Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
agenda.hpc.20180314
AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING March 14, 2018 4:30 PM City Council Meeting Room 130 S Galena Street, Aspen I. 12:00 SITE VISITS A. None II. 4:30 INTRODUCTION A. Roll call B. Draft minutes for February 14th, 2018 C. Public Comments D. Commissioner member comments E. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent) F. Project Monitoring G. Staff comments H. Certificate of No Negative Effect issued I. Submit public notice for agenda items J. Call-up reports III. 4:40 OLD BUSINESS A. 533 W. Hallam Street- Conceptual Major Development, Demolition, Relocation and Variations, PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 24, 2018 IV. NEW BUSINESS A. None V. 6:40 ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: 2 TYPICAL PROCEEDING- 1 HOUR, 10 MINUTES FOR MAJOR AGENDA ITEM, NEW BUSINESS Provide proof of legal notice (affidavit of notice for PH) Staff presentation (5 minutes) Board questions and clarifications (5 minutes) Applicant presentation (20 minutes) Board questions and clarifications (5 minutes) Public comments (close public comment portion of hearing) (5 minutes) Applicant Rebuttal Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed (5 minutes) HPC discussion (15 minutes) Motion (5 minutes) *Make sure the motion includes what criteria are met or not met. No meeting of the HPC shall be called to order without a quorum consisting of at least four (4) members being present. No meeting at which less than a quorum shall be present shall conduct any business other than to continue the agenda items to a date certain. All actions shall require the concurring vote of a simple majority, but in no event less than three (3) concurring votes of the members of the commission then present and voting. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 24, 2018 Chairperson Greenwood called the meeting to order at 4:32 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Gretchen Greenwood, Jeffery Halferty, Nora Berko, Roger Moyer, Willis Pember, Scott Kendrick and Richard Lai. Absent was Bob Blaich. Staff present: James R. True, City Attorney Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Planner Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mr. Moyer moved to approve, Mr. Pember seconded. All in favor, motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Mr. Moyer gave Ms. Simon a handout and has to do with mineral wool as opposed to fiberglass. He said when it gets wet, it doesn’t shrink and self-destruct, it’s like a wool sweater and keeps working. In the historic world with old houses, this material allows them to breath. This handout talks about why to use it and the benefits. He said sometimes the old goodies still work better than the new products and is organic. Ms. Berko thanked Ms. Simon for organizing the church visit. She said it was really fun and very impressive. DISCLOSURES OF CONFLICT: None. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon will be sending around emails about the conference in Denver. She said so far that Mr. Lai, Mr. Halferty and Ms. Berko are planning to attend and asked if anyone else would like to go and to let her know by tomorrow morning. In terms of carpooling, Ms. Simon is going down Wednesday morning and coming back Friday around 3:00 p.m. if anyone wants to ride along. Monday night is a work session with City Council about HPC benefits and she has emailed the memo to everyone and hopes everyone is satisfied with how it is being presented to Council. Mr. Halferty joined the meeting. Ms. Simon said they can’t have more than three board members show up to the work session so it is not considered a meeting. Mr. True said that three people are considered a meeting so he said no more than two people can attend or if they want to have more members attend, they can notice it as a public meeting. Ms. Simon said she doesn’t want to do that so Ms. Greenwood and Mr. Halferty will attend and the others can watch on the webcast. CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: Ms. Simon did issue one for the Mesa store property. Roland and Broughton are moving into this building and they decided not to build the addition that HPC approved. They are still doing the preservation work that they promised and are doing an interior remodel, but not P1 II.B. the addition. It’s very expensive and they have decided that the existing building can accommodate their staff. The log cabin on Main Street has withdrawn their application and will come back with a minor review with face lift type of improvements. Ms. Berko asked about the Boomerang. Ms. Simon said their only option at this point to pursue is to pick up the building permit that’s been under review for some time. They have eight weeks until their rights to build are gone so it remains to be seen if they will take action. They owe 800,000 in permit fees just to pick it up. She mentioned that she and Mr. Kanipe have been in the building numerous times and the building has remained sound. PUBLIC NOTICE: None. CALL UPS: None. MOTION: Mr. Moyer motioned to continue 533 W. Hallam to March 14th, Ms. Berko seconded. All in favor, motion carried. PROJECT MONITORING: 420 E. Hyman Ave. Amy Simon Ms. Simon stated that this is a project that involves demolition and replacement of the building on the Hyman mall where CB Paws and Zocolito are located. It came through the review process several years ago and it could not be built under the current code because it was grandfathered under the previous moratorium regulations. The main floor is commercial and the second floor is a mix of commercial and affordable housing as well as a free market apartment on the top. It exceeds the size of the uses that are allowed downtown now. It is currently in for building permit and they ran into a problem with the zoning review. They have gone through a series of adjustments and some were interior or so modest that Ms. Simon and Mr. Pember, who is project monitor, approved together. As a way to shed some square footage, they are asking to more deeply recess the street facing door than what was originally approved by HPC. There are two street facing doors on the ground level on Hyman, which are both approved to be recessed three feet. One of them is a secondary access and the upper level of the building is now asking to be approximately nine feet back. They have sited guidelines in the packet which are applicable and the guidelines do ask for recessed entries, but something more in the 3-4-foot range is what the pattern typically is downtown. They feel this will create a darkened space and is not typical so they are not recommending approval. Brian Weiss of Charles Cunniffe Mr. Weiss handed out a site plan to the board showing adjacent buildings and not every recessed entry on Hyman is shown, but the ones most similar to what they are proposing. Due to permit review issues, we are proposing to recess further. One door will access the basement and one will access the second floor. Some entry ways on that street are recessed significantly more and some not so much, but with what they are proposing, he feels there is a context on the street and doesn’t think it would be an outlier or that much different in terms of the surroundings. He feels this is feasible and hopes that HPC accepts it. Mr. Kendrick asked how wide the entry way is. Mr. Weiss said it is 4 ft. 10 finish to finish. It widens a bit once you get past it and is on the side of the street with the sun. Mr. Kendrick said the only example given that really relates is that of Escobar. P2 II.B. Ms. Simon said it’s possible that not everyone has the south elevation in their packet. Ms. Greenwood said she needs to see a better drawing. Ms. Berko said she doesn’t understand why the public has to absorb this dark space. Mr. Weiss said the 40 square feet would get distributed among all uses. Brian this solution solves multiple issues, one of which was a square footage issue and one was an egress issue. No extra doors can enter into it so we are proposing to separate the stairs and the doors in the basement can be open whichever way we want. In tandem, it solves a square footage issue and makes Jim Pomeroy more approving of the basement space and the stair being commercial. Now it’s open for the basement and there are no questions. This helps in terms of FAR calculations. Ms. Berko noted that the separation of stairs could happen at the approved space and then you would have to find your 40 ft. somewhere else. Mr. Weiss said if HPC did not approve this and the door would need to remain where it is currently approved, he would need to revisit this with Denis and he imagines that the vestibule that would be resulting, would become a non-unit space and be distributed amongst the rest of the building. That’s what he believes, but hasn’t confirmed that yet. Mr. Halferty asked if the store front nook display is driving the depth of the two doors and Mr. Weiss said yes, in a way it is. Mr. Pember asked what the basement use is. Mr. Weiss said it’s commercial, the second floor is affordable housing and the third floor is free market residential. Ms. Greenwood asked what the door material was and how it related to the other doors of the front façade. Mr. Weiss said it is in line with them and is steel framed. Part of that reason is that the alley side has to be fire rated. Ms. Greenwood asked what the relationship is to the door to the commercial space and the window and the door to get to the stairwell. She asked if it was all the same design concept. Mr. Weiss said yes, it was all the same material type and concept. She can’t get a good reading on it from the elevations at all and doesn’t have a clue what he is asking to take away from a design standpoint. Mr. Halferty mentioned a section line drawn through and asked if Mr. Weiss has a new proposed section. Mr. Weiss said they just did an overlay onto the permit drawings. Mr. Halferty asked if Mr. Weiss understands why it’s confusing to the board because of the shadows and rendering lines due to sketching over the approved plan. It’s a little bit difficult and confusing. Mr. Weiss said he understands. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. Ms. Greenwood said the board probably put some time into the façade and it’s really important to the public and there is a certain rhythm to the façade and design as well as openings and doors. What they are proposing makes a puncture in the building which creates a positive/negative space, which seems odd with the size of the building. She thinks they should stick to the original approvals where consideration was given to the cadence of windows and doors. P3 II.B. Ms. Berko said she supports staff’s recommendations and echoes Ms. Greenwood’s comments. She said from the drawings, it feels like an alley entrance, not a main public entrance and since it’s a brand new building, she wants to stick to what is required. Mr. Halferty also feels the proposal is difficult to understand. He conceptually understands it, but how it’s presented doesn’t make a lot of sense. Regarding the examples that were handed out, he feels that some are successful and some are daunting and dark. He said that the Escobar entrance and the Paragon entrance are confusing spaces and it’s hard to understand their access. It’s a challenging issue regarding egress and building code, but feels that it has not been researched or presented well. He said it’s a very important façade due to its location. Mr. Lai said the presentation had him really confused and he thinks he should have invested a little more time in the presentation and concurs with the majority of the board. The inference here would be at odds with the fairly uniform façade treatment facing the mall and would like some reconsideration. Mr. Moyer concurs to stay with the original approval and not change anything. Mr. Kendrick agreed that this is too far of a departure from the original approval. He doesn’t think it is something that would work and doesn’t feel that most of the examples are relatable except Escobar, which is too dark and too deep. He doesn’t want to see more dark. Mr. Pember said he was remembering the renderings now of the original approval and said it had a nice façade and nice contribution to the malls. He said he is afraid the solution will come back worse than this proposal. The addition of a second door in that vestibule creates a lot of complications and doesn’t seem like something Denis or Jim Pomeroy will easily dismiss. This creates a more private entrance by pushing it back further, is the way he reads it. The struggle is getting two doors in there, not so much the FAR. Ms. Berko said the concern is with the visual impact on the mall. Ms. Simon said they always try to avoid problem solving, but she wondered if the board be interested in a door that is not solid with some sort of architectural metal work that still qualifies the space as unenclosed, but could be up in the plane that they were expecting. It might create the definition. The problem is that they cannot fully enclose and heat this space where the new recess is shown and this could be a compromise. It would be where the door was approved, but instead of it being a full metal door, it would be a grate of some kind. She’s not positive this would solve the issue, but it’s an option. Ms. Greenwood said it’s not a terrible solution. Mr. Weiss agreed and said they need to have the two doors separating the stairs. He said he would need to speak with Denis in terms of exiting and how he would feel about this type of solution. Ms. Greenwood asked what the door was. Mr. Weiss said it was a glass door with a metal store front system that is 10 ft. tall. Ms. Greenwood said they need to see more detail of this and the monitor needs to show us. Ms. Simon agreed and asked if they would be open to herself and Mr. Pember looking at a different grate type of door with an openness. Ms. Greenwood said absolutely and thinks it’s a very good solution. P4 II.B. Mr. Kendrick said his concern is that it won’t be solving anything in terms of keeping weather out so it will most likely be blocked open the whole time. Ms. Greenwood agreed. Mr. Halferty recommended that in the new rendering, that he show an east or west side elevation so that it depicts the door is propped open or closed. Ms. Greenwood asked for a show of hands for who wants to stick with the original approvals. Ms. Simon said that they will not approve this change and that Mr. Weiss can come back to her and Mr. Pember with another idea. Mr. Moyer moved to adjourn, Mr. Kendrick seconded at 5:25 p.m. ____________________________ Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk P5 II.B. C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\9C1E4ACD-3A20- 4D2B-B163-84F0FED34C2F\13563.doc 3/8/2018 HPC PROJECT MONITORS- projects in bold are under construction Nora Berko 1102 Waters 417/421 W. Hallam 602 E. Hyman 61 Meadows Road 210 S. First 530 W. Hallam ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Bob Blaich Lot 2, 202 Monarch Subdivision 232 E. Bleeker 609 W. Smuggler 209 E. Bleeker 300 E. Hyman, Crystal Palace 128 E. Main, Sardy House ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Gretchen Greenwood 28 Smuggler Grove 135 E. Cooper 1280 Ute 211 E. Hallam 124 W. Hallam 411 E. Hyman 300 E. Hyman, Crystal Palace 101 W. Main, Molly Gibson Lodge 201 E. Main ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Willis Pember 229 W. Smuggler 305/307 S. Mill 534 E. Cooper Jeff Halferty 540 E. Main and Holden-Marolt 980 Gibson 845 Meadows, Aspen Meadows Reception Center 232 E. Main 541 Race Alley 310/330 E. Main (Hotel Jerome) 201 E. Hyman 208 E. Main Roger Moyer 517 E. Hyman (Little Annie’s) 500 W. Main 406 S. Mill 223 E. Hallam __________________________________ Richard Lai 122 W. Main ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Scott Kendrick Need to assign: 333 W. Bleeker 134 W. Hopkins 517 E. Hopkins 422/434 E. Cooper 529-535 E. Cooper, Stein Building 420 E. Hyman 110 W. Main, Hotel Aspen 301 Lake 208 E. Main 122 W. Main 834 W. Hallam P6 II.F. 533 W. Hallam Street Page 1 of 14 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner THRU: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 533 W. Hallam Street- Conceptual Major Development, Demolition, Relocation and Variations, Public Hearing continued from January 24, 2018 DATE: March 14, 2018 ______________________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY: 533 W Hallam is a 6,000 square foot landmark designated property in the R-6 zone district for Medium Density Residential. The property is a single family residence in the form of a Victorian era home with non-historic additions and alterations. A secondary structure is identified as a historic out house located on the west side setback. This lot permits a single family home or two detached residences with a maximum floor area of 3,240 square feet, or a duplex at 3,600 square feet. An application to redevelop this lot was submitted in 2016, reviewed twice by HPC and then transferred to the current owners. The land use application remained active and subject to the “old” Historic Preservation Design Guidelines and Residential Design Standards (RDS), both of which were replaced later in 2016. On November 8th HPC reviewed a new design and continued for restudy. The applicant has since resubmitted a revised design with minor adjustments but the general scope of work and requests for HPC benefit remains the same. The following memo provides staff’s assessment of the new information. The November 8th memo, much of which is still relevant, is attached for HPC’s reference as Exhibit C. This site-specific design proposal will be reviewed by HPC, and any requests for preservation benefits will need to meet the relevant criteria outlined in the municipal code and is not granted as a matter of right. The commission is asked to consider the following items for review: 1.) demolish all existing non-historic additions 2.) relocate the historic building on a new basement 3.) construct new addition 4.) 500 sf Floor Area Bonus 5.) Setback Variations for subgrade basement, out building, and front façade historic bay window 6.) Restoration work on the historic porches and historic out house. P7 III.A. 533 W. Hallam Street Page 2 of 14 The plan includes demolition of non-historic additions to the historic landmark along the east, south, and west elevations. The historic building will then be relocated 9’-4” towards Hallam Street projecting into the 10’ front setback and requiring a variation. A one-story connecting element with a flat roof will join the historic property to the new addition. The identified secondary structure, a historic out house, will be incorporated into the plan and relocated to the rear of the site requiring setback variation due to its proximity to lot lines. Restoration work including re-opening an enclosed front porch, restoring the porch roof form, and restoring the gable end facing Fifth Street, is proposed. The addition consists of three levels, two above grade and one below grade. A basement is proposed from setback to setback, extending 5’ further towards the alley then typically permitted. The applicant is requesting the 500 sf Floor Area Bonus as a preservation incentive. 533 W Hallam Street 1980 533 W Hallam Street 2015 APPLICANT: Duncan Skihaus LLC, represented by BendonAdams, LLC. PARCEL ID: 2735-124-32-001. ADDRESS: 533 W. Hallam Street, Lots A and B, Block 29, City and townsite of Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: R-6, Medium Density Residential. Since the last HPC meeting in November, the applicant has made an effort to incorporate HPC and staff comments into the revised design, and expressed a strong interest in achieving a balance between restoration/rehabilitation efforts and incentive requests for a successful historic preservation project. The following is a list of design adjustments to the project since the Nov. 8th Meeting: - New powder room on the ground level, formerly attached to the back of the historic resource, has been relocated to the addition. - Notched corners on either side of the west facing fireplace on the addition infilled. - Connecting element reduced in height by 9”. - Gabled Roof height on the new addition reduced by 5” to 6”. P8 III.A. 533 W. Hallam Street Page 3 of 14 - Second story flat roof reduced by 1’-4” in height. - Height of dormers on addition reduced by 1’-4” in height. - Horizontal band around new design removed and color of conceptual exterior materials for addition is “darkened”. - Flue (chimney) removed from historic resource. An alternative roof design for the addition which was presented during the last HPC meeting has been withdrawn, and the calculations for the site coverage footprint has been resolved. The applicant has also received updated positive direction from Parks regarding tree preservation and excavation of the site. Regarding the project revisions, staff appreciates the height adjustments made to address comments regarding scale, and the re-configuration of the powder room on the ground floor plan to open up the corners of the historic resource. The applicant also incorporated HPC comments regarding material choice to create a visual distinction between the addition and the historic resource. Aspects of the project which staff has previously identified as successful are the applicant’s proposal for restoration of the porches (51 sq. ft.) and the restoration and adaptive reuse of the historic out house (31 sq. ft.), which demonstrate good preservation practice. Staff also appreciates the highlight of the historic gable roof feature on the west elevation by creating a design rhyth m of gables on the following addition. Staff continues to support the demolition of non-historic additions in effort to restore the remaining elements of the historic resource. The existing non-historic additions may have compromised the historic footprint and materials of the historic resource; however, careful attention is required for identifying and retaining any remains of the original rear walls during construction. Removal of any remaining historic fabric along the south side of the resource should be limited. Summarized below are four areas that staff recommends additional, meaningful restudy. These are areas identified by HPC and staff in November that have not been fully resolved in this revised application. Staff has also prepared a new exhibit, Exhibit A, comparing design changes from November and current application to assist HPC in their review. 