The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.20031008ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 8, 2003 CITY COUNCIL MEETING ROOM 130 S. GALENA ASPEN, COLORADO NOON - SITE VISIT - 28 Smuggler Grove 5:00 I. Roll call II. Approval of minutes - September 24,2003 III. Public Comments IV. Commission member comments V. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent) VI. Project Monitoring A. 950 Matchless VII. Staff comments: Certificates of No Negative Effect issued (Next resolution will be #19) VIII. OLD BUSINESS A. 470 N. Spring St. - Major Development (Conceptual) continue the public hearing to Nov. 12, 2003 IX. NEW BUSINESS Â· s,) & F., A \ 4 i ,- 1 A. Galena & Main Visitor Center - Major Development (Conceptual) continue the public hearing to Nov. 12, 2003 B. 311 S. First Street - Minor Development and Variances, Public Hearing , ..,. - f Â·64 01 *t t--2 A U -74 5:20 C. 819 E. Hopkins Ave. - Major Development (Conceptual), On-Site Relocation and Variances 6:05 D. 28 Smuggler Grove - Listing on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Site and Structures, Historic Landmark Lot Split, Major Development (Conceptual), On-Site Relocation and Variances, Public Hearing. 4 -. c ryÂ¥ <3 /' 2-- ' , --7~ 7:00 XI. ADJOURN P1 PROJECT MONITORING 0 Jeffrey Halferty 428 E. Hyman (former Sportstalker Store) 213 W. Bleeker (Schelling) 101 E. Hallam (Gorman), with Neill 216 E. Hallam (Frost/Auger), with Mike 735 W. Bleeker (Marcus), with Teresa 922 W. Hallam 110 W. Main (Hotel Aspen) 118 E. Cooper (Little Red Ski Haus) 432 W. Francis - Minor Neill Hirst 434 E. Main (Hills) 409 E. Hyman (New York Pizza building) 205 S. Third 101 E. Hallam (Gorman), with Jeffrey 635 W. Bleeker 110 E. Bleeker Mike Hoffman 950 Matchless Drive (Becker) 216 E. Hallam (Frost/Auger), with Jeffrey 513 W. Smuggler (Harman) 633 W. Main (Dart) 920 W. Hallam (Guthrie) 640 N. Third 21 Meadows Road Teresa Melville 232 W. Main (Christmas Inn) 323 W. Hallam (Rispoli) 513 W. Bleeker 735 W. Bleeker (Marcus), with Jeffrey 515 Gillespie (Bone) 501 W. Main Street (Christiania Lodge) Valerie Alexander 216 E. Hallam (Frost) 533 W. Francis (Gibson) 232 W. Main (Christmas Inn) 114 Neale Ave. Derek Skalko 135 W. Hopkins P2 302 E. Hopkins 501 W. Main Street (Christiania Lodge) 331 W. Bleeker 114 Neale Ave. CONCEPTUAL APPROVALS WHICH HAVE NOT GONE TO FINAL: HPC Legal Procedures (Submit affidavit ofnotice for PH - conceptual) Swear In Staff presentation Applicant presentation Board Questions and Clarifications PH opened and closed Board Comments Applicant Comments Motion P3 . ~ mi , il '21 V,z i I ~| i 35- 1 1 1 1 1 0D HMH 3 dj T . B E li STL D DEC VE. Y A , 1 r Primm,Â¥r ' / 11IIttIIItI1I"I lilli lilli ned j /t1I11II1I1 IIII1]ttIII 205 - VERTICAL TO HORIZONTAL SIDING REVISION PROPOSED FOR WINDOW "-r LJ E z i ROPOSED RAIUNG REVISION AT MIAIbl ~ NEW SECTION OF BULDING 1 It L--J, 1 L__-----/ LEVEL AND UPPER LEVEL DECK AT 6.48 sq ft E~] E~3 [~1 "CONNECTER" SECTION OF BUILD[~G~ 11 11 -- -- .gil-S - I~~-il --&--I- /--1 EAST ELEVATION I 2 \~_.â€ž,,1--SCALE:-3716"=1-r:5" 970 #WiA/,ss Vd IE g MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 811/819 E. Hopkins- Major Development (Conceptual), On-Site Relocation, and Variances- Public Hearing DATE: October 8,2003 SUMMARY: In April 2003, HPC granted Conceptual approval for a redevelopment of 819 E. Hopkins Avenue. Since that time, the applicants, who are under contract to own the adjacent designated site, 811 E. Hopkins, have decided that their project may be improved by including both properties. Listed on the "Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures," 811 and 819 E. Hopkins Avenue each contain a Victorian era miner's cottage. The proposal before HPC involves removing non-historic additions to the cottages, relocating them and a contributing outbuilding on the site, and constructing a new home along the west side and rear of the parcel. Variances are requested from the requirements for setbacks, open space, parking and the "Residential Design Standards." Staff finds that the proposal does represent some improvements over the plan that has received Conceptual approval, however this memo will discuss concerns with the overall size and massing of the new residence and the building relocations. It is recommended that HPC continue the application for restudy. . 'Ytti m I . ei--f' I -a 7 .1 ,- hi.7. 4 1 . * 4/2144 i.*44- i *'4 -4"di I 9 +6JW. , ..1 - - :. 1 - 7 1-24 f.-2 #LI,ir . f.1 7 24 V . to. f. U. . 91 1 Â· . 4 1 1104 1 1 -4 { .39Â·4,- ity . .. -- m - 1'. . ./. ;U'~-4~- i.-1., 811 E. Hopkins 819 E. Hopkins 1 2 LO APPLICANT: Tom and Darlyn Fellman, represented by Rally Dupps, Consortium Architects, and Mitch Haas. PARCEL ID: 2737-182-08-032. ADDRESS: 811 and 819 E. Hopkins Avenue, Units 1 and 2, Plat of Fellman Condominiums, A Colorado Common Interest Community, Situated on Lots C, D, E & F, Block 31, East Aspen Townsite, City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado. ZONING: R/MF (Residential Multi-Family) CURRENT LAND USE: A 12,000 square foot lot condominiumized property containing two single family residences and a shed. MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual level, is as folows. Staff reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City Of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. 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 design guidelines is attached as "Exhibit B." Only those guidelines which staff finds warrant discussion are included in the memo. There are three historic structures affected by this application. All three are in their original locations based on the 1904 Sanborne map. 819 E. Hopkins and the shed behind it are fairly unaltered. 811 E. Hopkins had a large addition made to it that has compromised its integrity. During the previous review, HPC became very familiar with the house and shed at 819 E. Hopkins, the surrounding context, and the large cottonwood that must be protected on this 2 P26 property. The approved site plan is attached for HPC's reference. In brief, the proposal was to move the 819 house approximately 15 feet west and slightly forward of its current siting. The shed was rotated perpendicular to the alley. A new house was designed along the east lot line. In the new application, the addition to 811 E. Hopkins is demolished, the house is moved approximately 45' east of it's current position, and restoration work is proposed. The 819 E. Hopkins cottage is moved approximately 30' east, and also undergoes some restoration. The shed is rotated and moved into the southeast corner of the site, and the new residence is placed along the west and rear property lines. Staff agrees that there are aspects of the new plan that are arguably improvements, and that the concept of rehabilitating the miner's cottages without major additions is laudable. While specific details of the restoration plan can be addressed at Final, overall the work seems to be headed in the right direction. However, there are two basic impacts to the historic resources that were hurdles in the last hearings and are still troubling, which are the overwhelming size and massing of the new home and the building relocations. The relocation issue will be addressed later in the memo according to the appropriate review standards. With regard to the new house, the guideline which directly addresses staff s concern is : 11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale with the historic buildings on the parcel. o Subdivide larger masses into smaller "modules" that are similar in size to the historic buildings on the original site. The applicant has not included a discussion of the square footages of these buildings in their information. By staff's calculations, 811 E. Hopkins (the ADU) will be about 650 square feet, 819 E. Hopkins (AH1) is 950 square feet, the shed (AH2) is 550 square feet, and the new house is approximately 5,600 square feet. While this is well within the allowed FAR of this multi- family development (the maximum FAR is 1:1 or 12,000 square feet), there is an obvious imbalance that results in a large structure dominating the site. This building is less than 10 feet away from the historic structures in some locations, aggravating the situation. While the architect has used some similar roof forms and lowered plate heights, particularly at the front, the footprint of the building is very large and staff does not believe the structure has effectively been divided into distinct "modules" that break down the scale. A restudy of the height, scale, massing and proportions ofthe new house is needed. ON-SITE RELOCATION The intent of the Historic Preservation ordinance is to preserve designated historic properties in their original locations as much of their significance is embodied in their setting and physical 3 P27 relationship to their surroundings as well as their association with events and people with ties to a particular site. However, it is recognized that occasionally the relocation of a property may be appropriate as it provides an alternative to demolition or because it only has a limited impact on the attributes that make it significant. 26.415.090.C Standards for the Relocation of Designated Properties Relocation for a building, structure or object will be approved if it is determined that it meets any one of the following standards: 1. It is considered a non-contributing element of a historic district and its relocation will not affect the character of the historic district; RE 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; RE 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: As stated above, all three historic structures on this property are proposed to be relocated. While HPC has generally been permissive in approving on-site relocations in order to distance a small historic building from larger new construction, the degree that the resource is permitted to move is generally significantly less than shown in this application. The project team has apparently studied and rejected several site plans. Staff feels that a better plan, from the point of view of retaining the historic integrity of these structures, may exist and discussion with the board is needed. The guidelines state: 9.1 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis. o In general, relocation has less of an impact on individual landmark structures than those in a historic district. o It must be demonstrated that relocation is the best preservation alternative. o Rehabilitation of a historic building must occur as a first phase of any improvements. o A relocated building must be carefully rehabilitated to retain original architectural details and materials. 4 P28 o Before a building is moved, a plan must be in place to secure the structure and provide a new foundation, utilities, and to restore the house. o The design of a new structure on the site should be in accordance with the guidelines for new construction. o In general, moving a building to an entirely different site or neighborhood is not approved. 9.3 If relocation is deemed appropriate by the HPC, a structure must remain within the boundaries of its historic parcel. o 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. It is difficult to argue that moving two historic houses a relatively significant distance in order to construct a new building is the best preservation option. 811 E. Hopkins is not remaining within the boundaries of its historic parcel. Relocation of the shed may be acceptable because it is a secondary structure and it does occupy enough length along the alley to pose another challenge to the redevelopment plans. Staff acknowledges the complexities of this site and respects the owners' efforts to continue to study the proposal. Building relocation is a threshold issue that must be evaluated for the project to move forward. SETBACK VARIANCES The setback variances needed are a 3' front yard setback variance, a 9'6" rear yard setback variance for the new house and relocated shed with addition, and a 2' variance on the minimum distance between buildings for the miner's cottages. The criteria, per Section 26.415.110.C ofthe Municipal Code are as follows: HPC must make a finding that the setback variance: a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district; and/or b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district. Staff Finding: The board has consistently been favorable to granting waivers when there is a clear benefit to the historic resources. In this case, the goal would presumably be to create distance between the new and old construction, and to allow some flexibility to break up the massing of the new home by allowing it to spread out a bit. The front and rear yard setback variances would help with the latter goal, however granting a variance to bring the new house even closer to the older buildings is not appropriate. 5 P29 ON-SITE PARKING The applicant plans to provide one on-site parking space for each affordable housing unit, but requests that the second space that each unit should have be waived. In addition, the one parking spot for the ADU will not be provided. Per Section 26.415.110.C, 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. 1. 