HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20040825ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 25, 2004 5:00 P.M.
CITY COUNCII J CHAMBERS
130 S. GALENA
ASPEN, COLORADO
SITE VISITS: Please visit 110 E. Bleeker on your own.
II.
III.
V.
VI.
VII.
Roll call
Approval of minutes - July 28, 2004
Public Comments
Commissioner member comments
Disclosure of conflict of interest (actua~ and apparent)
Proj ,ct Monitoring
Assign project monitors for 403 W. Hallam St. and 2 William's
Way
Staff comments: Certificate of No Negative Effect issued
(Next resolution will be #27)
VIII. OLD BUSINESS
A. 435 W. Main St. - Aspen Jewish Community Center -
Mai or Development (C?nceptual), Continue the public
hearing to ~t... 0 ~.7~ ;~,-'9 ~(
B. 114 Neal'e Ave. - Major Development (Conceptual),
Continue the public hearing to Sept. 1st
C. 701 W. Main St. - Historic Landmark Lot Split, GMQS
Exemption, Demolition, Relocation and Variances,
Continue the public hearing to Sept.'172~ ,~hd__.
D. 308 Park Ave. - Major - (Final) Public Hearing (30 min)
E. 110 E. Bleeker Street - Amendment to Major Development
approval, public hearing (40 min.)
IX.
Xo
NEW BUSINESS
A. NONE
WORKSESSION
A. Motherlode (lhr.)
B. Awards selection
XI. ADJOURN - 7:15
ASPEN mSTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 25, 2004 5:00 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
130 S. GALENA
ASPEN, COLORADO
SITE VISITS: Please visit 110 E. Bleeker on your own.
I. Roll call
II. Approval of minutes - July 28,2004
III. Public Comments
IV. Commissioner member comments
V. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent)
VI. Project Monitoring
Assign project monitors for 403 W. Hallam St. and 2 William's
Way
VII. Staff comments: Certificate of No Negative Effect issued
(Next resolution will be #27)
VIII. OLD BUSINESS
A. 435 W. Mai~. - Aspen Jewish Community Center-
Major Develop~t (Conceptual), Continue the public
hearing to Sept. 1st. 0 (r ~ I ~
B. 114 Neale Ave. - Major Development (Conceptual),
Continue the public h~ng to Sept. 1 st.
C. 701 W. Main St. - Historic Landmark Lot Split, GMQS
Exemption, Demo'titiQn, Relocat. ion and Variances,
Continue the public h~ng to Sept.~ 'f,d_ /
D. 308 Park Ave. - Major - (Final) Public Hearing (30 min) :L" 00' d- )~..L.
E. 110 E. Bleeker Stree~mendme~ to Major Development ~f{ /')
approval, public hearing 0 min.) () J /111.
I
IX. NEW BUSINESS
A. NONE
X. WORKSESSION
A. Motherlode (lhr.)
B. Awards selection
" XI. ADJOURN - 7:15
""
PROJECT MONITORING
....".,..,,1
Jeffrey Halferty
213 W. Bleeker (Schelling)
101 E. Hallam (Gorman)
735 W. Bleeker (Marcus)
922 W. Hallam
110 W. Main (Hotel Aspen)
525 E. Cooper - monitor for the awning
939 E. Cooper
950 Matchless Drive (Becker)
216 E. Hallam (Frost/Auger), with Valerie
. 513 W. Smuggler (Barman)
640 N. Third
21 Meadows Road
1000 N.J:hird - Aspen Meadows Restaurant
~\:II<:;' V Vv,> V- ~'\k\- y\~'\.tl.>>--.\,M.
216 E. Hallam (Frost), with Mike \
533 W. Francis (Gibson)
232 W. Main (Christmas Inn)
114 Neale Ave., with Derek
304 W. Hallam - Pan abode
1295 Riverside
735 W. Bleeker
"" ,
,,-,.~,..) i
I
Mike Hoffman
Valerie Alexander
Derek Skalko 135 W. Hopkins
302 E. Hopkins
501 W. Main Street (Christiania Lodge)
331 W. Bleeker
114 Neale Ave., with Valerie
,) IU I I \ I G.,,-. !( ),<;t
Sarah Broughton 135 E. Cooper - Dave Gibson project
514 N. Third
311 S. First
409 E. Hyman
200 W. H9pkins
l/Os Iv kJ."df.Jv
CONCEPTUAL APPROVALS WHICH HAVE NOT GONE TO FINAL:
2 William's Way, Visitor's Center, 470 N. Spring, 233 W. Main
-,
~r I),
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
J1JX.
Joyce Allgaier, Deputy Planning Director
THRU:
FROM:
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE:
308 Park Avenue- Major Development Review (Final)- Public Hearing
DATE:
August 25, 2004
SUMMARY: The subject property is listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites
and Structures and is recognized as a Rustic Style cabin constructed in 1949. The owner is
undertaking a historic landmark lot split that will result in a small additio," to the resource with
the remaining allowable FAR allocated to an adjacent new house. On-site relocation of the cabin
and variances are also part of this redevelopment.
HPC granted Conceptual approval on July 14th, 2004. The only condition for restudy related to a
lightwell at the front of the house. The architect has responded to that issue and staff finds that
approval of the application as submitted is appropriate.
APPLICANT: Tim Mooney, owner, represented by Alan Richman Planning Services and Al
Beyer Design.
PARCEL ID: 2737-181-30-047.
ADDRESS: 308 Park Avenue, Lot I, Block 2, Riverside Addition, arid all that part of Regent
Street lying Southerly of and adjacent to said Lot I projected Southerly to the Southerly line of
Regent Street. Also the Northerly 15 feet of Lots 9,10,11 and the Northerly 15 feet of the
Westerly half of Lot 12, Block 2 of the Riverside Addition, City and Townsite of Aspen.
ZONING: R-6.