1. RELOCATION: Staff is still concerned with the extent of the proposed forward relocation of the historic resource because this action does not result in an improved condition for the historic resource in terms of separating the old and new construction. Often this has been an acceptable means to increase the distance between old and new construction, but the proposed connecting element does not demonstrate this benefit, as described below. Although visibility of the historic resource will increase with both the move and the limbing of the branches, relocation is not the only means of increasing visibility. The large trees located on the northwest corner of the lot are protected per the Tree Removal Ordinance and cannot be removed as directed by the Parks Department. Development on the parcel is required to accommodate preservation of the trees. Since the November 8th staff memo, Parks has indicated that the proposed basement and relocation impacts are acceptable related to P9 III.A. 533 W. Hallam Street Page 4 of 14 the preservation of the trees, and no longer require the basement to be reduced. Given the site constraints of the trees indicated by Parks for preservation and the design of a full basement addition, however, it is unclear how stormwater requirements will be met. To prevent stormwater features such as drywell covers in areas of high visibility, staff continues to recommend a condition of approval to disallow stormwater features to be located in front of the historic resource that can be shown during Final. Staff recognizes our support for relocation of the resource in 2016. At that time, the proposed relocation of the historic resource was 7’ north towards Hallam. The current proposal for relocation is a distance of 9’-4” to the north and seeks a setback variation for the historic bay window. Staff still finds relocation as an acceptable action according to the guidelines; however, this design does not achieve a successful separation between the historic resource and the new addition as anticipated. This condition can be seen specifically with the connecting element. Staff also became concerned with its new location because it would bring the Victorian further alongside the large conifer tree that needs to be preserved. The resource may be subject to deterioration caused by shading and snowshed from the tree. Staff finds that these concerns can be addressed through consultation and redesign; therefore, recommends restudy to achieve approval. (HP Guidelines 9.1 & 9.3) Proposed relocation of Historic Resource – (Existing building outline) 2. CONNECTING ELEMENT: Staff recommends further study regarding the width of the connector. The comments regarding height have been addressed with a reduction of 9”. The connector meets the 10’ length requirement, as seen from the west elevation, but the width of this element makes it appear more like the addition is directly joining the historic resource, rather P10 III.A. 533 W. Hallam Street Page 5 of 14 than a distinct connector. On the east elevation, particularly, there is no sense of a connector as the addition projects forward of the historic resource. The design guidelines call for a connector element as a link between the historic resource and the new addition. The primary goal for this element is to create a beneficial condition of the historic resource. On November 8th, the HPC board recommended restudy of the scale and massing of the connecting element because of the way it connects to the historic house and the new addition in regards to height and width. The revised height of the connecting element reflects the flat roof tucking under all eave elements seen on the roof plan. The current design of the connector element, in plan, is seen as an extension of the addition with a 10’ long recess on the west elevation. While staff appreciates this gesture and how it follows the historical footprint on the west elevation, staff has difficulty justifying this as a true connector element because of its width and its relation to the addition and the width compared to the historic resource. Combined with the plans for relocation of the historic resource, staff expects this connector element to utilize the extra distance gained to create a more successful transition between the resource and the addition. Staff, therefore, recommends further restudy of the connector element in conjunction with the relocation. (HP Guidelines 10.7) Main Level Floor Plan - Proposed P11 III.A. 533 W. Hallam Street Page 6 of 14 3. MASS AND SCALE: Staff is in favor of the height reductions and the subordinate relationship of the one-story flat roof element to the gable elements; but recommends restudy of the overall massing, particularly the second floor and connecting element. Staff recommends restudy of the massing of the second floor flat roof element because it reads as a dominant element that diminishes the rhythm of the gable roofs on the West Elevation. All elements of the addition have been reduced in height by various amounts, the most significant being in the second floor flat roof addition. This change is favorable, but it does not meaningfully address the massing concern, specifically the relationship between the addition and the historic resource. Since the basement is already designed to maximum extents, the additional square footage built into the design is noticeably impacting the above grade massing, specifically the second floor flat roof spaces. This massing pertaining to the second floor flat roof space also disrupts the designed gable roof sequence that the applicant has proposed on the west elevation. Staff concludes this massing condition is directly tied to the inclusion of the full square footage bonus and, therefore, recommends further restudy of this condition with the final square footage award amount decided by HPC. (HP Guidelines 10.6 & 10.8) West Elevation - Proposed 4. 500 FAR BONUS: Staff recommends a bonus be considered for the preservation efforts pertaining to the porch and historic out building, but does not support the award of the full 500 sq. ft. bonus because it does not fully comply with the listed criteria. Staff continues to support the recommendation of no more than 250 sq. ft. be awarded to this project, keeping in mind the recommendation to restudy the massing of the addition. P12 III.A. 533 W. Hallam Street Page 7 of 14 Staff recognizes the preservation efforts being taken by the applicant pertaining to the restoration and re-opening of the front porch (51 sq. ft.) and the restoration and adaptive reuse of the historic out house (31 sq. ft.). Staff recommends these efforts be awarded additional floor area determined by HPC; however, taking the challenges of appropriate massing into account, staff recommends no more than 250 sq. ft. be awarded. The specific criteria for the bonus are listed below: 1. In selected circumstances, the HPC may grant up to five hundred (500) additional square feet of allowable floor area for projects involving designated historic properties. To be considered for the bonus, it must be demonstrated that: a) The design of the project meets all applicable design guidelines; b) The historic building is the key element of the property and the addition is incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic building; c) The work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appearance; d) The new construction is reflective of the proportional patterns found in the historic building's form, materials or openings; e) The construction materials are of the highest quality; f) An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building; g) The project retains a historic outbuilding; and/or h) Notable historic site and landscape features are retained. 2. Granting of additional allowable floor area is not a matter of right but is contingent upon the sole discretion of the HPC and the Commission's assessments of the merits of the proposed project and its ability to demonstrate exemplary historic preservation practices. Projects that demonstrate multiple elements described above will have a greater likelihood of being awarded additional floor area. The following is a list of guidelines for the Floor Area Bonus that are not met and need further discussion: a.) The design of the project meets all applicable design guidelines; Due to the following criteria listed below, point a.) is not met. d.) The new construction is reflective of the proportional patterns found in the historic building’s form, materials or openings: Although the new construction proposes prominent gable roof forms seen from the west elevation, there is a large flat roof component tied to the new above-grade addition that ultimately competes with the rhythm of the gable roof design on the west elevation. f.) An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building; The proposed connection element is not creating a conditions that reads as an adequate transition, or linking element because of the width of the element and how it compares to the historic resource and its relation to the addition. It is important to note that although HP Benefits, including the Floor Area Bonus, are currently under review by HPC and Council, the decision for granting this benefit for this project is based P13 III.A. 533 W. Hallam Street Page 8 of 14 on the project’s compliance with existing criteria. Floor area bonuses are granted at the sole discretion of HPC to projects that demonstrate exemplary historic preservation practices. __________________________________________________________________________ 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. ______________________________________________________________________________ STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff appreciates the applicant’s thoughtful approach to many aspects of the project, but recommends continuation for a restudy of the following: 1. Restudy extent of relocating the historic resource. The relocation needs to physically manifest a benefit to the historic resource, such as a more prominent separation. 2. Restudy the width of the connecting element in synthesis with the proposal for relocation of the historic resource. 3. Restudy the massing of the second floor new addition, especially the area identified as an upper floor office. This restudy will need to take into account HPC’s decision on the floor area bonus. 4. Staff does not support the award of the full 500 sf bonus because the design does not fully comply with the code criteria; however, staff recognizes the applicant’s preservation efforts related to the re-opening of the porch and the preservation of the historic out house and recommends no more than 250 sf be awarded. If HPC chooses to approve submitted application for conceptual design, staff recommends the conditions as seen in attached resolution. EXHIBITS: Resolution ___, Series of 2018 A. Staff Analysis – Visual Comparison B. Historic Preservation Guidelines C. HPC Memo form November Meeting D. Revised Application E. November 8, 2017 HPC Meeting Minutes P14 III.A. 533 W. Hallam Street Page 9 of 14 Exhibit B, Historic Preservation Guidelines 1.9 Maintain the established progression of public-to-private spaces when considering a rehabilitation project. This includes a sequence of experiences, beginning with the "public" sidewalk, proceeding along a "semi-public" walkway, to a "semi-private" porch or entry feature and ending in the "private" spaces beyond. Provide a walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry. Meandering walkways are discouraged, except where it is needed to avoid a tree. Use paving materials that are similar to those used historically for the building style. Concrete, wood or sandstone may be appropriate for certain building styles. 