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 or architectural character of a designated historic property, an adjoining designated property or a historic district. Staff Finding: There are four units on this site for which some on-site parking is required by the Land Use Code. The total number of spaces needed is 7 (two for the new house, one for the ADU, and two each for the affordable units.) There is street parking available, and the rear of the property is the best location to site new square footage. Staff can support the waiver of spaces for the affordable units, however, questions why the third, "extra" space within the new house cannot be earmarked for the ADU, or why a fourth stall could not be created in the garage area. It could be designed to have a private entrance. The board may wish to grant a waiver for the ADU space to remove some more program from the site. VARIANCE FROM THE CALCULATION OF OPEN SPACE The zone district requires that at least 35% of the property be left undeveloped and meet the Land Use Code definition of "open space." The applicant requests a 9% variance from the requirement. Open space variances are not within the variances that HPC is empowered to grant as a historic preservation benefit. The board can review the request, but must apply the standards generally used for variances (usually applied by the Board of Adjustments.) In order to authorize a variance from the dimensional requirements of Title 26, the HPC must make a finding that the following three (3) circumstances exist: 1. The grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the Aspen Area Community Plan and this Title; Staff Finding: The AACP supports historic preservation as a goal for Aspen. Staff does not find that this variance would be inconsistent with any aspect of the plan. 2. The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure; and 6 P30 Staff Finding: The open space requirement could be met if any of the buildings on the property were smaller. Staff cannot make a finding that by not granting the variance, reasonable use o f the property is denied. 3. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district, and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty. In determining whether an applicant's rights would be deprived, the board shall consider whether either of the following conditions apply: a. There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel, building or structure, which are not applicable to other parcels, structures or buildings in the same zone district and which do not result from the actions ofthe applicant; or Staff Finding: The property does have challenges in that there are three historic buildings that must remain one story, probably resulting in more development on the ground plane than would occur without the presence ofthese structures. b. Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied by the Aspen Area Community Plan and the terms of this Title to other parcels, buildings, or structures, in the same zone district. Staff Finding: The variance does not create a special privilege in that the development is still below the maximum density and floor area. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS 26.410.040.D.1.a. states that the front door on a new residence must be no more than 10 feet back from the front most wall of the building. Residential development may receive a variance based on a finding that: A. The proposed design yields greater compliance with the goals ofthe Aspen area Community Plan (AACP); or, B. The proposed design more effectively addresses the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to; or, C. The proposed design is clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. Staff Response: The front door on the new house is recessed 14.5' from the front wall, and the door to the ADU is set back 16 feet. The ADU is exempt from this standard due to the fact that it is a historic building that should not be altered. 7 P31 The proposed location of the front door into the new house is acceptable because it creates a deep porch that relates to the one on the adjacent historic building. If the site plan changes, this argument may not hold true anymore. RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the review standards and "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" have not been sufficiently met with regard to the height, scale, massing and proportions of the new house or the proposed relocations of the historic buildings. Further discussion between the applicant and board is needed. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to continue Major Development (Conceptual), On-site Relocation, and Variance review for 811/819 E. Hopkins Avenue to a date certain." Exhibits: A. Staff Memo Dated October 8,2003 B. Relevant guidelines C. Existing site plan D. Site Plan from April 23,2003 Conceptual approval E. Application 8 P32 Exhibit B Relevant Design Guidelines for Conceptual Development Review and On-site Relocation, 819 E. Hopkins Treatment of Roofs 7.1 Preserve the original form of a roof. o Do not alter the angle of a historic roof. Instead, maintain the perceived line and orientation of the roof as seen from the street. o Retain and repair roof detailing. 7.2 Preserve the original eave depth. o The shadows created by traditional overhangs contribute to one's perception of the building's historic scale and therefore, these overhangs should be preserved. Secondary Structures 8.1 If an existing secondary structure is historically significant then it must be preserved. o When treating a historic secondary building, respect its character-defining features. These include its primary and roof materials, roof form, windows, doors and architectural details. o If a secondary structure is not historically significant then its preservation is optional. 8.2 If an existing secondary structure is beyond repalr, then replacing it is encouraged. o An exact reconstruction of the secondary structure may not be necessary in these cases. o The replacement should be compatible with the overall character of the historic primary structure, while accommodating new uses. 8.5 Avoid moving a historic secondary structure from its original location. o A secondary structure may only be repositioned on its original site to preserve its historic integrity. See Chapter 9: Building Relocation and Foundations. Preserving Building Locations and Foundations 9.1 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis. o In general, relocation has less of an impact on individual landmark structures than those in a historic district. It must be demonstrated that relocation is the best preservation alternative. Rehabilitation of a historic building must occur as a first phase of any improvements. A relocated building must be carefully rehabilitated to retain original architectural details and materials. o Before a building is moved, a plan must be in place to secure the structure and provide a new foundation, utilities, and to restore the house. o The design of a new structure on the site should be in accordance with the guidelines for new construction. o In general, moving a building to ah entirely different site or neighborhood is not approved. 9 P33 000 9.3 If relocation is deemed appropriate by the HPC, a structure must remain within the boundaries of its historic parcel. o 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. o It should face the same direction and have a relatively similar setback. o It may not, for example, be moved to the rear of the parcel to accommodate a new building in front of it. 9.6 When rebuilding a foundation, locate the structure at its approximate historic elevation above grade. o Raising the building slightly above its original elevation is acceptable. However, lifting it substantially above the ground level is inappropriate. o Changing the historic elevation is discouraged, unless it can be demonstrated that it enhances the resource. 9.7 A lightwell may be used to permit light into below-grade living space. o In general a lightwell is prohibited on a wall that faces a street (per the Residential Design Standards). o The size of a lightwell should be minimized. o A lightwell that is used as a walkout space may be used only in limited situations and will be considered on a case-by-case basis. If a walkout space is feasible, it should be surrounded by a simple fence or rail. Existing Additions 10.1 Preserve an older addition that has achieved historic significance in its own right. o Such an addition is usually similar in character to the original building in terms of materials, finishes and design. 10.2 A more recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed. New Additions 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the - primary building is maintained. a A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the primary building is inappropriate. o An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is inappropriate. o An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style should be avoided. o 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. o An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining visually compatible with these earlier features. 10 P34 o A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material or a differentiation between historic, and more current styles are all techniques that may be considered to help define a change from old to new construction. 10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building. o An addition that is lower than or similar to the height of the primary building is preferred. 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. o Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate. o Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not alter the exterior mass of a building. o Set back an addition from primary facades in order to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. A minimum setback of 10 feet on primary structures is recommended. 10.9 Roof forms should be similar to those of the historic building. Typically, gable, hip and shed roofs are appropriate. Flat roofs are generally inappropriate for additions on residential structures with sloped roofs. 10.10 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features. o For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eavelines should be avoided. Building Orientation (new buildings on Landmark Lots) 11.1 Orient the primary entrance of a new building to the street. o The building should be arranged parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid pattern of the site. 11.2 In a residential context, clearly define the primary entrance to a new building by usirig a front porch. o The front porch should be "functional" in that it is used as a means of access to the entry. - o A new porch should be similar in size and shape to those seen traditionally. o In some cases, the front door itself may be positioned perpendicular to the street; nonetheless, the entry should still be clearly defined with a walkway and porch that orients to the street. 11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale with the historic buildings on the parcel. o Subdivide larger masses into smaller "modulestt 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. o The primary plane of the front should not appear taller than the historic structure. o The front should include a one-story element, such as a porch. 11 P35 00 11.5 Use building forms that are similar to those of the historic property. o They should not overwhelm the originalin scale. 11.6 Use roof forms that are similar to those seen traditionally in the block. o Sloping roofs such as gable and hip roofs are appropriate for primary roof forms. o Flat roofs should be used only in areas where it is appropriate to the context. o On a residential structure, eave depths should be similar to those seen traditionally in the context. o Exotic building and roof forms that would detract from the visual continuity of the street are discouraged. These include geodesic domes and A-frames. 11.9 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those of the historic property. o These include windows, doors and porches. o Overall, details should be modest in character. 11.10 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged. This 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. Driveways & Parking 14.17 Design a new driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual impact. o Plan parking areas and driveways in a manner that utilizes existing curb cuts. New curb cuts are not permitted. o If an alley exists, a new driveway must be located off of it. 14.18 Garages should not dominate the street scene. See Chapter 8: Secondary Stnictures. 