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (FINAL)
The procedure for a Major Development Review is as follows. Staff reviews the submittal
materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design
guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. 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: Recently, the HPC has been contemplating new tools to analyze the
appropriateness of proposals to alter historic structures. The following questions are likely to be
the center of future discussions, and may be helpful for HPC to at least reference for this project
(note that the questions do not serve as formal decision making criteria at this time):
1. Why is the property significant?
2. What are the key features of the property?
3. What is the character ofthe context? How sensitive is the context to changes?
4. How would the proposed work affect the property's integrity assessment score?
5. What is the potential for cumulative alterations that may affect the integrity of the
property?
The cabin on this property is significant as an example of the type of buildings that were being
constructed in Aspen immediately following World War II. Rustic style buildings such as this
were common and appear to have been motivated by both practicality (the use oflocal materials),
as well as a national romance with the American "Wild West." Many lodges and summer homes
that were built in Aspen during this time share common characteristics with the house at 308
Park Avenue.
""
'v. ,~.
The key feature of the property is that the cottage is intact in terms of its original form and scale,
something of a rarity here. Minor alterations appear to have been made to the house, but overall
this is a good example from the period. There are some Pan Abode buildings and other mid_20th
century structures that remain in the immediate area, but the neighborhood is being redeveloped
at a fairly intense rate.
There will be no remaining potential for future additions to the property if this proj ect is built,
because it creates a commitment to transfer all but a small amount of the allowable FAR into a
new detached home.
Design Guideline review
Final review deals with details such as the landscape plan, lighting, fenestration, selection of
new materials, and technical issues surrounding the preservation of existing materials. A
-
2
list of the relevant design guidelines is attached as "Exhibit B." Only those guidelines where
discussion is needed are included in the memo.
Staff finds this to be an excellent project. The applicants have worked with HPC to minimize the
connection between the new and old construction to the greatest extent possible. The addition is
a very reasonable size and while contemporary in design, does not take away from one's ability
to appreciate the character of the original cabin.
No alterations are proposed for the cabin itself, other than the addition of some new windows on
the rear elevation. Staff finds that these windows are acceptable under the following guideline:
3.2 Preserve the position, number and arrangement of historic windows in a building
wall.
o Enclosing a historic window opening in a key character-defining facade is inappropriate, as
is adding a new window opening. This is especially importc-nt on primary facades where
the historic ratio of solid-to-void is a character-defining feature.
o Greater flexibility in installing new windows may be considered on rear walls.
o Do not reduce an original opening to accommodate a smaller window or door or increase it
to receive a larger window on primary facades.
Please note that the drawings suggest a window on the south elevation, to the left of the entry, is
being changed. Staff has confirmed with the architect that this is an error. All of the existing
windows are being retained, except for a pair of non-historic French doors. These will be
replaced with divided light doors as shown on the plans. The owner may want to replace the
front door, which is not believed to be historic. At this point, there are no old photos available
for this cabin. The guideline that must be complied with when the new door is selected is:
4.5 When replacing a door, use a design that has an appearance similar to the original
door or a door associated with the style of the house.
o A replica of the original, if evidence exists, is the preferred replacement.
o A historic door from a similar building also may be considered.
o Simple paneled doors were typical.
oVery ornate doors, including stained or leaded glass, are discouraged, unless photographic
evidence can support their use.
Staff has no other concerns with this proposal, which is an excellent preservation effort.
Standard conditions of approval are recommended. As a reminder to HPC, there is a request
from the neighbor to the south that some privacy planting take place along the common lot line.
There is minimal room to achieve this, and the applicant is not receiving any variances on the
south yard. Staff finds this to be an issue between the neighbors which does not call for HPC
action.
3
DECISION MAKING OPTIONS:
The HPC may:
. approve the application,
. approve the application with conditions,
. disapprove the application, or
. continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary
to make a decision to approve or deny.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC grant approval for Major Development (Final)
for 308 Park Avenue with the following conditions:
1. The HPC has approved a 500 square foot FAR bonus.
2. The HPC has approved the following setback variances for the South Lot: a 2 foot front
yard setback variance, a 2.5 foot north sideyard setback variance (plus any projection
required to accommodate the existing eaveline and log ends), and a 6 foot rear yard
setback variance.
3. HPC staff and monitor must review and approve a new front door if one is proposed.
4. A structural report demonstrating that the building can be moved and/or information
about how the house will be stabilized from the housemover must be submitted with the
building permit application.
5. A bond or letter of credit in the amount of $30,000 to insure the safe relocation of the
structure must be submitted with the building permit application.
6. A relocation plan detailing how and where the building will be stored and protected
during construction must be submitted with the building permit application.
7. The applicant must submit a preservation plan with the building permit indicating what
original materials appear to still exist on the structure, and what treatments will be used to
retain them. Retain any original materials that can be salvaged.
8. HPC staff and monitor must approve any changes with regard to the type and location of
exterior lighting fixtures by reviewing a plan prior to wiring, purchasing, or installing the
fixtures.
9. Information on all venting locations and meter locations not described in the approved
drawings shall be provided for review and approval by staff and monitor when the
information is available.
10. Submit a demolition plan, as part of the building permit plan set, indicating exactly what
areas of the existing house are to be removed as part of the renovation.
II. No elements are to be added to the historic house that did not previously exist. No
existing exterior materials other than what has been specifically approved herein may be
removed without the approval of staff and monitor.
4
-
-
-
12. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being
reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor, or the full board.
13. The conditions of approval will be required to be printed on the cover sheet of the
building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction.
14. The applicant shaH be required to provide the contractor with copies of the HPC
resolution applicable to this project. The contractor must submit a letter addressed to
HPC staff as part of the building permit application indicating that all conditions of
approval are known and understood and must meet with the Historic Preservation Officer
prior to applying for the building permit.
15. The General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a specialty
license in historic preservation prior to receiving a building permit.
Exhibits:
Resolution #_, Series of2004
A. Staff memo dated August 25, 2004
B. Relevant Design Guidelines
C. Application
"'...