1.10 Preserve historic elements of the yard to provide an appropriate context for historic structures. The front yard should be maintained in a traditional manner, with planting material and sod, and not covered with paving, for example. 1.11 Preserve and maintain mature landscaping on site, particularly landmark trees and shrubs. Protect established vegetation during construction to avoid damage. Replacement of damaged, aged or diseased trees must be approved by the Parks Department. If a tree must be removed as part of the addition or alteration, replace it with species of a large enough scale to have a visual impact in the early years of the project. 1.12 Preserve and maintain historically significant planting designs. Retaining historic planting beds, landscape features and walkways is encouraged. 1.13 Revisions or additions to the landscape should be consistent with the historic context of the site. Select plant and tree material according to its mature size, to allow for the long-term impact of mature growth. Reserve the use of exotic plants to small areas for accent. Do not cover grassy areas with gravel, rock or paving materials. 1.14 Additions to the landscape that could interfere with historic structures are inappropriate. Do not plant climbing ivy or trees too close to a building. New trees should be no closer than the mature canopy size. Do not locate plants or trees in locations that will obscure significant architectural features or block views to the building. It is not appropriate to plant a hedge row that will block views into the yard. 1.16 Preserve historically significant landscape designs and features. This includes the arrangement of trees, shrubs, plant beds, irrigation ditches and sidewalks in the public right-of-way. P15 III.A. 533 W. Hallam Street Page 10 of 14 4.1 Preserve historically significant doors. Maintain features important to the character of a historic doorway. These may include the door, door frame, screen door, threshold, glass panes, paneling, hardware, detailing, transoms and flanking sidelights. Do not change the position and function of original front doors and primary entrances. If a secondary entrance must be sealed shut, any work that is done must be reversible so that the door can be used at a later time, if necessary. Also, keep the door in place, in its historic position. If the secondary entrance is sealed shut, the original entrance on the primary facade must remain operable. 5.1 Preserve an original porch. Replace missing posts and railings when necessary. Match the original proportions and spacing of balusters when replacing missing ones. Unless used historically on the property, wrought iron, especially the "licorice stick" style that emerged in the 1950s and 1960s, is inappropriate. Expanding the size of a historic porch is inappropriate. 5.3 Avoid enclosing a historic front porch. Keeping an open porch is preferred. Enclosing a porch with opaque materials that destroy the openness and transparency of the porch is not acceptable. Enclosing porches with large areas of glass, thereby preserving the openness of the porch, may be considered in special circumstances. When this is done, the glass should be placed behind posts, balusters, and balustrade, so the original character of the porch may still be interpreted. The use of plastic curtains as air-locks on porches is discouraged. Reopening an enclosed porch is appropriate. 5.5 If porch replacement is necessary, reconstruct it to match the original in form and detail. Use materials that appear similar to the original. While matching original materials is preferred, when detailed correctly and painted appropriately, alternative materials may be considered. Where no evidence of the appearance of the historic porch exists, a new porch may be considered that is similar in character to those found on comparable buildings. Keep the style and form simple. Also, avoid applying decorative elements that are not known to have been used on the house or others like it. When constructing a new porch, its depth should be in scale with the building. The scale of porch columns also should be similar to that of the trimwork. The height of the railing and the spacing of balusters should appear similar to those used historically as well. 7.1 Preserve the original form of a roof. P16 III.A. 533 W. Hallam Street Page 11 of 14 Do not alter the angle of a historic roof. Instead, maintain the perceived line and orientation of the roof as seen from the street. Retain and repair roof detailing. 7.2 Preserve the original eave depth. The shadows created by traditional overhangs contribute to one's perception of the building's historic scale and therefore, these overhangs should be preserved. 7.3 Minimize the visual impacts of skylights and other rooftop devices. Flat skylights that are flush with the roof plane may be considered only in an obscure location on a historic structure. Locating a skylight or a solar panel on a front roof plane is not allowed. A skylight or solar panel should not interrupt the plane of a historic roof. It should be positioned below the ridgeline. 7.4 A new chimney should be the same scale as those used historically. A new chimney should reflect the width and height of those used historically. 7.5 Preserve original chimneys, even if they are made non-functional. 8.1 If an existing secondary structure is historically significant, then it must be preserved. When treating a historic secondary building, respect its character-defining features. These include its primary and roof materials, roof form, windows, doors and architectural details. If a secondary structure is not historically significant, then its preservation is optional. 8.3 Avoid attaching a garage or carport to the primary structure. Traditionally, a garage was sited as a separate structure at the rear of the lot; this pattern should be maintained. Any proposal to attach an accessory structure is reviewed on a case- by-case basis. 8.4 A garage door should be compatible with the character of the historic structure. A wood-clad hinged door is preferred on a historic structure. If an overhead door is used, the materials should match that of the secondary structure. If the existing doors are hinged, they can be adapted with an automatic opener. 8.5 Avoid moving a historic secondary structure from its original location. A secondary structure may only be repositioned on its original site to preserve its historic integrity. 9.1 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis. In general, relocation has less of an impact on individual landmark structures than those in a historic district. It must be demonstrated that relocation is the best preservation alternative. Rehabilitation of a historic building must occur as a first phase of any improvements. P17 III.A. 533 W. Hallam Street Page 12 of 14 A relocated building must be carefully rehabilitated to retain original architectural details and materials. Before a building is moved, a plan must be in place to secure the structure and provide a new foundation, utilities, and to restore the house. The design of a new structure on the site should be in accordance with the guidelines for new construction. In general, moving a building to an entirely different site or neighborhood is not approved. 9.3 If relocation is deemed appropriate by the HPC, a structure must remain within the boundaries of its historic parcel. If a historic building straddles two lots, then it may be shifted to sit entirely on one of the lots. Both lots shall remain landmarked properties. 9.4 Site the structure in a position similar to its historic orientation. It should face the same direction and have a relatively similar setback. It may not, for example, be moved to the rear of the parcel to accommodate a new building in front of it. 9.5 A new foundation should appear similar in design and materials to the historic foundation. On modest structures, a simple foundation is appropriate. Constructing a stone foundation on a modest miner's cottage is discouraged because it would be out of character. Where a stone foundation was used historically, and is to be replaced, the replacement should be similar in the cut of the stone and design of the mortar joints. 9.6 When rebuilding a foundation, locate the structure at its approximate historic elevation above grade. Raising the building slightly above its original elevation is acceptable. However, lifting it substantially above the ground level is inappropriate. Changing the historic elevation is discouraged, unless it can be demonstrated that it enhances the resource. 9.7 A lightwell may be used to permit light into below-grade living space. In general, a lightwell is prohibited on a wall that faces a street (per the Residential Design Standards). The size of a lightwell should be minimized. A lightwell that is used as a walkout space may be used only in limited situations and will be considered on a case-by-case basis. If a walkout space is feasible, it should be surrounded by a simple fence or rail. 10.1 Preserve an older addition that has achieved historic significance in its own right. 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. P18 III.A. 533 W. Hallam Street Page 13 of 14 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the primary building is inappropriate. An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is inappropriate. An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style should be avoided. An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate. 10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining visually compatible with these earlier features. A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material or a differentiation between historic, and more current styles are all techniques that may be considered to help define a change from old to new construction. 10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building. An addition that is lower than or similar to the height of the primary building is preferred. 10.7 If it is necessary to design an addition that is taller than a historic building, set it back substantially from significant facades and use a "connector" to link it to the historic building. A 1-story connector is preferred. The connector should be a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition and the primary building. The connector also should be proportional to the primary building. 10.8 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate. Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not alter the exterior mass of a building. Set back an addition from primary facades in order to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. A minimum setback of 10 feet on primary structures is recommended. 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. P19 III.A. 533 W. Hallam Street Page 14 of 14 For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eavelines should be avoided. 