12 P36 00 .. HAAS LAND PLANNING, LLC September 19, 2003 Mrs. Amy Guthrie Historic Preservation Planner 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: 811 & 819 East Hopkins Avenue Conceptual Application (Units 1 and 2, Plat of Fellman Condominiums, A Colorado Common Interest Community, Situated on Lots C, D, E & F, Block 31, East Aspen Townsite, City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado) Dear Amy: Please consider this letter and the accompanying plan sets to constitute a formal request for approval of a conceptual development for the above- captioned property. The applicants, Tom and Darlyn Fellman, own 819 East Hopkins Avenue and are in the process of taking ownership of 811 East Hopkins Avenue. In the meantime, the current owner of 811 East Hopkins Avenue has authorized the Fellmans to pursue land use approvals that include the 811 East Hopkins Avenue property. The subject properties include two (2) historic miner's cottages, an associated historic shed structure located along the alley, and a nearly State-record size specimen cottonwood tree that must be preserved. Project Site & Neighborhood (Existing Conditions) The property addressed in this application includes both the 9,000 square foot 819 East Hopkins Avenue (Lots D-F) and the 3,000 square foot 811 East Hopkins Avenue (Lot C) properties. These properties are legally described as Units 1 and 2, as depicted on The Plat of Fellman Condominiums, A Colorado Common Interest Condominium Community Situated on Lots C D, E & F, Block 31 of the East Aspen Addition, City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado (recorded in the Office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder in Book 9 at Page 96). 819 East Hopkins Avenue has been assigned a Parcel Identification Number of 2737- 182-08-003 by the Pitkin County Assessor's Office. The Parcel Identification Number for 811 East Hopkins Avenue is 2737-182-08-002. â€¢201 N. MILL STREET, SUITE 108â€¢ ASPEN, COLORADOâ€¢81611 â€¢ â€¢ PHONE: (970) 925-7819 â€¢ FAX: (970) 925-7395 â€¢ A Vicinity Map showing the property location within the surrounding area is provided below. Â¢~AA/aVEST-2 - - -'--0 j h N44Â¢. ' ,&OUORM 40't = 9 Ball Field bE -\ af>\ hai 5 ~E,2 .~fAA 25, C C *Mst *, Â»\. 9@ , jaepcke Far*494* Â°Â« 3 I ~ 194 3 3 //2 .' 3 lierron Par - 8, f Adrb'haner Park/ **%04_,t,v f *#-*:*-- 4 . E,fiÂ¥~ I { 1*.*. 16 2 4.4 7 3 3 4 741. 107 tiortt~*-~~-- 0 1 C *A l 1. 04 a R 'T*~-j <._.f jr L 9.40 1 5 AJ K % Â§44 JikE 1 01 f~~">f'~ ~9,~ 4. I _02003 MgoQuest.com. Inc.: 02003 Navi,atbn Teohnobatas,%,%~ 74** '*1 Vicinity Map - 811 & 819 East Hopkins Avenue As the vicinity map shows, the project site is conveniently located within a couple blocks of the commercial core and downtown. RFTA stops, parks, and pedestrian/bike paths are also within easy walking distance of the project site. City Market and other essential conveniences are alllocated within just a few blocks. Given the project site location, the zoning, and the surrounding development patterns, the site is ideally situated for multi-family residential development and the provision of affordable/employee housing. There are three (3) existing structures on the project site, namely the 819 residence, the 811 residence (or "Gates" house), and the shed. All are considered historically significant; the two residences are miner's cottages and the shed is an accessory structure situated along the alley frontage. The 819 residence is on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures (hereinafter "the Inventory"), and is a two-bedroom single-family Victorian residence built in the 1880s (estimated, per the Inventory). This Victorian is a one-story "L-shaped" structure with a cross gable, metal roof. It is a typical wood frame Miner's Cottage, with a gable end facing the street and a large bay window as the principal window. The bay is comprised of four double-hung windows with a decorative frieze and a stone base. A cross-gable runs parallel to the street with a shed roof porch infilling the corner. A shed roof FELLMAN 811 &819 E. HOPKINS CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PAGE 2 Pa addition, also from the main ridge, extends to the back, with an additional hipped roof addition on the rear. The 811/Gates residence is a single-family house situated on Lot C of the property. The historic portion of the home is one-story, but a large two-story addition has been made to the rear. The site is listed on the Inventory, but its historic integrity has been severely compromised not only be many inappropriate additions but aIso by inappropriate renovations that have obscured the structure's historic form, such as a new entry door, new clapboard siding, enclosure of the front porch, addition of arched windows, and an overwhelmingly large two-story addition to the rear. Also, virtually every historic window has been replaced with metal/aluminum clad windows. The accessory structure on the project site is a 150 square foot wooden storage shed located on the alley frontage (behind the 819 residence). While not the reason for the property's inclusion on the Inventory, the shed is believed to contribute to the historic significance of the site. There also exists on the property a cottonwood tree of nearly State-record size. The City of Aspen Parks Department has required that any buildings to be developed on the project site be designed and located so as to provide adequate space for preservation of the tree's root system. Two large, fuIIy mature lodgepole pine trees are located in front of the historic Victorian residences, approximately twelve inches (12") off the front property line and in the East Hopkins Avenue right-of-way. The property is zoned Residential Multi-Family (R/MF) and is surrounded on all sides by relatively large two- and three-story multi-family housing blocks. As the attached Neighborhood Map illustrates, the immediate neighborhood surrounding the subject property is predominantly multi-family residential in nature, with a handful of duplexes mixed in as well as an occasional single-family residence. Buildings tend to be two-to-three stories in height and consume a large portion of the property on which they sit. Architectural character varies quite widely, from 1970s-contemporary to Victorian and Neo-Victorian, and from stone and timber structures to 1990s- contemporary. Properties on the 800-block of East Hopkins Avenue are almost exclusively developed with multi-family residential structures ranging from two- to three-stories in height. Next door, to the west is 801 East Hopkins Avenue (a 6,000 square foot lot) which includes seven or eight multi-family residential dwelling units in a three-story structure with a flat roof, exposed stair towers, and unpaved parking off the alley. Next door, to the east, is 825 East Hopkins Avenue (a 6,000 square foot lot) which includes several multi-family residential dwelling units in a two-and-one-half (2.5) story structure with pitched roofs; FELLMAN 811 &819 E. HOPKINS CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENTAPPLICATION PAGE 3 ... parking for this building is provided off the street and off the alley. (See Neighborhood Map.) The north half of the 800-block on East Hyman Avenue shares the alley with the subject property. Directly across the alley from the subject property is two virtually identical duplex structures (816/818 and 820/822 East Hyman), each on 6,000 square foot lots. These are two-plus story structures with flat roofs and garages accessed from the alley. The rest of that block includes a multi- family structure (800 E. Hyman, a 6,000 square foot lot), and two single-family homes (824 and 826 E. Hyman). (See Neighborhood Map.) Across the street from the subject property is the north half of the East Hopkins Avenue 800-block. This half block contains only three lots, moving from west to east: 800 East Hopkins (a 15,000 square foot lot) has a three-story multi-family residential structure (plus exposed basement level) with flat roofs and at least ten dwelling units known as the Larkspur; 830 East Hopkins is the Centennial Park multi-family residences of two-and-one-half (2.5) stories (including garden level), some eight dwelling units, a combination of flat and pitched roofs, exposed stairways, and a parking lot accessed from the street. 898 East Hopkins Avenue is a single-family home with a driveway and two-car garage facing the street. 898 E. Hopkins and the Mountain River Manor property immediately to its east (900 East Hopkins Avenue) face straight down West End Street and are separated by a surface parking lot that serves the multi-family residences of Mountain River Manor. (See Neighborhood Map.) The immediate neighborhood, described as the 800-block of East Hopkins Avenue (exclusive of the subject site) and those properties located on the other side of the adjoining alley, have a combined average density of approximately 1 dwelling unit per 1,744 square feet of lot area. By comparison, the subject proposal includes 1 dwelling unit per 4,000 square feet of lot area, plus an ADU. Background The Historic Preservation Commission (hereinafter the "HI?C") has reviewed and approved (April 23,2003) a conceptual development application involving the 819 East Hopkins Avenue property only. The approved conceptual major development plan includes restoration of the historic Victorian (819 residence) after on-site relocation onto a new foundation with a basement. The hipped roof addition to the rear of the Victorian was to be removed as part of the historic restoration efforts. The approved basement addition and interior remodel included a third bedroom. FELLMAN 811 & 819 E. HOPKINS CONCEPTUALDEVELOPMENTAPPLICATION PAGE 4 The HPC approval also provides for relocation and adaptive reuse of the shed such that it would be added onto and become a two-bedroom dwelling unit. Finally, the HPC approval allows for development of a new residential structure and preservation of a heritage cottonwood. The total HPC approval includes three detached residential structures on the 9,000 square foot lot where the two of the three residences (the two that are historically significant) would be deed restricted as affordable housing. After having time to review and further consider the approved plans, it has been determined by the owner that the project does not satisfy his family's needs; thus, the applicant does not want to spend the resources that would be required to build the approved project. Further, the applicant does not want to sell the property but has, instead, decided to submit these revised and substantially improved development plans for review and approval. This new formal application requests conceptual approval of a significant development on the entire 12,000 square foot property, including 811 and 819 East Hopkins Avenue. Associated incidental approvals are requested to allow on-site relocations, variances and special review approvals, ali as detailed below. The Proposal The applicant recognizes that the subject site presents many relatively unique challenges inasmuch as it contains two miners' cottages and an associated out-building as well as a large cottonwood tree that sits near the center of the site and must be preserved. Further, the R/MF zoning allows for significantly more development potential than ordinarily found on historically designated, residential properties. In recognition of these somewhat extraordinary circumstances, the applicant held a work session as a means of engaging the experience and expertise of the HPC at an early juncture in the design and conceptualization of the project. The applicant received positive feedback and constructive suggestions. The submitted plans have incorporated the suggestions offered by members of the HPC. Please refer to the attached plan sets while reviewing the following description of the proposal. The labels provided on the plans refer to the relocated 811/Gates residence as "ADU," the relocated 819 residence as "AH-1," the relocated shed with addition as "AH-2," and the new residence as "Unit 1." The submitted development plans include preservation of the cottonwood tree; restoration and preservation of both miner's cottages after their on-site relocations; on-site relocation and adaptive reuse of the alley structure with an addition; and, development of a new, detached residential structure on the site. The 819 East Hopkins Avenue miner's cottage and the shed structure with FELLMAN 811 &819 E. HOPKINS CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PAGE 5 addition will both be deed restricted and sold as affordable housing. The 811 East Hopkins miner's cottage will be used as an accessory dwelling unit. The plans involve relocating the 819 residence to the northeast corner of the property. The large addition on the 811 (Gates) structure wilI be removed before relocating the residence to be restored alongside and to the east of the relocated 819 cottage. The relocated and restored Gates residence will be used as a detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU), accessory to the new free market residence described below. The shed structure will be rotated 180 degrees (to a north/south orientation) after being relocated and added onto; the revised structure will provide a two-bedroom affordable housing unit located along the alley and the shed portion will serve as an attached one-car garage. The shed/alley residence will sit in the southeast corner of the property, directly behind the relocated 819 cottage. Enough space will be provided between the 819 residence and the alley shed/residence to accommodate preservation of the cottonwood tree. A new three-bedroom