5
"Exhibit B: Relevant Design Guidelines for 308 Park Avenue, Final Review"
1.9 Maintain the established progression of public-to-private spaces when considering a
rehabilitation project.
D This includes a sequence of experiences, beginning with the "public" sidewalk, proceeding
along a "semi-public" walkway, to a "semi-private" porch or entry feature and ending in
the "private" spaces beyond.
D Provide a walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry. Meandering
walkways are discouraged, except where it is needed to avoid a tree.
D Use paving materials that are similar to those used historically for the building style.
Concrete, wood or sandstone may be appropriate for certain building styles.
1.10 Preserve historic elements of the yard to provide an appropriate context for historic
structures.
D The front yard should be maintained in a traditional manner, with planting material and sod,
and not covered with paviIig, for example.
1.13 Revisions or additions to the landscape should be consistent with the historic context
ofthe site.
D Select plant and tree material according to its mature size, to allow for the long-term
impact of mature growth.
D Reserve the use of exotic plants to small areas for accent.
D Do not cover grassy areas with gravel, rock or paving materials.
1.14 Additions to the landscape that could interfere with historic structures are
inappropriate.
D Do not plant climbing ivy or trees too close to a building. New trees should be no closer
than the mature canopy size.
D Do not locate plants or trees in locations that will obscure significant architectural features
or block views to the building.
D It is not appropriate to plant a hedge row that will block views into the yard.
2.1 Preserve original building materials.
D Do not remove siding that is in good condition or that can be repaired in place.
D Only remove siding which is deteriorated and must be replaced.
D Masonry features that define the overall historic character, such as walls, cornices,
pediments, steps and foundations, should be preserved.
D Avoid rebuilding a major portion of an exterior wall that could be repaired. Reconstruction
may result in a building which no longer retains its historic integrity.
2.2 Protect wood features from deterioration.
D Provide proper drainage and ventilation to minimize rot.
D Maintain protective coatings to retard drying and ultraviolet damage.
2.3 Plan repainting carefully.
D Always prepare a good substrate. Prior to painting, remove damaged or deteriorated paint
only to the next intact layer, using the gentlest means possible.
D Use compatible paints. Some latex paints will not bond well to earlier oil-based paints
without a primer coat.
6
-,
-.".
"..'" '
-
2.4 Brick or stone that was not painted historically should not be painted.
o Masonry naturally has a water-protective layer, or patina, to protect it from the elements.
2.5 Repair deteriorated primary building materials by patching, piecing-in, consolidating
or otherwise reinforcing the material.
o Avoid the removal of damaged materials that can be repaired.
o Isolated areas of damage may be stabilized or fixed, using consolidants. Epoxies and resins
may be considered for wood repair and special masonry repair components also may be
used.
2.6 Maintain masonry walls in good condition.
o Original mortar that is in good condition should be preserved in place.
o Repoint only those mortar joints where there is evidence of a moisture problem or when
mortar is missing.
o Duplicate the original mortar in strength, composition, color, texture, joint width and
profile.
o Mortar joints should be cleared with hand tools. Using electric saws and hammers to
remove mortar can seriously damage the adjacent brick.
o Do not use mortar with a high portland cement content, which will be substantially harder
than the brick and does not allow for expansion and contraction. The result is
deterioration of the brick itself.
2.7 Match the original material in composition, scale and finish when replacing materials
on primary surfaces.
o If the original material is wood clapboard, for example, then the replacement material must
be wood as well. It should match the original in size, the amount of exposed lap and
finish.
o Replace only the amount required. If a few boards are damaged beyond repair, then only
those should be replaced, not the entire wall.
3.1 Preserve the functional and decorative features of a historic window.
o Features important to the character of a window include its frame, sash, muntins/mullions,
sills, heads, jambs, moldings, operation and groupings of windows.
o Repair frames and sashes rather than replacing them, whenever conditions permit.
o Preserve the original glass, when feasible.
3.2 Preserve the position, number and arrangement of historic windows in a building
wall.
o Enclosing a historic window opening in a key character-defining facade is inappropriate, as
is adding a new window opening. This is especially important on primary facades where
the historic ratio of solid-to-void is a character-defining feature.
o Greater flexibility in installing new windows may be considered on rear walls.
o Do not reduce an original opening to accommodate a smaller window or door or increase it
to receive a larger window on primary facades.
3.3 Preserve the historic ratio of window openings to solid wall on a facade.
o Significantly increasing the amount of glass on a character-defining facade will negatively
affect the integrity of a structure.
3.8 Use a storm window to enhance energy conservation rather than to replace a historic
window.
7
D Install a storm window on the interior, when feasible. This will allow the character of the
original window to be seen from the public way.
D If a storm window is to be installed on the exterior, match the sash design and material of
the original window. It should fit tightly within the window opening without the need for
sub-frames or panning around the perimeter.
4.5 When replacing a door, use a design that has an appearance similar to the original
door or a door associated with the style of the house.
D A replica of the original, if evidence exists, is the preferred replacement.
D A historic door from a similar building also may be considered.
D Simple paneled doors were typical.
D Very ornate doors, including stained or leaded glass, are discouraged, unless photographic
evidence can support their use.
6.1 Preserve significant architectural features.
D Repair only those features that are deteriorated.
D Patch, piece-in, splice, consolidate or otherwise upgrade the existing material, usmg
recognized preservation methods whenever possible.
D Isolated areas of damage may be stabilized or fixed, using consolidants. Epoxies and resins
may be considered for wood repair and special masonry repair components also may be
used.
D Removing a damaged feature when it can be repaired is inappropriate.
6.2 When disassembly of a historic element is necessary for its restoration, use methods
that minimize damage to the original material.
D Document its location so it may be repositioned accurately. Always devise methods of
replacing the disassembled material in its original configuration.
6.3 Remove only the portion of the detail that is deteriorated and must be replaced.
D Match the original in composition, scale, and finish when replacing materials or features.
