UCBOULDERCB1~21~21, accessed 10/24/14. Smith, L.W., and L.W. Wood 1964 History of Yard Lumber Size Standards. Forest Products Laboratory, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Madison, Wisconsin. P183 IV.A. Anthony & Associates, Inc. 17 Report – 134 West Hopkins Avenue Whitehorn, W. Clark 1993 Aspen and the Railroads. Aspen Historical Society, Roaring Fork Fellowship supervised by Jody McCabe, Director of the Aspen Historical Society. Electronic document, http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved= 0CCAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.archiveaspen.org%2Fdocuments%2F AspenandRailroadssearchable.pdf&ei=b81TVI32BsawyATXnIGICw&usg=AFQj CNEs_nRthR_QKj11iRJbPbwf5kfVtg&sig2=DNdsVYenVMn3kgQPlZspuQ&bvm =bv.78677474,d.aWw, accessed 10/31/14. P184 IV.A. APPENDIX Species Identification Table Plan Drawings P185 IV.A. Anthony & Associates, Inc. 19 Report – 134 West Hopkins Avenue Table A-1. Species Identification Results Sample No. Elevation Member Location Results 1 west wood sill crawl space access in foundation, unknown addition Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii) 2 west siding 1980s addition redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) 3 west siding unknown addition redwood 4 west siding original structure redwood 5 west diagonal beadboard under bay window, original structure redwood 6 west vertical beadboard under bay window, original structure redwood 7 west upper sash bay window, original structure eastern white pine (Pinus strobus) 8 west lower sash window on unknown addition eastern white pine 9 west decorative molding above bay window, original structure redwood 10 west decorative molding above bay window, original structure redwood 11 west sawn shingle above bay window, original structure western red cedar (Thuja plicata) 12 west horizontal trim gable, original structure white fir (Abies spp.) 13 west horizontal trim north bay of bay window, original structure white fir 14 west beadboard gable above bay window, original structure white fir 15 south west column front porch, lower lamination or dutchman repair southern yellow pine (Pinus spp.) 16 south west column front porch, upper lamination or solid member above dutchman repair western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) 17 south siding original structure redwood 18 south beadboard east side of bay window redwood 19 south upper sash bay window, original structure eastern white pine 20 east siding original structure redwood 21 east siding unknown addition redwood P186 IV.A. Anthony & Associates, Inc. 20 Report – 134 West Hopkins Avenue Sample No. Elevation Member Location Results 22 east window apron bathroom window, unknown addition redwood 23 east upper sash bathroom window, unknown addition eastern white pine 24 east vertical window trim bathroom window, unknown addition western yellow pine 25 east lower sash bedroom window, unknown addition eastern white pine 26 west vertical window trim unknown addition western yellow pine 27 interior, 1st floor wall stud probe 1, den fir 28 interior, 1st floor wall stud probe 2, bedroom Engelmann spruce 29 interior, 1st floor lathe probe 2, bedroom western yellow pine 30 interior, 1st floor wall stud probe 5 western yellow pine 31 interior, 2nd floor roof rafter probe 6, bedroom Engelmann spruce 32 interior, 2nd floor roof rafter probe 8, bedroom Douglas-fir 33 interior, 1st floor floor joist old joist, accessed from basement western yellow pine 34 interior, 1st floor floor joist modern joist (sistered to rough- sawn joist), accessed from basement Douglas-fir 35 interior, 1st floor floor joist old joist Engelmann spruce 36 interior, basement column mechanical room western yellow pine 37 south decorative porch trim front porch western yellow pine 38 south vertical corner trim southwest corner of south projection, original structure western yellow pine P187 IV.A. Anthony & Associates, Inc. 22 Report – 134 West Hopkins Avenue Figure A-1. Plan view of the first floor showing what is believed to be the original section (green), the center section (yellow) and the 1980s addition (red) as well as probe locations. Drawing courtesy of Reid Architects. Probe 1 Probe 2 Probe 3 Probe 5 P 1 8 8 I V . A . Anthony & Associates, Inc. 23 Report – 134 West Hopkins Avenue Figure A-2. Plan view of the second floor showing probe locations. Drawing courtesy of Reid Architects. Probe 8 Probe 7 Probe 9 Probe 10 Probe 6 P 1 8 9 I V . A . Anthony & Associates, Inc. 24 Report – 134 West Hopkins Avenue Figure A-3. An overly of the existing first-floor plan on the 1893 Sanborn Map footprint. P 1 9 0 I V . A .