residence will be build along the westerly side of the property, roughly in the current location of the Gates residence. This new residence wilI be "L-shaped" to parallel not onIy the west property line but also the alley frontage behind the relocated Gates residence (ADU). This new residence will present a one-story element on its front facade to "inflect" toward and complement the 811 and 819 structures. To the west and south of the one- story element (the size of which approximates that of the 811 and 819 structures), the new residence will be two stories above grade. The portions of the new structure that will be located behind the ADU (811 residence) will not have any subgrade space in a further effort to protect the cottonwood's root system and ensure its preservation. The applicant proposes to restore the miners' cottages to their period materials, roof forms and building footprints (as such is/are depicted on the 1904 Sanborne map). As described above, the Gates residence has been severely altered over the years and the applicant intends to restore it to glory. Alterations to be removed or replaced include the front porch enclosure and the aluminum clad windows. It seems from site investigations that only one historic window remains on the Gates residence, that being the front bay window. The bay window will be restored and preserved, while the aluminum clad windows will be removed and replaced. The arched windows will be removed as well. The original location of the front door on the Gates residence will be restored (opening still remains), which was changed when the porch was enclosed. On the east elevation, the arched window in the gable end will be removed, leaving a more in-character double hung window, and an aluminum FELLMAN 811 & 819 E. HOPKINS CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PAGE 6 window will be replaced with a double-hung wood clad window. Also, new windows will be added on the east elevation to allow for natural light in the master bedroom and bathroom of the ADU. The south fagade of the historic residence no longer exists as an addition to the south side of the building resulted in its removal. A new south fagade with three double-hung windows will be constructed after the addition is removed, and it will be in character with the remaining historic facades. On the west elevation, the secondary front door will be restored, as will the double-hung window under the porch. Also on the west elevation, the arched window in the gable end will be removed and the double-hung aluminum window below it will be reconfigured. On the 819 residence, the non-historic addition at the rear will be removed, and the one remaining historic window on the south/rear side wilI be relocated to the east elevation. All windows shown on the proposed south/rear elevation are new. This south elevation includes a new shed addition placed in the same configuration indicated on the Sanborne maps to have existed historically; thus, these new windows are placed in new construction but of a scale and design that is in keeping with the historic character and proportions of the building. Conversely, on the north/front elevation, the windows, doors, siding and building, in general, are to remain unchanged. The west elevation of the 819 residence does not currently have any windows at all, but the proposal includes four sets of new, appropriately proportioned and scaled windows. The east elevation includes a new door, and the historic window relocated from the rear side, both in the new shed addition described in the previous paragraph. A new, small double-hung window is proposed in the gable end of the east elevation, and it is proposed that the secondary historic door under the front porch be restored. The new residential structure (Unit 1) will be set back a minimum of 10'- 0" from the historic buildings, and will be sympathetic in height roof forms and massing. Nevertheless, accommodation of the proposed plans requires a few variances from the dimensional requirements of the R/MF zone, as described below; however, the applicant is not requesting any floor area bonuses. Comparison with Previously Approved Plans While the current proposal provides a vast improvement over the plans previously approved by the HPC, there remain a number of similarities between the two. For instance, the current plans still group the historic resources together in the manner desired by the HPC. The plan to relocate the 819 residence and placing a basement under it is still the same, albeit to a modified location. Similarly, the plan to rotate and relocate the shed structure then place an FELLMAN 811 &819 E. HOPKINS CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PAGE 7 addition onto it is still the same. In fact the proposed designs for the 819 residence and shed structure with addition have not changed, nor have the restoration plans for both of these resources. The main differences between the approved plans and the currently proposed plans are in the design of the new structure and the inclusion of the Gates residence. In comparison with the conceptually approved project this proposal represents a vast improvement in at least the following ways: â€¢ It is more sensitive to neighboring properties by providing greater side yard setbacks and a predominantly single-story presentation along the East Hopkins Avenue street frontage; this ensures greater solar access for the properties on either side and greater preservation of Aspen Mountain views from across the street. â€¢ Density and associated impacts thereof are reduced from that of four dwelling units to that attributable to three units. â€¢ Better preservation of the cottonwood tree by providing not only more space around the tree itself but a reduction in the required amount of excavation near the root system. â€¢ Complete restoration of two (2) historic miners' cottages on the East Hopkins Avenue frontage (previous approval called for restoration of just one of the miner's cottages). The Proposal Relative to the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines (for review ofconceptual application and on-site relocations) The only applicable review standard for Conceptual Review of a Major Development project is a determination of consistency with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines (hereinafter "the Guidelines"). An FAR bonus is not requested. Accordingly, the following portion of this application demonstrates adequate consistency with a sufficient number of relevant guidelines, as called for in italicized print on the very first page of the Guidelines. Specifically, the Guidelines state that ...not every guideline will apply to each project, and some balancing of the guidelines must occur on a case-by-case basis. The HPC must determine that a sujficient number of relevant guidelines have been adequately met in order to approve a project proposal. FELLMAN 811 &819 E. HOPKINS CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PAGE 8 Conceptual Review focuses on the height scale, massing, and proportions of a proposal. The heights, scale, massing and proportions presented in the proposed plan provide an appropriate relationship with the historic structures, will not compete with or overwhelm the historic structures, and will not compromise the integrity or historic significance of the property. Where additions and alterations are proposed to historic structures, these changes are in-character with and subordinate and subservient to the historic structures. The following narratives demonstrate consistency with those Guidelines applicable to the subject proposal. Chapter l of the Guidelines addresses the streetscape and lot features. The neighborhood of the subject site maintains no historic structures other than the ones on this property. The proposal keeps the historic structures grouped together while preserving the historic landscape and landscape elements, including the exceptionally large cottonwood and the two conifers located near the front property line. The two miner's cottages wiIl maintain their proximity to the front lot line, but will be moved out from behind the large conifers that obscure their visibility. Further, the large and inappropriate addition on the Gates residence will be removed, thereby enhancing its contribution to the streetscape. The new structure wiII provide an appropriate buffer between the restored Gates residence and the large multi-family structure to the west. Walkways to the front porches will be recreated in simple, proper form. In accordance with Chapter 2 of the Guidelines, historic building materials will be maintained and preserved in place to the maximum extent practicable. For the original walls and windows that no longer exist on the historic structures, use of replacement materials will follow the recommendations of Guidelines 2.7 and 2.8. The description of the proposal, above, provides a detailed explanation of all proposed changes to existing fenestration on the historic structures. Consistent with Chapter 3, all character-defining historic windows and their distinctive arrangements on primary facades will be preserved. Where historic windows exist, they will be preserved in place with one minor exception. The one exception is a window on the rear of the 819 residence, which is not in a character-defining location. Indeed, it is located on the least visible portion of the structure. The applicant is not proposing to eliminate this window altogether, rather it will be relocated to the east fagade. Moreover, in many cases, distinctive arrangements of character-defining fenestrations will be restored to their historic condition, thereby eliminating the unfortunate and inappropriate changes that have taken place (i.e., arched windows on primary facades). FELLMAN 811 &819 E. HOPKINS CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PAGE 9 The character-defining features of the historic doors, and their distinctive materials and placement will be restored and/or preserved, as applicable, thereby ensuring consistency with Chapter 4 of the Guidelines. For a detailed explanation of historic door restoration efforts, particularly on the Gates residence, please refer to the Proposal description provided earlier. Secondary front porch doors will be restored on both residences. Both of the historic residences benefit from character-defining front porches, although the one on the Gates residence has been enclosed. As dictated by Chapter 5, the porch of the 819 residence will be preserved, with its secondary front door restored. The front porch enclosure on the Gates residence will be removed and the historic elements of the porch will be restored. Similarly, architectural detailing on both residences is being preserved and restored in accordance with the Guidelines and policies of Chapter 6. Chapter 7 provides that the character of a historical roof should be preserved, including its form and materials. The proposal does not involve any changes to the historical roofs, their forms or their materials. The original eave lines and eave depths are being maintained. In a related vein, the inappropriate additions on both residences are being removed and replaced with additions that match the forms shown on the Sanborne maps. Chapter 8 addresses treatment of secondary structures. The overriding policy of this Chapter states that "When a secondary structure is determined to be histoyically significant, it should be preserved. This may include... adapting it to a new use so that the building continues to serve a jitnction." The shed structure on the site is in severe disrepair. Nevertheless, the proposed preservation and adaptive reuse of the shed structure is consistent with the guiding policy of Chapter 8. Indeed, the proposal for the shed structure has not been changed from that granted conceptual approval by the HPC back in April of this year. Chapter 9 states that proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis. The proposal involves relocation of both residences and the shed. The structures will remain on-site and the residences will maintain their current/historic orientations. Their heights above grade will not be perceivably altered. The Guidelines state that in general, relocation has less impact on individual landmark structures than those in a historic district; the subject property is not in a historic district. The relocation will also enable enhanced preservation by allowing construction of proper foundations and, thus, better support for the aging structures. Further, existing approvals included relocation of the 819 residence and the shed structure, but no changes (not even restoration efforts) on the Gates residence were contemplated at that time. FELLMAN 811 & 819 E. HOPKINS CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PAGE 10 Overall, the current proposal provides a far greater preservation effort which is enabled only by the on-site relocations. After experimenting with a great many conceptual site plans, it has become clear to the applicant that the proposed relocations provide the best, most effective, and only desirable preservation alternative. As explained above, the relocated structures will be rehabilitated and