D If the original detail was made of wood, for example, then the replacement material should
be wood, when feasible. It should match the original in size and finish, which
traditionally was a smooth painted finish.
6.4 Repair or replacement of missing or deteriorated features should be based on original
designs.
D The design should be substantiated by physical or pictorial evidence to avoid creating a
misrepresentation of the building's heritage.
D When reconstruction of an element is impossible because there is no historical evidence,
develop a compatible new design that is a simplified interpretation of the original, and
maintains similar scale, proportion and material.
6.5 Do not guess at "historic" designs for replacement parts.
D Where "scars" on the exterior suggest that architectural features existed, but there is no
other physical or photographic evidence, then new features may be designed that are
similar in character to related buildings.
DUsing overly ornate materials on a building for which there is no documentation is
inappropriate.
D It is acceptable to use salvaged materials from other buildings only if they are similar in
style and detailing to other features on the building where they are to be installed.
6.6 Replacement of missing elements may be included in repair activities.
8
-
-.,
-
'."..'
"'''"' . ~
D Replace only those portions that are beyond repair.
D Replacement elements should be based on documented evidence.
D Use the same kind of material as the original when feasible.
D A substitute material may be acceptable if the form and design of the substitute itself
conveys the visual appearance of the original material. For example, a fiberglass cornice
may be considered at the top of a building.
7.9 New or replacement roof materials should convey a scale, color and texture similar to
those used traditionally.
D Replacement materials should be similar to those used historically on comparably styled
buildings.
D If a substitute is used, such as composition shingle, the roof material should be earth tone
and have a matte, non-reflective finish.
D Flashing should be in scale with the roof material.
D If copper flashing is to be used, it should be treated to establish a matte, non-reflective
finish.
9.5 A new foundation should appeal"' similar in design and materials to the historic
foundation.
D On modest structures, a simple foundation is appropriate. Constructing a stone foundation
on a modest miner's cottage is discouraged because it would be out of character.
D Where a stone foundation was used historically, and is to be replaced, the replacement
should be similar in the cut of the stone and design of the mortar joints.
10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the
primary building is maintained.
D A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the
primary building is inappropriate.
D An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is
inappropriate.
D An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic
style should be avoided.
D 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.
D An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also
remaining visually compatible with these earlier features.
D A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material
or a differentiation between historic, and more current styles are all techniques that may
be considered to help define a change from old to new construction.
10.11 On a new addition, use exterior materials that are compatible with the historic
materials of the primary building.
D The new materials should be either similar or subordinate to the original materials.
14.6 Exterior lights should be simple in character and similar in color and intensity to that
used traditionally.
D The design of a fixture should be simple in form and detail. Exterior lighting must be
approved by the HPC.
D All exterior light sources should have a low level of luminescence.
14.7 Minimize the visual impacts of site and architectural lighting.
9
o Unshielded, high intensity light sources and those which direct light upward will not be
permitted.
o Shield lighting associated with service areas, parking lots and parking structures.
o Timers or activity switches may be required to prevent unnecessary sources of light by
controlling the length oftime that exterior lights are in use late at night.
o Do not wash an entire building facade in light.
o A void placing exposed light fixtures in highly visible locations, such as on the upper walls
of buildings.
o Avoid duplicating fixtures. For example, do not use two fixtures that light the same area.
14.16 Locate standpipes, meters and other service equipment such that they will
not damage historic facade materials.
o Cutting channels into historic facade materials damages the historic building fabric and is
inappropriate. Do not locate equipment on the front facade.
o If a channel must be cut, either locate it on a secondary facade, or place it low on the wall.
14.19 Use a paving material that will distinguish the driveway from the street.
o Using a change in material, paving pattern or texture will help to differentiate the driveway
from the street.
o Porous paving materials will also help to absorb potential water runoff typically associated
with impervious surfaces such as asphalt or concrete.
10
-
.-,
"',,~.
-
--m f'J
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
'.JA It
Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Planning Director
THRU:
FROM:
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE:
110 E. Bleeker Street- Amendment to Major Development approval
DATE:
August 25, 2004
SUMMARY: In 2004, HPC approved Major Development for 110 E. Bleeker. The
project involved a significant restoration of the Victorian house on the site, and a new
addition. The owner's would like to amend their plans, mostly in regard to the design of
the new construction. This is being reviewed as a substantial amendment.
Staff recommends continuation of the project for a restudy based on the issues
outlined below.
APPLICANT: Robert and Lexie Potamkin, owners, represented by Rally Dupps,
Consortium Architects, and Mitch Haas, Haas Land Planning.
PARCEL ID: 2735-124-37-006.
ADDRESS: 110 E. Bleeker Street, Lot L and M, Block 65, City and Townsite of Aspen,
Colorado.
ZONING: R-6 (Medium Density Residential).
SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT
Per the Municipal Code, all changes to approved plans that materially modify the
location, size, shape, materials, design, detailing or appearance of the building elements
as originally depicted must be approved by the HPC as a substantial amendment.
Staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a report that analyzes the extent of
the changes relative to the approved plans and how the proposed revisions affect the
project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable land use codes.
This report will be transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed
revisions 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.
...-
Staff Response: The proposal is to make an addition on the west side of the existing
house. Restoration work on the historic building was proposed in part as an enhancement
offered to justify the FAR bonus which was awarded.
HPC discussed this project several times in 2001 and 2002 during the Major
Development review. Primary concerns were the height and placement of the connector
between the new and old construction, and the proximity of the front fayade of the
addition to the front of the Victorian house. The landscape plan was a topic of debate at
Final review.
The project was ultimately approved in July 2002, per the plans that are included in the
packet, with the following conditions:
I. The proposed front yard rock garden, mugo pines and water fountain should be
removed, including the pine on the east of the porch. The applicant should
consider removing the existing aspens in front of the house and the proposed
cotoneaster by the porch.