11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale with the historic buildings on the parcel. Subdivide larger masses into smaller "modules" that are similar in size to the historic buildings on the original site. 11.5 Use building forms that are similar to those of the historic property. They should not overwhelm the original in scale. 14.17 Design a new driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual impact. Plan parking areas and driveways in a manner that utilizes existing curb cuts. New curb cuts are not permitted. If an alley exists, a new driveway must be located off of it. 14.20 Off-street driveways should be removed, if feasible. Non-historic parking areas accessed from the street should be removed if parking can be placed on the alley. 14.22 Driveways leading to parking areas should be located to the side or rear of a primary structure. Locating drives away from the primary facade will maintain the visual importance the structure has along a block. P20 III.A. HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2018 Page 1 of 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) GRANTING CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT, DEMOLITION, RELOCATION, AND VARIATIONS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 533 WEST HALLAM STREET, LOTS A & B, BLOCK 29, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION #__, SERIES OF 2018 PARCEL ID: 2735-124-32-001 WHEREAS, the applicant, Duncan Skihaus, LLC, represented by BendonAdams, LLC., has requested HPC approval for Conceptual Major Development, Demolition, Relocation, and Variations for the property located at 533 West Hallam Street, Lots A & B, Block 29, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that “no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;” and WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project’s conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, for approval of Demolition, the application shall meet the requirements of Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.415.080.A, Demolition of a Designated Property; and WHEREAS, for approval of Relocation, the application shall meet the requirements of Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.415.090.C, Relocation of a Designated Property; and WHEREAS, the HPC may approve setback variations according to Section 26.415.110.C.1.a, Variances; and WHEREAS, the HPC may approve variations to the Residential Design Standards according to Section 26.410.010.General or for reasons of fairness; and WHEREAS, the HPC may approve a floor area bonus according to Section 26.415.110.F, Floor area bonus; and WHEREAS, HPC reviewed the project on March 14, 2018. HPC considered the application, the staff memo and public comments, and found the proposal consistent with the review standards and granted approval with conditions by a vote of __ to __. P21 III.A. HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2018 Page 2 of 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby approves Conceptual Major Development, Demolition, Relocation, and Variation review for 533 W. Hallam Street with the following conditions: 1. HPC hereby grants the following dimensional variances: a. A ____ reduction of the rear yard setback to allow for a basement. b. A ____ reduction of the rear yard setback to allow for the historic out house. c. A ____ reduction of the east side yard setback to allow for the historic out house. d. A ____ reduction of the combined side yard setback to allow for the historic out house. 2. HPC hereby grants a ______ sq. ft Floor Area Bonus for the preservation efforts of restoring the historic porch and out house. 3. For Final review, the Applicant will provide a developed plan for Stormwater design that will not locate any features such as drywell covers in the foreground of the historic structure for approval by HPC. 4. As part of a building permit review, the applicant will be required to submit a report from a licensed engineer, architect or housemover demonstrating that the house and outbuilding can be moved, and the method for moving and protecting the structures, must be submitted with the building permit application. In addition the applicant must provide a bond, letter of credit or cashier’s check in the amount of $30,000 to be held by the City during the duration of the relocation process. HPC must determine whether a $15,000 deposit is also necessary for the outbuilding. 5. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one (1) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date for a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 14th day of March, 2018. Approved as to Form: Approved as to Content: ______________________________ ____________________________ Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Gretchen Greenwood, Chair ATTEST: ______________________________ Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk P22 III.A. 533 W Hallam Street Site Design: RELOCATION The relocation of the resource will bring the trunks of the large trees up against the west elevation of the historic structure.Better visible access is gained when the lower branches are pruned.March 14, 2018 -HPC Continuation Exhibit AP23 III.A. 533 W Hallam Street New Addition: CONNECTING ELEMENT Applicant referenced previous application submitted in 2016 and the comments made by HPC and Staff.Provided is the visual reference of the cited design. Design Proposal –Aug.2016 Proposed Design (revised)–Mar.2018 March 14, 2018 -HPC Continuation Exhibit AP24 III.A. 533 W Hallam Street New Addition: MASSING AND SCALE The relocation of the powder room allows for more some space between the historic resource and the new addition and also allows for opportunity to expose the historic eave.No square footage was reduced with this design change. Proposed Design –NOV.2017 Proposed Design (revised)–MAR.2018 March 14, 2018 -HPC Continuation Exhibit AP25 III.A. 533 W Hallam Street New Addition: MASSING AND SCALE The floor plans show the relocation of the powder room and the removal of the vertical windows surrounding the new chimney the configuration of the wall.No square footage was reduced with these design changes Proposed Design –NOV.2017 Proposed Design (revised)–MAR.2018 March 14, 2018 -HPC Continuation Exhibit AP26 III.A. 533 W Hallam Street New Addition: MASSING AND SCALE Proposed Design –NOV.2017 Proposed Design (revised)–MAR.2018 Height changes along the roof line, but no changes square footage. March 14, 2018 -HPC Continuation Exhibit AP27 III.A. 533 W Hallam Street New Addition: MASSING AND SCALE Proposed Design –NOV.2017 Proposed Design (revised)–MAR.2018 Massing of revised new addition (west elevation)compared to the previous design does not demonstrate significant changes. March 14, 2018 -HPC Continuation Exhibit AP28 III.A. 533 W. Hallam Street Page 1 of 22 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner THRU: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 533 W. Hallam Street- Conceptual Major Development, Demolition, Relocation and Variations, Public Hearing DATE: November 08, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY: An application to redevelop this lot was originally submitted in 2016. HPC conducted two Conceptual hearings before continuing to November 8, 2017 while the owner considered options for the property on 533 W Hallam Street. Since then, the pending application has been transferred to a new buyer who wishes to renew the review with a revised plan. The public notice for this case was re-done due to the time that has passed since the original application submission. According to Municipal Code Section 26.304.080.F, as long as the case remains active it will be reviewed according to the land use code provisions and design guidelines in place when the Planning Office deemed the application complete. This date was February 8, 2016; therefore, this application is subject to the “old” Historic Preservation Design Guidelines and Residential Design Standards (RDS), both of which were replaced later in 2016. 533 W Hallam Street 1980 533 W Hallam Street 2015 533 W Hallam is a 6,000 square foot landmark designated property in the R-6 zone district for Medium Density Residential. The property is a single family residence in the form of a Victorian era home with non-historic additions and alterations. A secondary structure garden shed is located on the west side setback. This lot permits a single family home or two detached residences with a maximum floor area of 3,240 square feet, or a duplex at 3,600 square feet. P29 III.A. 533 W. Hallam Street Page 2 of 22 The commission is asked to consider the following items for review: 1.) demolish all existing non-historic additions 2.) relocate the historic building on a new basement 3.) construct new addition 4.) 500 sf Floor Area Bonus 5.) Setback Variations for subgrade basement, garden shed, and front façade historic bay window The plan includes demolition of non-historic additions to the historic landmark along the east and south elevations. The historic building will then be relocated 9’4” towards Hallam Street projecting into the 10’ front setback and requiring a variation. A one story connecting element with a flat roof will join the historic property to the new addition. The identified secondary structure garden shed will be incorporated into the plan and relocated to the rear of the site requiring setback variation due to its proximity to lot lines. Restoration work including re- opening an enclosed front porch, restoring the porch roof form, and restoring the gable end facing Fifth Street, will be completed. The addition consists of three levels, two above grade and one below grade. In response to earlier staff feedback regarding a flat roofed element of the addition, two different design options have been submitted for the new addition that propose alternate roof plans. A basement is proposed from setback to setback, extending 5’ further towards the alley then typically permitted. The applicant is requesting the full 500 sf Floor Area Bonus as a preservation incentive. The first review is Conceptual Design (scale, massing and site plan), Demolition, Relocation and Variation review by HPC. Conceptual approval requires notification to City Council. Final review will follow before application for building permit. APPLICANT: Duncan Skihaus LLC, represented by BendonAdams, LLC. PARCEL ID: 2735-124-32-001. ADDRESS: 533 W. Hallam Street, Lots A and B, Block 29, City and townsite of Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: R-6, Medium Density Residential. CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT The procedures for a Major Development is a two-step process that requires HPC approval of the conceptual development plan, and then approval of the Final Development Plan. Conceptual review focuses on the height, scale, massing and proportions of a proposal. A list of relevant Historic Preservation Guidelines is attached as “Exhibit A.” P30 III.A. 533 W. Hallam Street Page 3 of 22 The procedures for the review of conceptual development plans for major development projects are as follows: (1) The Community Development Director shall review the application materials submitted for conceptual or final development plan approval. If they are determined to be complete, the applicant will be notified in writing of this and a public hearing before the HPC shall be scheduled. Notice of the hearing shall be provided pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E.3 