their historic integrity wilI be restored. Also as described above, the surrounding neighborhood maintains no historic structures other than the ones on the subject property. The proposal keeps the historic structures grouped together while preserving the exceptionally large cottonwood and the two conifers located near the front property line. The two miner's cottages will maintain their proximity to the front lot line, but will be moved out from behind the large conifers that obscure their visibility. The new structure is designed in accordance with the Guidelines for new construction, as demonstrated below, and will provide an appropriate buffer between the restored residences and the large multi-family structure to the west. Chapter 10 addresses how to appropriately design new additions to historic structures. In the case of the Gates house, the inappropriate additions wilI be removed without replacement. In the case of the 819 house and as previously granted conceptual approval by the HPC, an existing addition will be removed and replaced with a shed roof addition matching the form of the original structure, as indicated on the Sanborne maps. The proposal is consistent with the Chapter 10 guidelines. For example: (10.3) one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary buildings will be fully maintained (as described in the foregoing); (10.4) the new addition will be recognizable as a product of its own time due to its proportions, materials, and fenestration; (10.6) the addition is compatible, subordinate and subservient in size and scale, with lower plate heights, lower eave heights and a lower overall height than that of the historic house; (10.8) the addition is set at the rear of the historic structure to minimize visual impact and to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent; (10.9) roof forms of the addition are similar to those of the original historic structure; and, (10.10) all historically important architectural features of the historic structure are preserved without being destroyed or obscured. Chapter 11 states, as its guiding Policy, that "In some cases a new primary structure may be constructed on a parcel that includes a landmarked structure. In such cases, it is important that the new building be compatible with the historic structure such that its integrity is maintained." Given the existing conceptual approvals for the site, the decision allowing a new primary structure on the subject parcel has already been accepted. The current proposal does a far greater job of providing compatibility with and maintaining the integrity of the historic structures. The current proposal is fully consistent with the "Basic Approach" outlined in Chapter 11 for designing new buildings. FELLMAN 811 & 819 E. HOPKINS CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PAGE 1 1 In accordance with Guidelines 11.1 and 11.2, the new building maintains an appropriate orientation with a primary entrance facing the street and the primary entrance is clearly defined under a front porch. The proposed mass and scale of the new residence takes cues from not only Guidelines 11.3 and 11.4 but also from the suggestions made by staff and the commissioners at the August 13, 2003 work session. For instance, the masses of the front elevation are subdivided into "modules," including a substantial one-story element and front porch. Also, rather than include an entirely one-story street-fronting presentation (as presented at the work session), the applicant has accomplished a design appearing similar in scale with the historic structures on the parcel by exceeding the letter and adhering to the spirit of the so-called "inflection" standard. This was done at the suggestion of staff and the Commission. The suggestion came as a means of ensuring a design that would not from the front read like a historic building with the type of large, "balloon" addition on the rear that is too pervasive in Aspen. The new residence uses building and roof forms that are similar to those of the historic structures and those seen traditionally in the block, as called for under Guidelines 11.5 and 11.6. Finally, the proposed architecture complements the historic structures without imitation, and will be readily discernable as a product of its own time. The Guidelines of Chapters 12 and 13 are not applicable as the project site is not on Main Street or in the Commercial Core Historic District. For the most part, the Guidelines of Chapter 14 are more applicable to Final reviews than they are to Conceptual reviews. Nevertheless, the project is and will be found consistent with Chapter 14's general guidelines addressing such topics as accessibility, color, lighting, on-going maintenance, and treatment of mechanical equipment service areas, driveways and parking. In total, the project is consistent with the HPC Design Guidelines as thoroughly demonstrated above. More importantly, the applicant maintains a conceptual approval from the HPC, but the current proposal provides a far greater preservation effort, greater protection for the nearly State-record size cottonwood tree, and significantly greater consistency with the HPC Design Guidelines. Also, the proposal provides two deed-restricted affordable housing units as well as an ADU without even maximizing the zoned density or floor area potentials. This project would be worthy of an FAR bonus, but one is not even requested. FELLMAN 811 &819 E. HOPKINS CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PAGE 12 Variances As mentioned earlier, accommodation of the proposed plans requires variances from the dimensional requirements of the R/MF zone, reductions in parking requirements, and variances from the Residential Design Standards, as described below. The applicant is not requesting any floor area bonuses. The specifically requested variances or special review approvals, as applicable, include: (a) 7' front yard setbacks for each of the two miner's cottages (a 3' variance from the 10' minimum front yard setback requirement); (b) 1'-6" rear yard setbacks for the easternmost portion of the new residence and for the "AH-2" structure (a 9'-6" variance from the 10' minimum rear yard setback requirement); (c) 1 on-site parking space per AH unit (HPC Parking variance to reduce the requirements from 2 spaces to 1 space per AH unit); (d) 8' separation distance between the 811 (ADU) and 819 miners' cottage buildings (a 2' reduction by special review from the 10' separation distance requirement); (e) No on-site parking spacefbr the ADU (special review approval to reduce the requirement from 1 space to no spaces); (f) a variance from Residential Design Standard 26.410.040(D)(1)(a), Building Elements, to allow front entry doors on the new residence and on the ADU to be more than ten feet back from the front most wall of the respective buildings; and, (g) a 9% variance from the minimum "open space" requirement to allow 26% open space where 35% is otherwise required (HPC to act as Board of Adjustment in reviewing this variance only); The requested setback variances ("a" and "b," above) are to be reviewed under standards of Code Section 26.415.110(B), and the requested parking requirements variance for the affordable housing units ("c," above) is to be considered under the standards of Section 26.415.110(C). The special review request to reduce the otherwise required separation distances between detached structures ("d," above) is to be considered under the standards of Section 26.430.040 of the Code, while the special review request to reduce the off-street parking requirement for the ADU ("e," above) is to be considered under the FELLMAN 811 &819 E. HOPKINS CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PAGE 13 provisions of Section 26.520.080(D). The variance from the Building Elements standard of the Residential Design Standards ("t" above) gets reviewed according to the standards of the Design Review Appeal Committee, as enumerated in Section 26.222.010 of the Code. Finally, the "open space" variance ("g," above) is to be reviewed pursuant to the Board of Adjustment standards of Code Section 26.314.040. Each of these variances or special review requests and the applicable review standards are specifically addressed below. Setback Variances, Section 26.415.110(B) Section 26.415.110(B) of the Code states that dimensional variations are allowed on projects involving designated properties to create development that is more consistent with the character of the historic property than would be required by the underlying zoning's dimensional standards. Specifically, the HPC is empowered to grant variances for designated properties to allow: a. Development in the side, rear and front setbacks; b. Development that does not meet the minimum distance requirements between buildings; c. Up to five (5) percent additional site coverage; d. Less open space than required for the on-site relocation of commercial historic properties. The proposed conceptual development plan requires a 3' variance from the 10' minimum front yard setback requirement (to allow 7' front yard setbacks for each of the two miner's cottages), and a 9'-6" variance from the 10' minimum rear yard setback requirement (to allow 1'-6" rear yard setbacks for the easternmost portion of the new residence and for the "AH-2" structure). In granting these variances, the HPC must find that the requested variances: a. Are similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district; and/or b. Enhance or mitigate an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district. The requested front and rear yard setback variances maintain consistency with the patterns, features, and character of the historic property and the neighborhood. A substantial distance (approximately 15 feet) is maintained between the front property line and the edge of pavement on East Hopkins Avenue; thus, the perceived setbacks from East Hopkins Avenue will be some FELLMAN 811 & 819 E. HOPKINS CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PAGE 14 twenty-two plus feet. The proposed front yard setbacks are identical to the existing front setback of the Gates house. Similarly, the current location of the shed is less than two feet from the rear property line. The proposed front yard and rear yard setbacks are a function of and are necessary for preservation of the nearly State-record size cottonwood tree on the property. That is, moving the structures into the front and rear setbacks allow for provision of greater room for the trees root system and better enables this preservation effort. Further, use of the front and rear yard setback areas enhances the preservation efforts by facilitating appropriate separation distances between the structures. Affordable Housing Parking Variance, Section 26.415.110(C) Section 26.415.110(CD of the Code provides that a "parking reduction... may be approved upon a jinding by the HPC that it will enhance or mitigate an adverse impact on the historic signijicance or architectural character ofa designated historic property, an adjoining designated property or a historic district." The applicant is providing two detached, deed restricted single-family dwelling units as affordable housing. The Code requires provision of two on-site parking spaces for each of these units. The applicant cannot fit the required amount of spaces onto the site without severely compromising the entire plan, and there is ample parking available on the adjoining public streets. Instead, the applicant's proposal provides one on-site parking space for each of the two deed restricted units. The project's site, itself, helps to mitigate the demand for on-site parking. That is, the property is conveniently located within a couple blocks of the commercial core and downtown. RFTA stops, parks, and pedestrian/bike paths are also within easy walking distance of the project site. City Market and other essential conveniences are alllocated within just a few blocks. Given the convenient location of the project site in relation to downtown Aspen, skiing, shopping, groceries, banking, public facilities (City Hall, Library, Courthouse, Parks, etc.), and public transportation, it is anticipated that residents wiII not require frequent use of their vehicle(s), and therefore, will not require the most convenient parking possible. Thus, parking any second vehicles on the public streets with the City-issued parking permits that the residents are entitled to will not be a hardship. There is no doubt that the surrounding streets network can, in their existing condition, adequately and safely absorb the additional parking demand that might result from the proposed development. The previously approved conceptual plan provided for all required parking but did not present a preservation effort nearly as desirable as that of the current plan. The current plan achieves too many goals to also meet the FELLMAN 811 &819 E. HOPKINS CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PAGE 15 otherwise applicable parking requirement. That is, the plan provides for preservation and restoration of not one, not two, but three historic structures while also preserving a nearly State-record size cottonwood tree that sits roughly