2. As part of an overall restoration of the historic character of the property, staff
recommends the owner work with the City Parks Department to remove and
replace the existing trees on the City right of way with more appropriate trees.
The current trees disrupt the relationship between the front of the house and the
street. If the owner is in agreement, this will be done at the City's expense. The
landscape plan represents that this will be done.
3. One double hung window may be added on the east elevation of the historic
house, centered under the gable. An elevation shall be submitted for staff and
monitor review and approval.
4. HPC hereby grants a 325 square foot FAR bonus and a 5% site coverage variance
for the project. In order for this project to qualify for the FAR bonus, the porch,
front window, and both Jront doors are to be restored to their original condition
and the paint must be removed from the masonry.
5. HPC has confirmed that the materials and finishes on the addition are acceptable.
6. A cut sheet must be provided for any new windows to be installed in the historic
building.
7. The method for removing the paint from the masomy must be approved by HPC
staff. Test patches will be reviewed by staff and monitor.
8. HPC staff and monitor must approve a plan for the type and location of all
exterior lighting fixtures prior to wiring, installation or purchase of them. The
light fixtures must comply with the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design
Guidelines" and the "City Lighting Code."
-
.-.
2
9. Information on all venting locations and meter locations not described in the
approved drawings shall be provided for review and approval by staff and monitor
when the information is available, before their installation.
10. Submit a demolition plan, as part of the building permit plan set, indicating
exactly what areas of the existing house are to be removed as part of the
renovation.
II. No elements are to be added to the historic house that did not previously exist,
other than what is approved by HPC. No existing exterior materials other than
what has been specificaIly approved herein may be removed without the approval
of staff and monitor.
12. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first
being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor.
13. The conditions of approval will be required to be printed on the cover sheet of the
building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction.
14. The applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of the HPC
resolution applicable to this project. The contractor must submit a letter
addressed to HPC staff as part of the building permit application indicating that all
conditions of approval are known and understood and must meet with the Historic
Preservation Officer prior to applying for the building permit.
15. The General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a
specialty license in historic preservation prior to receiving a building permit.
16. The detail for the railing on the south elevation of the new addition must be
reviewed and approved by staff and monitor.
17. Detail drawings showing the reconstruction of the porch and bay window to
match the photographs must be submitted for review and approval by staff and
monitor.
The amended plans that have been submitted for HPC review are, for the most part,
consistent with the approved set with regard to the historic house. . A list of the relevant
design guidelines for this review are attached as "Exhibit 8." Only those guidelines
which staff finds the project does not meet, or where discussion is needed, are included in
the memo. This is a request to amend certain elements of an approved design, and is not
a revisit of the conceptual height, scale, massing and proportions of the proposaL The
applicant has an approval that they may act on at any time until the vested rights expire in
July 2005.
Postive changes brought forward by this amendment related to the old house are that the
architect is representing the restoration of the street facing front door, which appears to
have been an omission on tile earlier plans, and a non-historic addition is being removed
at the back of the house. There is a discrepancy between the way that the previous
architect and current architect have drawn the somewhat complicated roof condition at
the front of the house on their east elevations. There are no changes proposed for the
roofs that they have drawn differently. The current plans have an error with regard to the
proposed roof materials on the dormers and front porch. Elevations represent that these
3
will have wood shingles like the rest of the roof. Roof plans show metal. Wood shingles
are the preferred materials per the following guidelines:
-
,
7.8 Preserve original roof materials.
D A void removing historic roofing material that is in good condition. When replacement
is necessary, use a material that is similar to the original in both style as well as
physical qualities and use a color that is similar to that seen historically.
D Specialty materials such as tile, slate or concrete should be replaced with a matching
material.
7.9 New or replacement roof materials should convey a scale, color and texture
similar to those used traditionally.
D Replacement materials should be similar to those used historically on comparably
styled buildings.
D If a substitute is used, such as composition shingle, the roof material should be earth
tone and have a matte, non-reflective finish.
D Flashing should be in scale with the roof material.
D If copper flashing is to be used, it should be treated to establish a matte, non-reflective
finish.
7.10 If it is to be used, a metal roof should be applied and detailed in a manner that
is compatible and does not detract from the historic appearance of the building.
D A metal roof material should have an earth tone and have a matte, non-reflective
finish.
D A metal roof with a lead-like patina also is an acceptable alternative.
D Seams should be of a low profile.
D A roof assembly with a high profile seam or thick edge is inappropriate.
~
";,,,,,e
It is clear in the historic photograph that was located for this house that roof was wood
shingle.
-,
The new proposal has eliminated windows that were to be added on the east elevation,
under the gable end. A fireplace is shown on the interior, but no information about how it
is to be vented is provided. Staff recommends that this issue be reconsidered to the extent
that is is very unlikely this was a blank wall historically, and one can make out some
openings along this wall in the old photo. Once the paint is removed from the building, it
may be very easy to locate the historic openings, which is an important aspect of a
successful restoration effort. The guidelines state:
3.6 Preserve the size and proportion of a historic window opening.
o Reducing an original opening to accommodate a smaller window or increasing it to
receive a larger window is inappropriate.
o Consider reopening and restoring an original window opening where altered.
The proposal includes installing new windows on the rear elevation of the house.
Currently there is a non-historic addition, and a non-historic window in this location.
Staff finds that the concept of adding new openings here is acceptable based on:
3.2 Preserve the position, number and arrangement of historic windows in a
building wall.
o Enclosing a historic window opening in a key character-defining facade is
inappropriate, as is adding a new window opening. This is especially important on
primary facades where the historic ratio of solid-to-void is a character-defining
feature.
o Greater flexibility in installing new windows may be considered on rear walls.
o Do not reduce an original opening to accommodate a smaller window or door or
increase it to receive a larger window on primary facades.
However, staff does not support a historically detailed bay window, rear fayade or not.