Paragraphs a, b and c. (2) Staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code sections. This report will be 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 Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. (3) 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. (4) A resolution of the HPC action shall be forwarded to the City Council in accordance with Section 26.415.120 - Appeals, notice to City Council, and call-up. No applications for Final Development Plan shall be accepted by the City and no associated permits shall be issued until the City Council takes action as described in said section Staff Response: The Colorado Cultural Resource survey taken in 1980 estimates the construction date for this property as circa 1886. The building is a single story wood framed Miner’s cottage from the late Victorian era. The builder for this property is unknown. This historic landmark does appear on the 1896 Willits Map and the Sanborn Maps from 1890, 1893, 1898 and 1904. The Sanborn maps indicate a very consistent building footprint that is irregular in shape, a prominent bay window on the east elevation facing Hallam Street, and the two porches on either side of the bay window. A barn structure once located in the far southwest corner of the property no longer exists. In the 1908 Aspen Daily Times, there is an advertisement for rent or sale of property no. 533 W Hallam by Alonzo Fry who describes the property as “good location, modern conveniences, fully equipped bath room and large barn.” A few years later in 1910, the same individual listed the property again with the following description of the house: “five rooms and bath, large barn, two corner lots.” Following is staff’s analysis of the proposed project: Site design: The project must take into consideration the protection of mature landscape features, lot features, and streetscapes. This site has an array of very mature trees located on the corner of Hallam and Fifth Street and along Hallam street towards the front façade of the historic building. With the extensive excavation work that would be required for the relocation of the historic building and the basement addition, it is critical to work with the Parks Department in the beginning stages to identify and create a work plan that will address the design guideline below: P31 III.A. 533 W. Hallam Street Page 4 of 22 1.11 Preserve and maintain mature landscaping on site, particularly landmark trees and shrubs • Protect established vegetation during construction to avoid damage. Replacement of damaged, aged or diseased trees must be approved by the Parks Department • If a tree must be removed as part of the addition or alteration, replace it with species of a large enough scale to have a visual impact in the early years of the project The applicant and staff have been in contact with Parks on separate occasions. A major concern identified during the site visit between Parks and staff is the current west alignment of the building foundation being too close to spruce and cottonwood trees. The impact from the excavation work for the proposed basement is a concern because the identified trees are not to be removed. The proposed basement design exceeds the footprint of the house above grade. Parks has indicated that the basement should shift to the east by 4 to 5 feet. More discussion is needed on this topic. Planning also recommends additional study of the house relocation as shifting the Victorian 4-5’ eastward would avoid burying it into the dripline of a large spruce, or awkward trimming of the lower branches of the spruce in order to ensure that the house does not become more obscured by the trees. Reducing the forward location of the house might also help. Please note that staff also has a concern with the proposed siting of the historic resource relative to the Victorian next door. This is addressed further in Relocation review below. Landscape plan will be reviewed at Final, but there is indications of head in parking on the west in public right of way which is not permitted. It is not clear how stormwater requirements will be accommodated in the limited remaining natural area on our site. A condition of approval will be to disallow stormwater features such as drywell covers in front of the historic resource. The application is also over the allowed site coverage footprint by 6.8%, which must be resolved. Restoration: Porches Restoration of the historic porches on the front façade of the historic building is to be done using primary sources such as Sanborn Maps, records in the Building Department, and a 1960s Aspen Historical Society photograph. The Sanborn maps from 1890, 1893,1898, and 1904 reflect a consistent irregular building footprint that also shows the existence of the two porches. The restoration of the porches will include re-establishing a street facing front door to the eastern porch and the opening up of the eastern enclosed porch. A west facing front door on the west porch is to remain in place because there is not enough adequate information to determine if it is original. Since part of the porch needs to be completely reconstructed, research and attention to detail is very important. Site inspection with staff will be required during construction to review framing of door openings, along with shop drawings of any restored details. The applicant also proposes to restore the flat porch roof forms which were overframed in 1991. Applicable guidelines are: 5.3 Avoid enclosing a historic front porch • Keeping an open porch is preferred P32 III.A. 533 W. Hallam Street Page 5 of 22 • Enclosing a porch with opaque materials that destroy the openness and transparency of the porch is not acceptable • Enclosing porches with large areas of glass, thereby preserving the openness of the porch, may be considered in special circumstances. When this is done, the glass should be placed behind posts, balusters, and balustrade, so the original character of the porch may still be interpreted • The use of plastic curtains a s air-locks on porches is discouraged • Reopening an enclosed porch is appropriate 5.5 If porch replacement is necessary, reconstruct it to match the original in form and detail • Use materials that appear similar to the original • While matching original materials is preferred, when detailed correctly and painted appropriately, alternative materials may be considered • Where no evidence of the appearance of the historic porch exists, a new porch may be considered that is similar in character to those found on comparable buildings. Keep the style and form simple. Also, avoid applying decorative elements that are not known to have been used on the house or others like it • When constructing a new porch, its depth should be in scale with the building • The scale of porch columns also should be similar to that of the trimwork • The height of the railing and the spacing of balusters should appear similar to those used historically as well. Sanborn Map 1890 Sanborn Map 1904 Staff supports the restoration of the historic porches and opening up the enclosed porch which complies with all of the listed Preservation guidelines above. Re-opening the porch may justify some degree of floor area bonus. As part of the applicant’s effort to restore the historic structure, non-historic rear additions are to be removed. If original rear walls remain within the current building interior they must be retained, otherwise reconstruction will be necessary. It appears that the southern most portion of P33 III.A. 533 W. Hallam Street Page 6 of 22 the original structure indicated on the Sanborn Map with an arrow is gone. To be clear, the rear wall proposed to be established on the Victorian does not represent the full extent of the house in the Victorian period. In addition, on the south façade of the resource, the applicant proposes a powder room addition. The secondary structure identified as a garden shed on the plan is a historic structure that does not appear on the Sanborn Map. It has been incorporated into the plan of the site as advised previously by the HPC and staff. The guideline state: 8.1 If an existing secondary structure is historically significant, then it must be preserved • When treating a historic secondary building, respect its character-defining features. These include its primary and roof materials, roof form, windows, doors and architectural details • If a secondary structure is not historically significant, then its preservation is optional Although the origins of the secondary structure are not clear, staff supports the decision to keep the structure on site. P34 III.A. 533 W. Hallam Street Page 7 of 22 New Additions: Connecting Element In terms of the proposed addition, the connecting element between the historic building and the larger mass of the new addition is expected to be a minimum of 10’ long and one story. This serves two purposes: to connect the new and old buildings together and to create a respectable distance between the two resources for mitigating visual impact and alterations to the historical resource. The connecting element proposed for this project is at a height of 10’10 ½” and does not appear subordinate to the historic roof. This affects the integrity of the form of the historic building and makes the addition the dominant element. When looking at this connecting element in plan, the east side does not maintain the minimum length of 10’ and does not take the function of a “connector” but becomes livable space. 10.7 If it is necessary to design an addition that is taller than a historic building, set it back substantially from significant facades and use a “connector” to link it to the historic building • A 1-story connector is preferred • The connector should be a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition and the primary building • The connector also should be proportional to the primary building A connecting element is intended to function as a corridor that joins historic and new properties together. The proposed connecting element does not fully abide by the minimum length requirement of a 10’long, and its height prevents it from gently tucking under the roofline. It also projects past the east side of the resource, again infringing on the buffer that is to be provided behind the resource. Staff suggests a redesign of the proposed connector element that functions like a connector and has a slightly reduced height to meet the Historic Preservation Guidelines. P35 III.A. 533 W. Hallam Street Page 8 of 22 Landscape Plan The scale and massing of the new addition beyond the connecting element should not overwhelm the historic building. Staff is concerned that the addition is nearly three times the square footage of the historic building. While staff supports the concept of the west facing gable ends on the addition creating a relationship to the historic form, the footprint of the addition is extensive from north to south and east to west. The proposed North elevation reveals the additions behind the historic building extending beyond the edges of the historic building. This creates an imbalance in the massing. Staff suggests re-evaluation areas where the additions are out of scale and overwhelming the historic building. We have a concern that a floor area bonus for this addition diminishes the preservation of the resource. 