in the center of the site. The plan provides a new residential structure with a design that is consistent with the HPC Guidelines. Further, the plan provides not one, but two deed restricted, affordable, detached single-family dwelling units as well as a detached accessory dwelling unit. All of these goals are achieved without even developing to the maximum possible density or floor area limits of the underlying R/MF zone district. To require the applicant to provide two on-site parking spaces for each of the affordable housing units would severely compromise, if not completely eliminate the applicant's ability to achieve one or more of the goals described in the preceding paragraph. Therefore, allowing the applicant to use the more than ample parking available on the adjoining public streets enhances the ability to provide a successful and exemplary preservation effort. Further, it mitigates the potential for unnecessary on-site parking to have an adverse impact on the historic significance and architectural character of the designated property. Minimum Distance between Buildings Special Review, Section 26.430.040 The minimum distance between buildings on a lot in the R/MF zone district is 10 feet; however, this dimensional requirement provision also states that for detached buildings on one lot the minimum distance between buildings may be reduced to 6 feet subject to Special Review in accordance with Chapter 26.430 of the Code. The applicant proposes a distance of 8 feet between the two historic residential structures. All other detached structures will maintain separation distances of at least 10 feet. Section 26.430.040 of the Code states that "Whenever the dimensional requirements of a proposed development are subject to special review, the development application shall only be approved ifthejbllowing conditions are met:" 1. The mass, height, density, configuration, amount of open space, landscaping and setbacks Of the proposed development are designed in a manner which is compatible with or enhances the character Of surrounding land uses and is consistent with the pu,poses ofthe underlying zone district. It has been amply demonstrated in the foregoing portions of this application that the mass, height density, and configuration of the proposed development are designed in a manner that are not only compatible with but also enhance the character of surrounding land uses. The purpose of the R/MF FELLMAN 811 & 819 E. HOPKINS CONCEPTUALDEVELOPMENTAPPLICATION PAGE 16 zone district is to "providejbr the use of landjbr intensive long-term residential purposes, with customary accessory uses." The proposal provides for relatively intensive use of the land, given the existing constraints of three historic structures and a very large tree that must be preserved in its location close to the center of the property. The proposal includes one free market residence, one ADU (with a deed restriction requiring rental periods of not less than six months at a time), and two deed restricted dwelIing units; these are perfect examples of long-term residential uses and customary accessory uses. Finally, the proposed eight foot separation distance between the two historic residences exceeds the minimum separation distance that could be requested (6 feet is the minimum), and is consistent with many historic adjacencies found throughout town. This distance could easily be increased to 10 feet but that would move the Gates residence closer to the new structure and have an adverse impact on the site plan from a historic preservation perspective. In other words, it is more important to have a maximized separation between the old and the new, than it is to have two feet of increased separation between two historic structures. ADU Parking Special Review, Section 26.520.080(D) The ADU design standards require one off-street parking space per ADU. An application requesting a variance from the ADU design standards is processed as a special review. If the property is listed on the Inventory, as the subject property is, and the application has been authorized for consolidation pursuant to Section 26.304 of the Code (as this application has been), the Historic Preservation Commission is to consider the special review request. A special review for an ADU is to be based on conformance with the following criteria: 1. 7-he proposed ADU is designed in a manner which promotes the purpose ofthe ADUprogram, promotes thepulpose of the zone district in which it is proposed, and promotes the unit' s general livability; and, The ADU exceeds all applicable design standards with the exception of the parking requirement. It will be one of the best ADUs in the City. The ADU is a free-standing, restored historic residence and will be located on the front of the property, very close to nearby on-street parking. Residents will be entitled to parking in the public streets with City-issued residential parking permits. 2. The proposed ADU is designed to be compatible with, and subordinate in character to, the primary residence considering all dimensions, site 0 FELLMAN 811 &819 E. HOPKINS CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PAGE 17 conjiguration, landscaping, privacy, and historical signijicance ofthe property; and, Consistency with the HPC Design Guidelines ensures that this standard is met and exceeded. 3. 771eproposed ADUis designed in a manner which is compatible with or enhances the character ofthe neighborhood considering all dimensions, density, designated view planes, operating characteristics, trafic, availability ofon-street parking, availability of transitservices, and walking proximity to employment and recreational opportunities. Again, consistency with the HPC Design Guidelines ensures that this standard is met and exceeded. Also, as stated above, the project's site, itself, helps to mitigate the demand for on-site parking. That is, the property is conveniently located within a couple blocks of the commercial core and downtown. RFTA stops, parks, and pedestrian/bike paths are also within easy walking distance of the project site. City Market and other essential conveniences are ali located within just a few blocks. Given the convenient location of the project site in relation to downtown Aspen, skiing, shopping, groceries, banking, public facilities (City Hall, Library, Courthouse, Parks, etc.), and public transportation, it is anticipated that residents of the ADU will not require frequent use of their vehicle, and therefore, will not require the most convenient parking possible. Thus, parking on the public streets with the City-issued residential parking permits that the residents are entitled to will not be a hardship. There is no doubt that the surrounding streets network can, in their existing condition, adequately, safely, and easily absorb the additional parking demand that might result from the proposed ADU. 4 Residential Design Standards Variance, Section 26.222.010 Residential Design Standard 26.410.040(D)(1)(a), Building Elements, requires, among other things, that front entry doors be no more than 10 feet back from the front most wall of the building. The front entry doors on the new residence and on the ADU are set back approximately 14.5 feet and 16 feet respectively, from their front most walls. Section 26.222.010 of the Code states that "Any appealfor exemption B*om the Residential Design Standards should [emphasis added] simply and succinctly identifM why, ifgranted, the exception would: (1) yield greater compliance with the goals Of the Aspen Area Community Plan, and (2) more dectively address the issue or problem a FELLMAN 811 &819 E. HOPKINS CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PAGE 18 given standard or prouision responds to, or be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. The front most wall of the new residence is set back 10' from the front property line while the front most wall of the ADU has a front yard setback of approximately 7'-2". The ADU is a historic structure and its existing, historic front porch has a depth of approximately 16 feet; therefore, the distance of the front door from the front most wall of the structure is an already established and historically significant design element. The designed location of the front porch and front door of the new structure were carefully chosen in an effort to align with and complement the adjacent historic structure, which happens to have an unusually deep front porch. By having a front porch of approximately 14.5 feet in depth on the new residence, its front door is at an approximately even distance from the front property line as that of the historic house. The new structure's front door could easily be moved 4.5 feet forward to comply with the letter of the standard, but it is felt that doing so would compromise the complementary nature of new structure and its compatibility with the historic resource. Doing so would run counter to the HPC Design Guidelines. Given the design concerns and explanations provided above, it is fair to say that the proposed front entry door setbacks more effectively address the issue the subject residential design standard responds to than would a design that complies with the letter of the requirement. Historic preservation and complementary design of adjacent new construction are goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan. Minimum Open Space Variance, Section 26.314.040 The R/MF zone district requires that a site plan provide at least 35% of the lot area as "open space," meeting the standards to qualify as "open space" under Section 26.575.030. These standards are attached hereto for easy reference. To be considered "open space," the area must: be open to view from the street at pedestrian level, have a minimum frontage on the street of one-half the length of the lot line on that side of the building site or 100 feet (whichever is less), have a minimum depth of 10 feet measured at a right angle from the front property line, be not more than 4 feet above or below the existing grade of the street and not include storage areas, utility/trash service areas, rear access areas, and parking areas or structures of any type. Most zone districts do not have a minimum open space requirement but instead, require that a percentage of the lot area remain clear of structures by FELLMAN 811 & 819 E. HOPKINS CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PAGE 19 including a maximum site coverage requirement. For instance, instead of requiring that 35% of a developed site meet the standards for "open space," many zone districts simply require that buildings do not cover more than 65% of the site. The proposal maintains site coverage of just 61 %, leaving 39% of the property open/free of structures. Nevertheless, only 26% of the lot area remaining open will meet the standards for "open space" and, thus, a 9% variance is needed (to allow provision of 25% "open space" where 35% is otherwise required). In order to authorize a variance from the minimum "open space" dimensional requirement the HPC must make a finding that the following three (3) circumstances exist: 1. 7-he grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the Aspen Area Community Plan and this Title; The proposal, with or without the required percentage of"open space," is fully consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the AACP. The proposal provides needed density within the Urban Growth Boundary and in a multi-family zone district where most people instead develop single-family homes. The site is within walking distance of town and transit routes, thereby ~ reducing dependency on automobile usage. The proposal provides two deed restricted affordable housing units as well as a voluntary accessory dwelling unit. The plan sees to the preservation and restoration of three historic structures while providing new construction in a manner consistent with the HPC Design Guidelines. The project facilitates preservation of a nearly State-record size cottonwood tree that resides close to the center of the site. Finally, the spirit of the "open space" requirement is met by providing a plan that accomplishes not only all of the foregoing but also leaves 39% of the site free of structures. 2. 