This is a strong philosophy of the Aspen HPC to not allow the addition of confusing,
psuedo historic elements on designated buildings. Re-design is needed. The relevant
guidelines are:
10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character
of the primary building is maintained.
o A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of
the primary building is inappropriate.
5
D An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also
is inappropriate.
D An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's
historic style should be avoided.
D 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.
D An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also
remaining visually compatible with these earlier features.
D 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.
-
The new addition to this house has been changed so that the connector is one story in
height and the addition is extended further towards the rear of the site. Staff finds that the
change to this link is very positive, and it removes a significant concern from the
approved project. Extending the length of the addition has no effect from the public view
and does not require any variances, therefore this is supported as well. For the HPC
meeting, the architect must provide accurate east and west elevations. Glimpses of the
Victorian as it will be viewed from the west, beyond the addition, and the addition as it
will be viewed from the east, beyond the Victorian, are absent from the drawings.
Staffs only concern with the addition is the material palette. Staff disagrees that what is
proposed is easily read as a product of its own time. The turned spindles and fan shaped
brackets on the front of the new construction are clearly Victorian in character. Applying
these to a building that is clad with stone is not a giveway as to the modem construction
date. Although Aspen does not have a tradition of stone Victorian houses, they certainly
existed in other areas and had very much the character of what is shown in this design.
Staff is very firm in making this point that there are numerous examples of not very
successful projects around town where it is very difficult to distinguish new and old
construction. This is not the direction that HPC has been taking in its approvals for many
years. Guidelines 10.3 and 10.4, above, along with 10.11 go to this issue:
~
,
""",0.<"
10.11 On a new addition, use exterior materials that are compatible with the
historic materials of the primary building.
D The new materials should be either similar or subordinate to the original materials.
The FAR bonus granted for this project was for a proposal that represented an
outstanding restoration of a historic building, and an addition that had very simple,
cleanly detailed materials. Staff finds that in this regard, the amendment is inconsistent
with the earlier approval. This issue is important enough that staff finds the project must
be continued for the whole board to review a different solution.a
-
6
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff finds that there are positive changes included within this amendment, and changes
that need to be re-thought. Continuation is recommended as follows:
I. Information about the relocated fence indicated on the site plan, and its
compliance with the design guidelines and fence regulations is needed.
2. Use wood shingles on the entire roof for the Victorian.
3. Reconsider the elimination of windows on the east elevation, under the gable
end.
4. Redesign the proposed new window on the rear elevation of the Victorian so
that it is a product of its own time.
5. Provide accurate east and west elevations, showing the new and old
construction.
6. Restudy the materials for the new addition to bring the project into compliance
with design guidelines 10.3, 10.4, and 10.11.
RECOMMENDED MOTION
"I move to continue the amendment to 110 E. Bleeker Street to a date certain."
i7\
I) . \
: c ()
. /
:4
)
'::X> (
c0/r
/(
~~(
c: (
<( ~S
(
(~.
t(*
"'~
Exhibits:
A. Staff memo dated August 25, 2004
B. Application
7
"""
"Exhibit B, Relevant Design Guidelines for an amendment to Major Development"
1.2 A new replacement fence should use materials that appear similar to that of
the original.
D Any fence which is visible from a public right-of-way must be built of wood or
wrought iron. Wire fences also may be considered.
D A wood picket fence is an appropriate replacement in most locations. A simple wire
or metal fence, similar to traditional "wrought iron," also may be considered.
D Chain link is prohibited and solid "stockade" fences are only allowed in side and rear
yards.
1.3 A new replacement fence should have a "transparent" quality allowing views
into the yard from the street.
D A fence that defines a front yard is usually low to the ground and "transparent" in
nature.
D On residential properties, a fence which is located forward of the front building
facade may not be taller than 42" from natural grade. (For additional information, see
the City of Aspen's "Residential Design Standards".)
D A privacy fence may be used in back yards and along alleys, but not forward of the
front facade of a building.
D Note that using no fencing at all is often the best approach.
D Contemporary interpretations of traditional fences should be compatible with the
historic context.
1.4 New fence components should be similar in scale with those seen traditionally.
D Fence columns or piers should be proportional to the fence segment.
1.9 Maintain the established progression of public-to-private spaces when
considering a rehabilitation project.
D This includes a sequence of experiences, beginning with the "public" sidewalk,
proceeding along a "semi-public" walkway, to a "semi-private" porch or entry feature
and ending in the "private" spaces beyond.
D Provide a walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry.
Meandering walkways are discouraged, except where it is needed to avoid a tree.
D Use paving materials that are similar to those used historically for the building style.
Concrete, wood or sandstone may be appropriate for certain building styles.
1.10 Preserve historic elements of the yard to provide an appropriate context for
historic structures.
D The front yard should be maintained in a traditional manner, with planting material
and sod, and not covered with paving, for example.
1.13 Revisions or additions to the landscape should be consistent with the historic
context of the site.
""""
-.
8
HAAS LAND PLANNING, LLC
July 28, 2004
Mrs. Amy Guthrie
Historic Preservation Planner
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: 110 East Bleeker Street Final Application
Dear Amy:
Please consider this letter and the accompanying plan sets to constitute a
formal request for approval of a final development plan for the above-captioned
property. The subject property maintains Conceptual and Final approvals per
plans completed by the Alstrom Group in 2002. The applicant wishes to
maintain those Conceptual approvals and all variances granted in association
therewith. The plans prepared by Rally Dupps of Consortium Architects and
submitted herewith seek only to revise the Final approvals.
The plans submitted herewith represent very little change from those
previously approved, but provide better preservation and restoration efforts as
well as a far more sensitively designed addition. Perhaps the most significant
changes are: use of a one-story connecting element between the historic resource
and the addition as opposed to a two-story connector; an increased separation
distance between the addition and the historic resource; more subservient and
sympathetic street elevation massing; better preservation of all four corners of
the historic building; and, an increased front yard setback for the addition. The
impetus for revising the Final approvals is a desire for different floor plans and
changes to the exterior style and materials. The proposed changes have no affect
on the approved variances.