7lze grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use ofthe parcel, building or structure; and The three dwelling units proposed would require only 4,000 square feet of lot area under the R-MF zoning, and the proposed density is only 33% of that permitted by right (a 67% reduction). If simply Ieft to the underlying zoning, three times the density proposed on the 12,000 square feet of land in could be added, but to protect against this and effectively "downzone" the property, only 3 units (two 3-bedroom units and 1 2-bedroom unit) are included in the current plan. An ADU is also included, but does not count as a unit of density. Any additional density is basically precluded by the proposed site plan and would, at a minimum, require further HPC review. This "downzoning" to effectively FELLMAN 811 & 819 E. HOPKINS CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PAGE 20 reduce the density potential by some 67% is consistent with the constraints specific to the site, such as the need for historic preservation and development sensitive to those goals as well as the need to preserve a nearly State-record size cottonwood tree that resides near the center of the property. In light of the foregoing, it is clear that the applicant is not attempting to maximize development rights, but is only attempting to achieve a reasonable use of the parcel. The proposed site plan is almost completely driven by two primary factors. The first and foremost factor is the need to preserve the legacy cottonwood tree and as much of its root system as reasonably practicable. The second factor results from the desire of the H]?C to have the two historic residences (811 and 819 E. Hopkins) grouped together to provide a microcosm of the neighborhood's historic architectural roots, which have been significantly eroded over time with the demolition of all the other miner's cottages in the area. In addition, the underlying zoning provides the applicant with rights to a good deal of additional density and floor area and, as explained above, much of this density has been forfeited in response to the site specific constraints. Together, the tree preservation and HPC goals described above forced the development away from the central part of the property and into the otherwise required setback areas in the front and rear of the site. In addition to providing space for the root system of the cottonwood tree, the proposed front yard setback allows for better alignment between the front facades of the two adjacent historic residences. As a result of needing to reduce the front setbacks for the specified reasons, much of the area in front of the houses does not meet the minimum depth provision to qualify as "open space." The applicant prepared a multitude of potential site plans aimed at satisfying the goals or driving forces described above. Not a single one could comply with the "open space" requirement. Oddly enough, the one that came closest to meeting the requirement is the one that achieved all other goals and is currently proposed. Therefore, it has been concluded that given the above- described driving forces behind the proposed site plan, it is virtually impossible to maintain 35% of the project site in a manner that would meet the "open space" qualifications without greatly exceeding the height limit or proposing a development plan with no incentive for the owner whatsoever. Thus, since the currently proposed site plan is the closest the applicant was able to come to meeting the "open space" requirement it is fair to say that the requested variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel. FELLMAN 811 & 819 E. HOPKINS CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PAGE 21 3. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this TiNe would deprive the applicant ofrights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship or practical dgiculty. In determining whether an applicant's rights would be deprived, the board shall consider whether either Of thejbllowing conditions apply: a. There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel, building or structure, which are not applicable to other parcels, structures or buildings in the same zone district and which do not result#om the actions of the applicant; or b. Granting the variance will not confir upon the applicant any special privilege denied by the Aspen Area Community Plan and the terms Of this Title to other parcels, buildings, or structures, in the same zone district. The applicant has satisfied the spirit of the minimum open space requirement by providing a plan with just 61% site coverage. This ensures that at least 39% of the property will not be built upon. The location of the legacy cottonwood tree forces the site plan design but provides no assistance in meeting the minimum open space requirement. That is, the cottonwood is located in the center of the site, forcing development to more or less encircle its root system and screen it from view. The effect of this is open space that does not qualify as "open space" under the terms of the Code. The spirit of the regulation is satisfied by site coverage of just 61 %, a density reduction from that allowed by the underlying zoning, and the forwarding of other community goals such as historic preservation, tree preservation, and the unsubsidized provision of affordable housing. Again, given the above-described driving forces behind the proposed site plan, it is impossible to maintain 35% of the project site in a manner that would satisfy literal interpretation and enforcement of the requirement without greatly exceeding the height limit or proposing a development plan with no incentive for the owner whatsoever. In fact it is evident that literal interpretation and enforcement of the requirement would, in fact, deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship and practical difficulty. Clearly there are special conditions and circumstances that are unique to the parcel which are not applicable to other parcels in the same zone district, and which are not the result of actions taken by the applicant. How many other parcels in the R/MF zone district contain three historic structures that require preservation AND a nearly State-record size cottonwood tree that the Parks Department will not under any circumstances, allow to be removed? The FELLMAN 811 &819 E. HOPKINSCONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENTAPPLICATION PAGE 22 answer is exactly " zero. " Further, as demonstrated above, the proposal is fully consistent with the AACP; therefore, the variance will not in any way whatsoever confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied by the AACP to other parcels in the same zone district. GMQS Exemptions Section 26.470.070(D)(2)(a) of the Code provides an exemption from the GMQS scoring and competition procedures for, "The enlargement of a property listed on the Aspen Inventory ofHistoric Landmark Sites and Structures that develops, on a maximum cumulative basis: not more than one residential dwelling..." The existing property is listed on the Inventory and has two residential dwellings. After development of the proposed plan, the density will be enlarged by just one residential dwelling (from two units to three units). There will also be an ADU, but under the provisions of the Code, ADUs are not considered units of density and, therefore, have no bearing on this exemption provision. The Code further provides that this exemption shall be deducted from the respective annual development allotments and from the Aspen Metro Area development pool. The exemption review is by the Community Development Director. Placement of deed restrictions on the other two residences does not require GMQS allotments or exemptions, as there are already two existing units on the property. The ADU is not required as a means of obtaining a GMQS exemption; rather, it is purely voluntary. Further, the ADU does not itself, require a GMQS exemption or alIotment since, as mentioned above, it is not considered a unit of density. We hope the information and responses provided hereinabove prove helpful in your review, and we look forward to working with you toward approving this highly worthy application. If you should have any questions or desire any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours truly, -- - id Planning, LLC D Mltch Maas, AICP Owner/Principal CC: Rally Dupps, Architect Tom Fellman, Applicant/Owner c: My Documents/City Applications/HPC Applications/Fellman/Fellman Conceptual HPC #2 FELLMAN 811&819 E. HOPKINS CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PAGE 23 ; EFâ‚¬13/ IRTi Fik 1.4.-1.1-. 11 -,*.a-L~+=-x . R15A m \\ RLIVIF PD \j~~~~ 1 -7~~ *-- NEALE AVE A -34 ~~T~-- L - 00 277Â» 8 00 f W--*UN/ 0 -11 M m 4 1 r--1 k. Â»<4 __r E HOPKINS AVE R/MF t 1---=-=- 00 1-=, 00=um==em oo E=ll N J . umn,18$,2. w ~ U. m R/MFLP 2 i 0 1 / F . m / 9-7 . 1 ...1 k 30 60 K /< L rl- L 0--2 ' Feet L m This map/drawing/image is a graphical representation W of the features depicted and is not a legal representation. The accuracy may change I depending on the entargement or reduction. l Copyright 2003 Ch of Aspen/Pkkin CounM J I L_L- 19 ON3193M S NEIGHBORHOOD f~ Section 26.575.030 Open Space. Page 1 of 1 Section 26.575.030 Open Space. A. Standards for open space. Development which is required to provide open space shall comply with the following provisions: 1. Open to View. Open space areas shall be open to view from the street at pedestrian level, which view need not be measured at right angles. Fences or walls shall only be permitted within or around the perimeter of open space if such structures shall permit views from the street into and throughout the open space. 2. Exclusion. Open space areas shall not include storage areas, utility/trash service areas, rear access area, parking areas or structures of any type, except as specifically provided for herein. Vacated rights-of-way shall be excluded from open space calculations as well. 3. Minimum Frontage. The open space shall have a minimum frontage on the street, or if there is no street, on the public right-of-way, of one-half (1/2) of the length of the lot line on that side of the building site, or one hundred (100) feet, whichever is less. 4. Minimum Depth. The minimum depth of the open space which is open to a street shall be ten (10) feet measured at right angles from the front lot line. 5. Grade Limitations. Required open space shall not be more than four (4) feet above or two (2) feet below the existing grade of the street which abuts the open space, unless the open space shall follow undisturbed natural grade, in which case there shall be no limit on the extent to which it is above or below the existing grade of the street. http://www.bpcnet.com/codes/aspen/_DATA/Title_26/575/030.html 9/19/2003 FELLMAN MULTI - FAMI LY BUILDING 811-819 east hopkins st., aspen, colorado OCTOBER 8,2003 E - 0 1__1 BE m~m El[1 consortium 1 Far-ch-i-te-c-G--1 1 P.O.B. 3662, aspen colorado 81612 v: (970) 925 - 6797 f: (970) 925 - 6797 1 e-mail: rally@aspeninfo. com I EAST HOPKINS AVENUE I . 71VÂ« PROPERTY LINE I - r. % ' SETBACK ADU . HISTORIC ~ PORCH j HOUSE PORCH PC:~CH -' - 3 BEDROOM ~ AH- 1 HISTORIC HOUSE 9-0. 0 .. 9 2%-O U -16VB\-228VB- - ~ - -1 - EXISTINS COTTONMOOD 1 1 level above M U 11 f *31-Â¥V.9 B UNIT I -'op AN. 3 BEDROOM . 10,-0. . CO- 2 BEDROOM W AH-2 \ 7 1.1.INN HISTORIC SHED - V SETBACK - . 1 level Obove . i AM 1 1 9 PARKING 9 i / \ , 1 PROPERTY LINE ~ 1< . - NORâ„¢ 00 ALLEY 1 SITE PLAN ImmmI ~ (GNI>IcIOH *3 1,19) (811 E. HOPKINS) (801 E. HOPKINS) (GNI>IcIOH *El 29) ZINI-1 Alhladabid PROPERTY LINE O0 PROPERTY LINE NORTH AH- 1 /131 /9'\ LOWER LEVEL PLAN 1/10" = 1,-01 3 BEDROOM \ HISTORIC 11 2/,0 6 11!pUSE Ila <4<1 - *- BATH V toil.Q- '6 ' ~--C -/ Lib -~Jh BATH O ADU ~ 4,4/01 CLOÂ· //R 7 ~ BEDROOM HISTORIC -1-1 F \J r 15'xle' . HOUSE - BEDROOM ~ BEDROOM UNFINISHED = CLOS. ~ LAUND. 3 ar STORAGE - _ -13 0 = L r-zr m .-~I~II=l~ 1-1-[-1 4 UP 1 -11+ - UP [5I1-- CLO.- >Â«\ PVIP PLAYROOM .. &14 1 20'*25' | 65Â¥El=_Ameye. ___ lEi M Fr------------77 11 11 11 11 ---- 3 11 / ABOVE \ 11 11 // \ 1 11 / \ C L..eell,le Â£ Eâ‚¬'_290-_ul i \ L.-7 BATH 1~/ \ - Ill - [9-1101.7 STUDY /2 BEDROOM FV AH-2 E || 'XIS' / 1\ 1 \ / HISTORIC SHED -- 1 \1 / F --7 1 MEDIA STORAGE/ 1 ---- 12'xl4' MECH. 1 1 1 Â° TE K - 1 - LIBRARY I 15'xle' 1 0 1 1/4 BEDRM. 11 BATH o ' - -30121 1 11*1 I -I--- 1 1 1- 0134 1 1 /'all 1 -lai 1 Itur , 621:~J ' 1 - BEDRM. ~ 1 1 - 1 1 1 -31 1 1 1 - L___________J PROPERTY LINE | | (GN/YdOH 3 big) m , 0 111 1,1 i;Imill-.In e LI 6 A &-PR'TERTY LfB> EAST HOPKINS AVENUE -~V ~ V NORTH -1//V\'v 31 . 11--,1 K rih MAIN LEVEL PLAN 1 - 1 0 - 7 1/10.= 1,-O. 6 K O . 6 . 6 ---- -- - J- -- -U- -- -~ 4%= SETBACK M. BEDRM. ~0 tel 1 E AIPU 21 - -1 HISMORio _~ PORCH 1 l M. BEORM. .D r \ HOUSE WS PORCH PORCH GUEST MASTER - ~ATH -~- -- ~ AH- 1 2 . h , [h Q Ir(1--0 E ~71 M ~ 2 5 BEDROOM O 5 HISTORIC , n rt u 2 2 8 IR L ___ ~ 3 HOUSE 1 CLO 4 ---PN , E- 0- KIT. / Iii ZZ -- L ENTRY X ZZ ~L.7 LIVING B ~ KITCHEN 3 - - 1 11 -=7 ON P - - coE - O---e- - 8 N OON ~ - 2.th CD[ FEATI~E - BATH ~'~~ t- -Det,K-*BOVE- -----1 - ~ EXISTING I COTTONMOOD 1 1 U 13 13]~ v ' ~222 -1 ' - L-- 7 ~fil\ ;--------.------ 1 POOL ~~VOL, 1 1 102 LEVEL ABOVE CLOS. i _t <f ENTRY -~ 24 Â¥mzle L------1 0 / - n 1 / - 1[ 17~-~ 1*R I MUPROOM HALL 1 rl' 1 6-711Â»23 IEEE 1 mo / le 11 \ 5 CAR eARASE ,n .- .0,7- h 1 M L 07' EXERCISE Z 1 4 BATH ~ 2*ff ff 10'><14' 1 M STEAM 1=1 !1! 1 U -1 ec- - 0 1-// 1-7 V It\1/ 520 1 1% FUR * G IAH -12 ATH V Jh_19' A Fx " AF-1 / --7 2 IBEPROOM FV ~ BIKES \PARK INe~ Imi . ~ HI~TORIC~ SHED ARÂ¢AE 1 STOR. a 1 ~ -- -- &-- --1-- 1 ART - LIVIN& 1 62 -/ -1 17 sÂ·rup ~ o DECK ABOVE 1 --1 I TjpNA / pm~~~-- L _599!1,929& III, O PROPERTY LINE 1 -xiijfy- * EmmE | rgNI.ydOH 'g ble) (GNI>IcIOH *El GEâ‚¬) (801 E. HOPKINS) ENI-1 Al.hlacIObld PROPERTÂ¥ LINE /80/ E. HOPKINS) PROPERTY LINE 5 -lilli. - % ;& L_Jo teME:[1 eem 30 70 "li'E U 1140 I X- m , BA 1 *] 10 0 tE_---GE}----LX-Z- -DE,~_ 16-2 -02[18 , 7 1 IA m 0 M godt - 9 96 Ey i i -3 L , Ed HI Kmul 0 m / 1 0 / \ 1 41- 1 Y~77-*=21====r==111 ! 1 ~ ~ bar .---r //1Â«= 11-4-Â»1 -5 11 .1 10\, 1 1 1=1 11 ; 6 T /2 \1/ T f x= - /1 vr 7 4------- / 1 1/ /// 1 0 El 10 9 K 1 1 1~~~ 1-_-1 r I 1 1:1 r--7 r=-37 r --- m Ul 1 1 19 mI 1 1 1 70 10 1 1 ~ 2-3 J==6 1 7 3 A=_E-= 1 11 1 Esefprof-- 1 1==-Ilit= -Likic- ill I L- 1--( - - I 3X \Â» A,El 1=E=*12 =.--F30(1 l il i T I. .11 T 11 T 1111 1 1-1 L x-' XESLY' 152214)'E ==r=** 111 lilli 11 111 1 1111 10 01 3X Iliva-Ft -11-,0(11.11 -1 I lili Ill i Ill 11 IN -Bl X-. 6~~ CE*â‚¬2 0011 IT F 11 1 Ilil ~ 1 1 lil i 4 â€¢j--U= -00/11 lilli 1 1 1 L I. 1 lili 11 I LIZ~ 04" Il I I '| I I ||IT Il l 11111111 0 30 E 0- A 70 ,_z-,=7 *31' T li ~ '1' IT I~ - -I T 1~ ' I L~J It 'I n j HT 1" 1'1 /1\ 0 -_-2 5\JITI Il ' Il Ilitill Ill I l_-Irt lr--=z -rÂ»NIT Ill.11 ITII'Ill I IlITI 1 11 /1\9 6_-~ 91% Il Il T 11 IT 111111111 - 1.1 IiI /Ir 1-=5=- E~=:1&*lt ~I I IlilllI lili lITII Ill /1\ n='-=== =+4=-tzÂ¥* 11- trm tritl -M r Irl ttllf i 1 call E. HOPKINS) 1 1 -421#~h 02.0 LAVO,6 -IhiÂ·t%**f-#ht'#r~0##1 H I Ill-111 lili H I Il Ilil ll. Ill I .Iltll ILLL * i Il- 1 Illill lili IlllIHI Il.11,1111 lirÂ·X - 1 Ill-lilli lilli I Ill[I Ill-1 IlLINI Il I V dm=C==Â©t 111 IlITII Ill-1 INT i lll-11 Ill Il Ill-11 lili / !11tltii)""1"11 11 1 11 11 11 1 r 11 11 IT I lili - 1 11 11 1111190,~* 4 _-loutiÂ»~un-Ij-'9,lilllIi'Illl]Illl Il Ill-dl 11 r ---- 11 14 JI 70 A -L- - 11 ~-1(7 ' Ne#lai Â»vEw-i-Lr#in b 60 1 1 ]T14[Trrnt#===z E>~Â·, 1 17711-17~~-z -cp,*11.11 11 li li r 111 -' 11 N[-111 1 1111 1 - 111 11 1 1 8 2 11 1 &-2242-2 --1_ 1 6 -1 1 | i -4-~ $/1$9 Z I 1 I I lÂ» b -3&== =gcl== 1 r---- --- --- -/ rLL - - - . Il -3' 1 2 !5 01 1 unka =-u-a _ I 11 2 Ezzl= 2 -0 i c~c-- -=LE- I 11129 1 11 11 1 111 l, 8 11 n '1 1 1 i I --~_- -ck.E__2 1 -- L-------~~ (814 E. HOPKINS) PROPERTÂ¥ LINE (825 E. HOPKINS) 1%:Fll UPPER LEVEL PLAN 3Nll AlhIZIcIONct Ail'IV Â¢ 1\N\f -PROPERTY LINE EAST HOPKINS AVENUE UFIJOG /80/ E HOPKINS) PROPERTY L\NE 1 1 i i it u U.-LUUUL Il 1 Illili 111111 1 LUU-U Il T4:197 U U â€ž 111 Ax 11 1 1._L_ 1 , -L_k-1 -Â» 1 #4 144 44- Itt 14,- -rl"7- 1+4 WÂ·T Â® 1+4 1 1 1-UJU-,- --*IWith[Ip 41 z Â·r:T< 11 ~~1 *U ~1 E% ALI[~1==-._*3====*A==1/1 11-i,1 ]1.11114..... , 0 4-11.11111111 Iii u 8 1 XI Il]RlTILUI-Ilkp-zz~--i =ECLF:VI]Ill Ill.:: lillilll-1.lilli Illl[ iIi Ill 11 -Alll I l'1'I Ii'l'1'll*Ilt~td~6"A'&=de ~ ITE]RE[rit%Â¤E==Eyll 11111 1 01 I lilli- Il I li 11 Ill ~ mil 11 11 Il l lilli- lil i 11 1 IE 1 1 1rr- 1-171111--[IN-z=:9rll Ill Illilillill lilli I Ill.I Ill]Illil I lili, 8~1 Il 71 Illill Ill Illill~Ill lilli 11 ~ -111'll [-11'Il ll'.Ill~~f~l~]11 lillil l]11111 111'Il l]1111 "Illl 111111 ll'-Ill 41- 1111 111111 U P 111,111' 11 111111 11 [14 1 111 111111 lili 11; 1 11.111111 lilli 1111111111 lili 1111 11 -11 lili 1 11 11 111111 lilli. lili 21 1 1 r! 2 -= 11 11111 HI- 11111 -111 11 ~ 11_!b c='b li I Ickt 11=lkil* 12 Illl I I Ill I 1 -=----=-34 0 -11 0111 lilli 11 11 1 11 1 11411 811 1,1111Illl lili lilli-'IT 11 lilli .. _23*2232Â»~111 - f lilli 11 -1 111 -1 111111 1111 IT Â¢ 11 IT 1 11 9 1[ 11 i' 111 '1 1 =-===-=- -= 1 lill i- l I li 1.11 11-- 1-lu.u.J.1-w- MI Uâ€ž1,1.,1.111 1 1111 11-1 11# - --.-*=-.F.=7~1-441441#661-5.---dl-- r7 *4*_L 1 11IHE - = \4--1 p 11 L .11 1 7 lilill lilill -I=_-=Er=26nr~c _f=1=====- J 4 lili lili 11111111'111 lili ILLIL .=2==.-i Il 111 - lilli I Ill 1 11 1 1IT 1 11 1 .U,Lt, '-2=+7f ll i. i l f. - _ths' ~ r 111 11 111 ~1 1~-11-1 l Il l [ 11 1 =ill 11 IT 311 1.12 2!! 11 IT !! .111 1 1 lilli .11 11 T. JI l it It 11,1 11 ,17 -- ------- --0--4 1 ------- 4 III I Tll liT ill 1 1 lili-lk- IT IL!01- mi 1 111 A IF Â§11 11.1.14 1 - 1-102- | I,IHII- lilli Il'Ill lilli N Il,-+14Â·411,=63- - ill ;11.111.1111.111. Ill 0 lili Ixtz==L=L ~ . 111 111 4 11 1 Ill 1 11 0; 111 'GE:*2=- 0. 111 L II Ill 11 llili 1 - 1 171 --- - lilli 111111 11] 11.111.M= =- t!:L LU..41 11,114_1.14LILL.-Ji, LUEE%#EF= -9, 1 Mil I 11 11 11 11 11 11 .2- U 1 - 11 11 il" 'i i 4 p====Wl 11 N il 11 i il c:-26-= 11 ! 1 1 Irb i 1 D n r, 1 16 -1 3 111 E C / 1 - -1 f EC n lin 1 8 1 1 11 lili 11==% 4 11 -1 i 1 11 n 1 11 1 n ------------ - ----r - ... 1. 1 i l > i lu 9 m > 1/ O l-N -r- 0-~i b /Lvisie i 7 00 1 .47 i 8 0 R.1 I1 82 -1 ITO) b 2 mui ' m 8[!i I 3% 1 00 0 I PROPERTY LINE (825 E. HOPKINS) ) lfIE: LUEL ROOF PLAN ZIN11 Al'blacIO'bid X3779 1~gf 6,Â»f PROPERTY LINE EAST HOPKINS AVENUE lilli U 111111 111IU lilill JIllu lillill U lili U lili U lili U IlITU 111111 lilli tffb*%9ttln Il tit LIli 11110 lili[I IllIU IllIU Illl@ IlITU lilli]400. N.*411111 1 11 1 11 11 1 1 11 11 11 11 11 1 11 111 11 1111 It 1 1 1 11 110 / - , 1 11 1 =0434% A TO. PL. E.MBR ORMR. 7 ELEV. 120'-6' - - --1- I-- - Ii-lo - - 7 r Ik To. pf. E.UPPER 0 70. rP.â€¢ UPPER , ELEV. 116U J U L _ 1 ELEV. 110'-6Â· A TO. pf. I MAIN ELEV. 100'-O. - 6 T.O. F.F. 214.1,1 7 ELm' '-' -" 1_______ 0 EAST ELEVATION 1 k=REP*= 1.[r-lr-1 111' U H JAII 11111.1 11[I L.1 MIlo 1111 [1 11" U 111' U lili IU liliu liliu 11 11_IL-1 11111JOÂ»ll I..11] I lili 111111 111111 11 1] 1 11 ] 1 -/0' ~NI111 111111 1111[L ElEl lt,1[114" W-L _1 l ilill lili 1111 L MIl -U_10 1 ~/7 - \\1 1 [1[12 L-11_LUL ]_1_11/ rilili-j \NT-E[ 11 1111 lili 11 CEÂ£5LLLI/ ~12.3-31 T.O. PL. i PORME~~_ 1 ~ \NIT [I Illf [I lili ELEV. 123'-6" Nt 11, -~~ '11. 'LIN 7 Wl IT I 1 A T.OPL. 0 MASTER BR. X~- 3.0/) - TO. PL. â€¢ DINING â€¢ LIVING // - xy- 1_ ' ELEV. 121'-6. ELEV. 120'-6' 1 1 1 1 1 1 in n r i/k#:2/:5:6dnfN FFEE3237 - T.O. F.F. O UPPER ELEV. liEÂ®" 11 11 ~ * T.O. FF. 2-UPPER ELEV. 110'-6' T.O. F.F. I MAIN A no. F.F. o MAIN ELEV. 100'-O" i , i , i V =LEV. 100'-O- 1 1 1 1 lill--I- 11 1 11 1 11 1 T.O. F.F. o LOWER ELEV. 89'-6" 03 - SOUTH ELEVATION ,*xex*X<*xe;.:1 e=Â§21 Kâ€¢Xâ€¢i-Xâ€¢Â»Xâ€¢Xâ€¢Â»>:4 -li u 'I " U Il l' U li ll i Il ' I ll Il li ll li ll i] Il ll [I Il l' U I' ll u li li/"'â€¢U_LUL_LLL-LIL.1111_1 L lili U 111'U 111'U 111'U 11 L[LU Ill-1_11 LLIJ Il El] Il .It] 11 1[LIL-IU 11 LII_-1 II UU II UU 11,-VIII 11!TULf[~1~~1 Il I]Il 11 lilli Ill 11 lill i] 1 U lili U lili 11 11 11 U IllIli 11 11 11 11 11 lili Ill'll IIIT U lilil] lili[ III L lift -l-T[ll[Frrillm[[-3~ Wl Il l I [13.11 111 U lilli lilli 11'll lilli Illillill[IlillulllIU HITIJ lilli]Ill'U U lili U lili U 1111 U lilli lili U lilli 11 IT U 1111 1Iks' \N 11 lili 1] lil li Illl H lill i Ill] Il Ill- HIT[I III[[I lillu Ill'U lilli 'Illu lili 11 U lili U lili U 1111 U IlIT U 1111 L lili U lili L 11 10*1 â€ž i \%[1 cali /6 1.LI11111 lili U lilill 111111111111 lili U Ill -11UUMUN111.-1/ 'It lilli It! 111111 lili U 111 limp ~ ~~'~%A~r* PRMR. 11 1 LILI' " '1 11 1 11 lul U -[I HIT[i iii'[I ITâ€ž .I U 11 Il U li IT IlillI I 11.111 A~ LLIJ, VRK 1 1.11 lili U 1 1 11 lili Ull NUII LIUII Ll - Illilll INIU INTLI Ill. - - 11 1117 11 liliti lili" it 4614N+44 - iii ilri H iii i n I I 1-T n 1 1 1 1 3 .pn A To. pf. I UPPER A TO. p,=. I UPPER m -I~l 11 ELEV. 110'-Â®" -7- ELEV. 110'-e A To. pY. I MAIN A To. F.F.. MAIN r 1 r 1 r 1 r 1 11 1 1 11 1 1 11 11 1 1 11 1 1 11 11 1 1 11 1 1 11 Ill I .lili. .1 1 11 1 1 11 1 1 11 IÂ·OÂ· LE. 0 L.0ER L_J______1________-J___________1____ _IL______L___J______L_-1 ELEV. aq'-6* 1/NEST ELEVATION 0n rm===Â« 7 Al A TOPL. I MASTER 81 I 47 7 ELEV. 121'-6- Â¢ 2ti.... â€¢ OFFICE ORMR. A T.O. PL. â€¢ OFFICE 7 ELEV. 118'-0. i n n r--n - pu:.V.VÂ»,444 Pooovu=Oq>ovooo<pu A r.o. F.F. I UPPER , u-.uuu--_i , ~~~~~ 7 ELEV. Into'-6' 1 11 11 11 0 11 11 11 11 1 Xy . 7.0. f:E.. UPPER 7 ELEV. 110'-C ElÂ· A T.o. FF.. MAIN A TO. pp. . MAIN 7 ELEV. 100'-O' 7 ELEV. IDC>'-O" 1-------- ---4 1 11 1 11 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 ------------ -____1-1 A T.0. LEÂ·â€¢LOWER fF ELEV. 84'-6- NORTH ELEVATION - 111 lill i U 111] LIli ll J L] 11 lil li [ill U 11 1.1111.11 1111.1.1111 U lili U lili U lili U 111 11 1.I U I] U 11 [lilli 11 IT I HIll Il IT 11 11111 lili U lili U lili u IJLJ U lili lili U lili !-1 1111[111111] ]IfullITII Ill U Ill]L I'ITI 1 1111 U li li '-1 11 1] B ] 11 [1 111 9 U li ll i] li li 7 ELE:V. 129Â£0' - 1 lilli lilli lili U lili lili U III U 111- Ill lil li lil li lill i 111111 lili ll lili 8 11 L I ITII I IT 11 lili lilill lilli 11 121-4, 111 lili III-[U 1111 U lili U 11'18 Illl[I A TO. PL.. PORMER - 45Â« 111 11[I HITI 1111] 11 If ]Ll!-L-- lili[ 111111 lil li ll'l l' 111111111-1 U lilli A To. PL.-2.BFAST 1 . 1111 1 1111 8 11 IT [_J_I-I**Ifp~ 1 1 Tri.1 [1 li l i L 1111 [3111 0 lilill lili -[[- lili 7 ELEV. 122'-4' -i J 1 1 IiI I 11 ll] 1 -111-1 -1111LI I Il I. ILLU_ A To. PL. â€¢ M. â‚¬LOSET lili U Il Ill U Ill LI Id 1 lilli 11 lili lili 7 ELEV. 118'4~ 1 111111 111]11 lilli lilli Illril lilli 11 IT - - ~ ELEV. 1194. T.O PL. e STAIRS 7 r A To. Fr.. UPPER ELEV. 110'-6' ---1 - -* T.O. FF. 2-UPPER f ELEV. !10'4 1 - - 1 1 1 - 1 1 1 - 1 1 1 1 $ 1 1 1 1 A To. â€ž. IMAIN 1 -1 4 T.0. FF. 2.-MAIL 7 ELEV. 100'0' 1 ELEV.:00:-O' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 06 TO. FF. e Lo,EEL ELEV. 89'-6' 1____________________1 I~h~ PARTIAL EAST ELEVATION Rkak..::;SSSSR:..:Sl Â¤8**ii!%1 00 A 'co. PL. I M. CLOSET - 7 ELEV. 118'4" n--[L 1.- * T.O. F.F, O UPPER 1 1 - ELEV. 110'-6- - * T.O. F.F. EMAIN ELEV. 100'-O' 1________________________________11 03 PARTIAL INEST ELEVATION 1 **M M:=81 -0 ,6 70.-Mr ' ST L - 7 ELEV. 118'-6" 1 !-1 A Bo. BEAMI ENâ„¢f '--1 A TO. FF. o UPPER YY ELEV. 110'-6. 9* ELEV. 108'-O' A To. pp.. MAIN A To. F.F. o MAIN 7 ELEV. 100'-0' 7 ELEV. 100'-O' 1 1 11 1 1 11 1 1 11 1 1 11 1 1 11 --- lill - -- lill - -------3 L___________________1_3 PARTIAL BOUTH ELEVATION Ffb PARTI AL NORTH ELEVATION B 121 H UH H 00 1 1 1 Eli '~Ell 11 1 11 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 11 11 1 11 11 i _1______________.l 1___~_______E___-3.--11 ~ ADU - NORTH ELEVATION ~~\ ADU - EAST ELEVATION Ill 6 TO. PLAIL -_~~ 1~07 E~. ExtsÂ·ri~----9~11 I I I lilli 1-1 Ial[jdhEE I A To. F.F. I.FAIN 1 lIEIriiolEI~~ I -EE). DO,-OÂ· 1 1 1 1 111 1 1 111 1 1 111 1 1 111 1 2--____________1_5 2.--------------------3 ~h\ ADU - SOUTH ELEVATION ~~\ ADU - ~IEST ELEVATION I- A TO. PLAIL- -EVE Exter,le TO. F.P. E-MAIN 11 1 11 11 1[1'E 1 1 1 11 1 11 11 1 1 Ill 11 11 1 1 11 1 11 11 1 1 11 1 11 11 1 11 1 r3ij AH-1 - SOUTH ELEVATION aa AH-1 - REST ELEVATION KI-- 8 . To, PLAIL - ---7--ELE*. Ex.INI g E E o *Atd@NE PRI - 00.03 6 72".â€¢Ma INEWE191100IHIE]MI~1 -ELEÂ£ loo-O- 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 111 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 111 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 111 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 111 1 1 1 1 6_2____________________3_3 ~N'\ AH-1 - EAST ELEVATION ~h\ AH-1 - NORTH ELEVATION I- -- "i--Ir,-=m--_-.6- TE'- â€¢ TALL Roo~ L A To. PL. / loTC+EN -1 T ELEV. 104'-O- - I I 7 El.EV. 108'-0~ . - 0 -= - 00 ' El=Â· A TO. Fp.. MWN A TO. â€ž. / MAIN 7 El.EV. 100'-0- '. 1 --f. 1,0:4 1 1 lili 1 lili I 1 lili 1 1 lili I 1 lili 1 1-__--_----_----_-1-1 t__1________________3 ~3*h~ AH-2 - SOUTH ELEVATION ~3~ AH-2 - REST ELEVATION U.j -- A To, PL O SHED ~ A To. PL e KITCMEN 7 ELEV. Ejiii!,e - = Y ELEV. 108'-O' 14 0 0 o A TO. PA O MAIN A T.O. P.F. I MAIN 7 m-EV ICEO- r 1 r 1 11 1 111 11 1 11 1 111 11 1 11 1 Ill 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 111 11 1 1-1-________________1 12____1____-2____L____1 rE~ AH-2 - NORTH ELEVATION ~ AH-2 - EAST ELEVATION U// . -iW~W~U.W~61 10 - *L , al-1 8064/8 _~ :1-1'h -. I 1-Ill 1[@241.2 lill lilli Ill "Illl,!Illl'll,Ill'Ill,Ill,IllII....... ,=1---=== 2 17v*.714#6~11'111~~A;'0111'~&111,111'~&111'11111'5,~b,~--~~- 4 -- .!41"111'.1111"111111 . ,F-1- / Ilia. --- lim - tin- 1 1 : n 1.10 2 1 2 Flo 1-101-10 1 1. 11 11 835 E. HOPKINS 825 E. HOPKINS 819 E. HOPKINS 811 E. HOPKINS FRONT OF NER BUILDING 801 E. HOPKINS rEA E. HOPKINS STREET- NORTH 1 f I .... 1 >% - , EAST HOPKINS AVENUE , / ri\ PAIR OF= FULLY MATURE / / Ill .-1- eu= 9-uca TRas / 4 1 / ~~' p- ----_] wi % r LOT LINE K 3 8.1 --- l 41 < 1 \\ 1-VNV / 1 1 1 1 AREA Â» \ 1 202. pMEK'Ne I -- -- 1 1 - =%[m4=~ -=[r // *3 ' TO REMAIN UNCHANGED i 1 PORCH 8 1 " i 1 L. LOT C HOUSE TO BE MOVED W r-REEF. PROPOSED 11 SITE PLAN - / i AREA OF -----7 NON - HISTORIC 1 \1 .r SHED ADOITION TO 1 1 1,< BE DEMOLISHED /4 -- - li 0 ILI LOT F ** - - - O -- 1 [83*33%81 I 2 LOT D 0 1 UJ 0 ADJACENT -~~ BUILDING 1 9 1 HISTORIG COTTONMOOD 1 TREE TO BE SAVED LOT E i --- SHED TO BEE 1 SMALL ASPEN GROVE ~- DEMOUSHED 1 f To ea MmeATED ' r--- ----------------, /.r---- 1 5 *il * - ~-- r SEC~ 1 - 1 UTILITY ' 1 -m SHED 1 / AHâ€¢AN - -0--------unt--- 0 \ 1-\0 A .0 - O f, O 1 / / NORTH -_i__ttt~I____-~~ 0 9NINIV.LE]hl EU CIVOW 11Â¥hi -jj WOODEN FENCE H %* 4 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE BEDROOM COMPONENTS, 9 FREE MARKET BEDROOMS 3 DEEP REESTRICTED BEPROOMS B TOTAL BEMIOOMS = 615% FAVAH DEED RESTRICTED BEDROOM COMPONENTS, 1 â„¢.-IN--- 7 5> 1 4/liell =01/84:pli /.1 71 . 1 3. 4 21 11 r 5 0229 RESTRIGTED BEDROOMS = 88% f e ;---1__V N .-Â·4./V \1'i~ UNIT.4~ ~~~~~J -I--1- I. --1: -'."'fl-'.-; UNiT~;-~2~/'Tz,*,,--.1,52-{.j,-i:i--2;2~.,.~J 1 FF-,Ir 3:=1 -_ 1~=-3 8 __ .fl - - -V'L- 1 , .. M -0 i Ill j BEORM. PORCH Il'-O-x lew V M 14 . . BEDROOM LIVING ICL. L I 11.-6.X 18'-3. 6,1 0 41 PHASE 2 LIVING -*44 -m U I KIT. M 0 /NAre-5- d KIT./DINING BATH _ [~1 r' UFF -N C 1 - L -* 49*1%, -*44 14 "c[- LE _1 4ULL 617YÂ£72e um LIVING ADJAGENT BUILDING EM JU KIT. 1-1/ IÂ¥,- To.. 277-7<TA,0 N E 1 -rl n POOL 2â€ž20-1.. 16 9 y Ire -.Ll,Ql=1 -4-T[[[rl 554â€¢e--0 80 i 111-lup I.K 11 lilli +11_ (1 3 MM wo ff___Â®ff-ff- --- 9 e E dAâ€¢AGE / \IJ---34,-0 +0 4-4 -- UNIT 3 UNIT I ALLEY 13 Â© SITE PLAN, MAIN LEVEL PLAN -,-/IWIT'.I L.