It has become standard practice to review the following during the Final
HPC process: lighting, landscaping, fenestration and detailing, materials
selection, and preservation plans. Consistency with the Historic Preservation
Design Guidelines (the Guidelines) is also required.
Lighting & Landscaping
Specific lighting and landscaping plans have not been prepared.
However, the applicant commits to complying with all applicable City of Aspen
outdoor lighting regulations as well as with HPC Design Guidelines 1.15, 14.6,
. 201 N. MILL STREET. SUITE 108 . ASPEN. COLORADO. 81611
. PHONE: (970) 925-7819 . FAX: (970) 925-7395 .
14.7 and 14.8. The area between the historic building and the street is heavily
landscaped to the degree that visibility of the home is largely obscured. If any
changes to landscaping or outdoor lighting are to be proposed at any time, the
applicant suggests allowing such to be coordinated with HPC staff and monitor
for approval prior to permit or installation.
Fenestration & Detailing
The Historic Resource. With regard to the fenestration and detailing of the
historic residence, the proposed plans differ very little from the approved plans.
On the south/ street-facing elevation, the only proposed change from the
approved fenestration involves restoration of the second front door (the one
facing the street). Otherwise, the front fat;ade will remain consistent with the
existing approvals. Restoration work to the porch, roof, entry windows,
columns, and other entry features will be completed to match evidence found in
a historic photograph.
On the east elevation, the proposal departs only slightly from the
approved plans inasmuch as paint will be removed from the existing/historic
brick exterior, no new windows will be cut into the main, east wall of the
residence (as opposed to the two new windows previously approved), and the
non-historic laundry room addition on the rear of the building will be removed.
On the north/rear elevation, the existing approvals called for leaving the
non-historic laundry room addition in tact and placing a new mudroom between
it and the new addition. It also called for allowing a non-historic window to
remain to the east of the laundry room. Moreover, the two-story link between
the historic structure and the new addition involved cutting into and affecting
the roofline of the historic resource. On the proposed plans, the roofline of the
historic structure is not to be altered in any way and the paint is to be removed
from the historic bricks. The non-historic laundry room addition and window
adjacent to it are to be removed and replaced with a new pair of French doors.
Also, the approved mudroom addition will not be built; rather, in place of the
approved mudroom addition and part of the non-historic laundry room
addition, a new bay window with wood trim will be built.
The new structure. The fenestration and detailing proposed for the
addition will serve as one of the main factors in setting the new construction
apart from the historic resource and allowing it to be easily read as a product of
its own/ modern times. While much of the detailing is reminiscent of historic
styles, the juxtaposition of styles not traditionally found on one structure
combine, in the end, to provide a modern style all its own.
1 10 E. BLEEKER FINAL DEVELOPMENT ApPLICATION
PAGE 2
.-,
"
.-,
~""..
-
The fenestration and detailing on the new addition differs a good deal
from that of the approved plans. The overall amount of glazing on the front
fac;ade of the addition has been significantly reduced (from approximately 195
square feet on the approved plans to approximately 130 square feet on the
proposed plans). Further, the prominence of glazing on the front fac;ade has
been reduced by increasing its setback from the street and placing a front porch
in front of the lower level windows. Fenestration and detailing on the addition
relates to the fundamental characteristics of the historic resource while also
conveying the stylistic trends of today. Visible window forms tend to be
vertically oriented but are not of the double-hung variety; the result is forms that
complement the historic resources without imitating them.
Selection of New Materials
Historic building materials will be maintained and preserved in place to
the maximum extent practicable. New porch columns, handrails, and balustrade
(originals no longer exist) will be installed to match historic photographs of the
residence. Similarly, the porch, roof, entry windows, secondary door, columns
and other entry features will be restored to match historic photographs. Also
according to the historic photographs, the front bay window that has been
removed will be restored. Paint will be stripped from all historic brick surfaces.
Existing dormers, wood fish-scale shingles in gable ends, clapboards, and
historic windows will remain. The only new materials to adorn the historic
structure will be those associated with restoration efforts aimed at matching
historic conditions, cut cedar shake roofing, and two small standing seam metal
roofs on the rear of the building, one over the new bay window and the other
over the new doors.
The new addition will have a simple palette, with only two primary
materials: vertical wood siding, and stone. These materials have historic roots
but are being re-interpreted for use in modern ways that convey today's stylistic
trends. Accent materials include: stone lintels above/below windows; wood clad
windows; wood handrails, balustrades, porch beams and trim; standing seam
metal and cut cedar shake shingle roofing; dulled copper exterior cladding (on
connecting element only); and, board and batten siding only on the stair tower at
the rear of the addition. As compared with the approved plans, the proposed
materials palette is quite different yet similar in its overall simplicity. The
approved plans include stained vertical tongue-and-groove siding on the lower
level, stained wide cedar plank siding on the upper level, zinc shingle roofing,
zinc vertical siding on the dormers and two-story connecting element, and
accents that include cedar fascia and metal deck/balcony handrails and
balustrades.
1 10 E. BLEEKER FINAL DEVELOPMENT ApPLICATION
PAGE 3
The use of stone on the addition is meant to complement, yet not replicate
or mimic, the use of brick on the historic structure. The wood porch and balcony
features will help to soften the appearance of the stone. The materials usage
helps to break up the massing of the addition. The dulled copper exterior
cladding on the connector and the vertical wood siding on the portion of the
addition closest to the historic resource will help to make these features recede
into the background, allowing the addition to feel further set apart from the
historic structure which, in turn, will maintain its prominence on the site.
Further, the addition (exclusive of the porch features) has a lower ridge height
and is set some sixteen feet further from the street than is the fac;ade of the
historic residence. The primary mass of the addition is also set ten feet away
from the west side of the historic structure (a separation distance mimicking two
five foot side yard setbacks).
.-,
","",..,..'
Preseroation Plans
A description of the proposed preservations plans is implicit in the
foregoing narratives of this letter and the attached plan sets. To the extent that
any details remain unclear, it is proposed that such be left for coordination
between the applicant, HPC staff, and the assigned monitor.
--.
The Proposal Relative to the Historic Preseroation Design Guidelines
"",
The only applicable review standard for Final Review of a Major
Development project is a determination of consistency with the City of Aspen
Historic Preservation Design Guidelines (the Guidelines). 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.
The heights, scale, massing and proportions presented in the proposed
plan are consistent with those approved previously and the previous Conceptual
approval is being maintained. Therefore, these areas of typical concern have
been found to provide an appropriate relationship with the historic structure.
The following narratives demonstrate consistency with those Guidelines
applicable to the areas of review addressed above (fenestration and detailing,
selection of new materials, and preservation plans).
With regard to Chapter 1 of the Guidelines, there are no fences to preserve
and no new fences proposed. There are no retaining walls, and the straight
alignment of the walkway to the front porch and entry will be maintained.
Existing landscaping will be maintained to the maximum extent practicable, and
site lighting will be minimized in accordance with the Guidelines and outdoor
-
",,#
1 1 0 E. BLEEKER FINAL DEVELOPMENT ApPLICATION
PAGE 4
- "..~,
lighting regulations. The historic structure will not be moved, thereby
maintaining it proximity to the front lot line and its orientation of the site.
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 features that no longer exist on the historic structures, use of
replacement materials will follow the recommendations of Guidelines 2.7 and 2.8
and be designed to match evidence of historic conditions represented in
photographic records. Please refer to the "Selection of New Materials" section,
above.
Consistent with Chapter 3, all historic windows and their distinctive
arrangements on primary facades will be preserved. In addition, the historic bay
window on the primary/front fa<;ade will be restored. No new window
openings will be installed on the historic structure. Similarly, 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 instance, the secondary front
door will be restored under the restored front porch. The front porch of the
historic residence has been enclosed and over-built with a roof that extends to
the ridge of the house. The porch restoration efforts described in the foregoing
provide consistency with Chapter 5 of the Guidelines.
Architectural detailing on the historic resource is being preserved and
restored (i.e., front bay window, porch railings, balustrades, columns, etc.) in
accordance with the Chapter 6 Guidelines and policies. Chapter 7 provides that
the character of a historical roof should be preserved, including its form and
materials. While the historic residence will be re-roofed, the proposal does not
involve any changes to the historical roof form or its materials. The original eave
lines and eave depths are being maintained. In a related vein, the inappropriate
additions, such as the laundry room in the rear and the over-building of the roof
to enclose and eliminate the front porch, are being removed to enable restoration.
Chapter 8 addresses treatment of secondary structures. The secondary
structure on the subject property is not historically significant. Chapter 9 deals
with building relocations and foundation designs. The proposal made herein
does not involve any building relocations.
Chapter 10 addresses how to appropriately design new additions to
historic structures and is the chapter most applicable to this application. First,
the existing and inappropriate additions (porch enclosure and laundry room)
will be removed. The guiding policy of Chapter 10 states that any new addition
"... should be designed such that the early character of the original structure is
1 1 0 E. BLEEKER FINAL DEVELOPMENT ApPLICATION
PAGE 5
-
maintained. It should also be subordinate in appearance to the main building." The
proposal not only accomplished the goals of this policy, but does so with far
greater success than the existing approved plans. The previous sections of this
letter demonstrate complete consistency with the guidelines of Chapter 10. In
addition, the statements of the next paragraph are followed by parenthetical
numbers indicating the guideline(s) being further addressed.
'0;,;.,.
The only historic additions that have achieved significance are the
dormers on the house, and these will be preserved (10.1). The more recent
laundry room addition at the rear of the house will be removed (10.2). The
proposed plans provide a linking element of just one story in height (10.7),
allowing the historic structure to virtually stand alone and maintain its character
(10.3). All four corners of the historic building are being maintained. Further,
the original character of the resource will be restored (10.3). The addition also
maintains a lower ridge height than the historic house while sitting nearly thirty-
four feet from the front lot line (the historic residence has a front yard setback of
approximately eighteen feet, exclusive of the bay window to be reestablished)
(10.6,10.7,10.8). The roof forms of the addition are similar to those of the
resource (10.9). The historically important architectural features of the resource
will remain prominent and benefit from restoration work (10.10). The materials
palette of the addition will maintain compatibility with the historic structure via
the use of similar materials but of a more modern type; for instance, to
compliment the brick lower level on the historic house, the addition will use
stone (10.11).
.-,
Chapter's 11, 12 and 13 are not applicable to this proposal. The project is
consistent with Chapter 14's general guidelines addressing such topics as lighting,
on-going maintenance, and treatment of mechanical equipment, service areas,
driveways and parking. All service areas, driveways and parking are accessed
from the alley. The parking spaces in the detached garage will be re-oriented so
that access comes directly from the alley without using the backyard to come in
"sideways." This is more consistent with historic use patterns.
In total, the project is consistent with the HPC Design Guidelines as
thoroughly demonstrated throughout the foregoing. Furthermore, the proposed
plans provide far greater consistency with the Guidelines and better
preservation/restoration efforts than do the existing approvals. While members
of the HPC may find details of the proposal to be inconsistent with their personal
tastes or preferences, these should be small trade-offs for a project that provides
an overall improvement as compared with the plans that have already been
approved for development.
-
1 10 E. BLEEKER FINAL DEVELOPMENT ApPLICATION
PAGE 6
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,
Haas Land Planning, LLC
~
Mitch Haas, AICP
Owner/Principal
Cc: Rally Dupps, Architect
c: My DOCwnelltslCity ApplicationsIHPC Applications/PotamkinlPotamkin Final HPC
1 10 E. BLEEKER FINAL DEVELOPMENT ApPLICATION
PAGE 7