11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale with the historic buildings on the parcel • Subdivide larger masses into smaller “modules” that are similar in size to the historic buildings on the original site. 11.5 Use building forms that are similar to those of the historic property • They should not overwhelm the original in scale P36 III.A. 533 W. Hallam Street Page 9 of 22 The roof plan of the historic building was a steep cross gable roof with, more than likely, a shed roof to the rear. The proposal will strip the non-historic alterations and re-establish parts of the historic building. The new additions should be respectful of the historical precedent set by the historical building. Staff is concerned that the proposed flat roofed portion of the addition is out of character with the resource and contributes to an overbearing relationship to the resource. The flat roof massing pertaining to “Leslie’s Office” overpowers in scale and shape in relation to the historic building. In response to staff’s input, two different design ideas regarding this portion of the project have been submitted. Staff does not support either option and suggests simplification and reduction of mass. Treatment of elements on the roof such as chimneys should be thoughtful in placement and materiality. Historical research needs to support the type and placement of the chimney on this historic building. 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 7.4 A new chimney should be the same scale as those used historically • A new chimney should reflect the width and height of those historically P37 III.A. 533 W. Hallam Street Page 10 of 22 Option A – Roof Plan Option B – Roof Plan DEMOLITION & RELOCATION The areas proposed for demolition are located mainly on the south side of the historic structure. Currently, the additions to the historic structure obscure the historic footprint and they completely envelop the east and rear sides of the historic building. The demolition is concentrated on the removal of non-historic additions that have accrued over time. The demolition will open up the porch and provide opportunity to restore parts of the original building footprint. Staff Response: The Sanborn Maps from 1890, 1893, 1898 and 1904 provide a premise for identifying historic and non-historic additions. The applicant’s request for demolition of all non- historic additions follows criterion d.) no documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic, architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance and also meet the next three criteria for demolition; therefore, staff recommends approval for demolition. P38 III.A. 533 W. Hallam Street Page 11 of 22 Demolition shall be approved if it is demonstrated that the application meets any one of the following criteria: a) The property has been determined by the City to be an imminent hazard to public safety and the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely manner, b) The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure, c) The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen or d) No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic, architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance and Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met: a) The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or Historic District in which it is located and b) The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the Historic District or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated properties and c) Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the area. The relocation request involves moving the historic building forward and from its historic location by 9’4” towards Hallam Street, up past the 10’ front setback line. This action will bring the historic resource closer to the street and provide the potential for a larger distance between the proposed new addition and the historic building but this will also create new conditions for the historic resource. The relocation will pull the historic resource out of alignment with the historic property directly to the east. Staff Response: The applicant’s request for relocation creates a concern for the potential visual impact on the historic structure and the low hanging branches of the spruce tree located near the northwest corner of the site. This relocation will also impact the integrity of the historic resource because it will be moved from its original site placement and out of alignment with the historic property located on 525 W Hallam Street. Staff does support the relocation of the garden shed but the relocation of the historic house needs further study to address the visual impact with the existing trees and integrity of alignment. In terms of the physical conditions of the historic resources, proof of structural stability for the resource to be moved on-site must be submitted and the applicant will be required to submit the standard assurances in the form of a $30,000 deposit to the City during the construction process. 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 noncontributing element of a historic district and its relocation will not affect the character of the historic district; or 2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on which it is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the Historic District or property; or P39 III.A. 533 W. Hallam Street Page 12 of 22 3. The owner has obtained a certificate of economic hardship; or 4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given the character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not adversely affect the integrity of the Historic District in which it was originally located or diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated properties; and Additionally, for approval to relocate all of the following criteria must be met: 1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding the physical impacts of relocation; 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. 525 W Hallam Street 2015 SETBACK VARIATIONS Dimensional variations are allowed for projects involving designated properties to create development that is more consistent with the character of the historic property or district than what would be required by the underlying zoning’s dimensional standards. 1. The HPC may grant variances of the Land Use Code 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 percent (5%) additional site coverage; d) Less public amenity than required for the on-site relocation of commercial historic properties. 2. In granting a variance, the HPC must make a finding that such a variance: a) Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district; and/or b) Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district P40 III.A. 533 W. Hallam Street Page 13 of 22 Staff Response: The requested Setback variations from the applicant are as follows: 1.) Rear yard setback variation of 5’ for basement 2.) Rear yard and east side yard setback variations of 5’on each lot line for the garden shed 3.) Combined side yard setback variation of 10’ for historic shed 4.) Front yard setback variation of 2’6 ½ ” for historic resource The relocation of the historic building to the 10’ setback leaves the historic bay window extending over the allowable setback of 2’6 ½”. The historic shed was not identified on the Sanborn Maps; however, the proposal incorporates the secondary structure into the plan as a result of previous meetings with staff. The rear yard setback is for the subgrade level addition which is an accommodation that can be made with no impact to the historic structure. The applicant’s request for the various setback variations for the historic shed and the subgrade basement is an effort to concentrate new development away from the historic building. They meet the criterion of mitigating adverse impact to the historic property. Staff recommends that the garden shed sit a bit inside the property lines to facilitate construction entirely within the lot and reduce the impact on the east neighbor. Staff generally supports the requested setback variations for the basement and shed. The Setback variation request for the front yard needs more site study in response to the request for relocation before a decision can be made. FLOOR AREA BONUS In selected circumstances, the HPC may grant up to five hundred (500) additional square feet of allowable floor area for projects involving designated historical properties. To be considered for the bonus, it must be demonstrated that: 1. In selected circumstances, the HPC may grant up to five hundred (500) additional square feet of allowable floor area for projects involving designated historic properties. To be considered for the bonus, it must be demonstrated that: a) The design of the project meets all applicable design guidelines; b) The historic building is the key element of the property and the addition is incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic building; c) The work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appearance; d) The new construction is reflective of the proportional patterns found in the historic building's form, materials or openings; e) The construction materials are of the highest quality; f) An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building; g) The project retains a historic outbuilding; and/or h) Notable historic site and landscape features are retained. 2. Granting of additional allowable floor area is not a matter of right but is contingent upon the sole discretion of the HPC and the Commission's assessments of the merits of the proposed project and its ability to demonstrate exemplary historic preservation practices. Projects that P41 III.A. 533 W. Hallam Street Page 14 of 22 demonstrate multiple elements described above will have a greater likelihood of being awarded additional floor area. Staff Response: This proposal addresses the applicable Design Guidelines for preservation and takes positive efforts to restore the historic buildings on the site; however, it does not meet all of the guidelines at this time. Scale and massing of new additions and the minimum length of the connecting element are significant concerns that are arguably aggravated by the extra square footage. Restudy is needed before this project can be considered an exemplary historic preservation practice. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS (RDS) The intent for the Residential Design Standards are to ensure a strong connection between the residence and the street, to break up bulk and mass, and preserve the historical scale and character of the neighborhood. This application needs to comply with the “old” Residential Design Standards (RDS). This includes requirement for garage placement, lightwell, and exterior materials. Staff has reviewed the proposal against the standards against and finds all the design standards are met. The front porches on the historic structure do not meet the minimum 6’ depth; however, this is an existing condition and does not require an exception. Windows and materials will be reviewed against the RDS at Final. ______________________________________________________________________________ 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. ______________________________________________________________________________ STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff appreciates the applicant’s thoughtful approach to many aspects of the project, however we recommend that HPC continue the application for a restudy of the following: 1. Confirm the extent and impact of the excavation which will be allowed by Parks. Demonstrate the visual effect of the relocation on the resource and the results of the move in regards to the façade relationship between the other historic buildings on Hallam Street. Restudy the positioning and siting of the resource to mitigate impacts. P42 III.A. 533 W. Hallam Street Page 15 of 22 2. Conceptually identify how stormwater will be addressed. If the applicant considers this investigation premature, staff recommends a condition that no drywells/ manhole covers will be allowed in the foreground of the historic home. 3. Re-design the connecting element to follow the minimum requirement found in the Preservation Design Guidelines, reducing its height and width. Ensure that remaining historic fabric at the southeast corner of the house is not being demolished. 4. Re-evaluate the scale and massing of the new addition, especially the area identified as an upper floor office. The roof plan should relate to the simplicity of the home. 5. Staff does not support a 500 sf bonus, finding that aspects of the plan diminish and overwhelm the resource. We recommend no more than 250 sf be awarded in recognition of porch restoration. We recommend the remaining 250 sf be removed from the above grade massing in a meaningful way, addressing concerns stated in this memo. 6. Simplify flues and restudy placement on the historic building. 7. Reduce or clarify the setback variations for the garden shed so that it is not directly on the rear and east lot line. EXHIBITS: A. Historic Preservation Guidelines B. Application Exhibit A, Historic Preservation Guidelines 1.9 Maintain the established progression of public-to-private spaces when considering a rehabilitation project. This includes a sequence of experiences, beginning with the "public" sidewalk, proceeding along a "semi-public" walkway, to a "semi-private" porch or entry feature and ending in the "private" spaces beyond. Provide a walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry. Meandering walkways are discouraged, except where it is needed to avoid a tree. Use paving materials that are similar to those used historically for the building style. Concrete, wood or sandstone may be appropriate for certain building styles. P43 III.A. 533 W. Hallam Street Page 16 of 22 1.10 Preserve historic elements of the yard to provide an appropriate context for historic structures. The front yard should be maintained in a traditional manner, with planting material and sod, and not covered with paving, for example. 1.11 Preserve and maintain mature landscaping on site, particularly landmark trees and shrubs. Protect established vegetation during construction to avoid damage. Replacement of damaged, aged or diseased trees must be approved by the Parks Department. If a tree must be removed as part of the addition or alteration, replace it with species of a large enough scale to have a visual impact in the early years of the project. 1.12 Preserve and maintain historically significant planting designs. Retaining historic planting beds, landscape features and walkways is encouraged. 1.13 Revisions or additions to the landscape should be consistent with the historic context of the site. Select plant and tree material according to its mature size, to allow for the long-term impact of mature growth. Reserve the use of exotic plants to small areas for accent. Do not cover grassy areas with gravel, rock or paving materials. 1.14 Additions to the landscape that could interfere with historic structures are inappropriate. Do not plant climbing ivy or trees too close to a building. New trees should be no closer than the mature canopy size. Do not locate plants or trees in locations that will obscure significant architectural features or block views to the building. It is not appropriate to plant a hedge row that will block views into the yard. 1.16 Preserve historically significant landscape designs and features. This includes the arrangement of trees, shrubs, plant beds, irrigation ditches and sidewalks in the public right-of-way. 4.1 Preserve historically significant doors. Maintain features important to the character of a historic doorway. These may include the door, door frame, screen door, threshold, glass panes, paneling, hardware, detailing, transoms and flanking sidelights. P44 III.A. 533 W. Hallam Street Page 17 of 22 Do not change the position and function of original front doors and primary entrances. If a secondary entrance must be sealed shut, any work that is done must be reversible so that the door can be used at a later time, if necessary. Also, keep the door in place, in its historic position. If the secondary entrance is sealed shut, the original entrance on the primary facade must remain operable. 5.1 Preserve an original porch. Replace missing posts and railings when necessary. Match the original proportions and spacing of balusters when replacing missing ones. Unless used historically on the property, wrought iron, especially the "licorice stick" style that emerged in the 1950s and 1960s, is inappropriate. Expanding the size of a historic porch is inappropriate. 5.3 Avoid enclosing a historic front porch. Keeping an open porch is preferred. Enclosing a porch with opaque materials that destroy the openness and transparency of the porch is not acceptable. Enclosing porches with large areas of glass, thereby preserving the openness of the porch, may be considered in special circumstances. When this is done, the glass should be placed behind posts, balusters, and balustrade, so the original character of the porch may still be interpreted. The use of plastic curtains as air-locks on porches is discouraged. Reopening an enclosed porch is appropriate. 5.5 If porch replacement is necessary, reconstruct it to match the original in form and detail. Use materials that appear similar to the original. While matching original materials is preferred, when detailed correctly and painted appropriately, alternative materials may be considered. Where no evidence of the appearance of the historic porch exists, a new porch may be considered that is similar in character to those found on comparable buildings. Keep the style and form simple. Also, avoid applying decorative elements that are not known to have been used on the house or others like it. When constructing a new porch, its depth should be in scale with the building. The scale of porch columns also should be similar to that of the trimwork. The height of the railing and the spacing of balusters should appear similar to those used historically as well. P45 III.A. 533 W. Hallam Street Page 18 of 22 7.1 Preserve the original form of a roof. Do not alter the angle of a historic roof. Instead, maintain the perceived line and orientation of the roof as seen from the street. Retain and repair roof detailing. 7.2 Preserve the original eave depth. The shadows created by traditional overhangs contribute to one's perception of the building's historic scale and therefore, these overhangs should be preserved. 7.3 Minimize the visual impacts of skylights and other rooftop devices. Flat skylights that are flush with the roof plane may be considered only in an obscure location on a historic structure. Locating a skylight or a solar panel on a front roof plane is not allowed. A skylight or solar panel should not interrupt the plane of a historic roof. It should be positioned below the ridgeline. 7.4 A new chimney should be the same scale as those used historically. A new chimney should reflect the width and height of those used historically. 7.5 Preserve original chimneys, even if they are made non-functional. 8.1 If an existing secondary structure is historically significant, then it must be preserved. When treating a historic secondary building, respect its character-defining features. These include its primary and roof materials, roof form, windows, doors and architectural details. If a secondary structure is not historically significant, then its preservation is optional. 8.3 Avoid attaching a garage or carport to the primary structure. Traditionally, a garage was sited as a separate structure at the rear of the lot; this pattern should be maintained. Any proposal to attach an accessory structure is reviewed on a case-by-case basis. 8.4 A garage door should be compatible with the character of the historic structure. A wood-clad hinged door is preferred on a historic structure. If an overhead door is used, the materials should match that of the secondary structure. P46 III.A. 533 W. Hallam Street Page 19 of 22 If the existing doors are hinged, they can be adapted with an automatic opener. 8.5 Avoid moving a historic secondary structure from its original location. A secondary structure may only be repositioned on its original site to preserve its historic integrity. 9.1 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis. In general, relocation has less of an impact on individual landmark structures than those in a historic district. It must be demonstrated that relocation is the best preservation alternative. Rehabilitation of a historic building must occur as a first phase of any improvements. A relocated building must be carefully rehabilitated to retain original architectural details and materials. Before a building is moved, a plan must be in place to secure the structure and provide a new foundation, utilities, and to restore the house. The design of a new structure on the site should be in accordance with the guidelines for new construction. In general, moving a building to an entirely different site or neighborhood is not approved. 9.3 If relocation is deemed appropriate by the HPC, a structure must remain within the boundaries of its historic parcel. If a historic building straddles two lots, then it may be shifted to sit entirely on one of the lots. Both lots shall remain landmarked properties. 9.4 Site the structure in a position similar to its historic orientation. It should face the same direction and have a relatively similar setback. It may not, for example, be moved to the rear of the parcel to accommodate a new building in front of it. 9.5 A new foundation should appear similar in design and materials to the historic foundation. On modest structures, a simple foundation is appropriate. Constructing a stone foundation on a modest miner's cottage is discouraged because it would be out of character. 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. P47 III.A. 533 W. Hallam Street Page 20 of 22 9.6 When rebuilding a foundation, locate the structure at its approximate historic elevation above grade. Raising the building slightly above its original elevation is acceptable. However, lifting it substantially above the ground level is inappropriate. Changing the historic elevation is discouraged, unless it can be demonstrated that it enhances the resource. 9.7 A lightwell may be used to permit light into below-grade living space. In general, a lightwell is prohibited on a wall that faces a street (per the Residential Design Standards). The size of a lightwell should be minimized. A lightwell that is used as a walkout space may be used only in limited situations and will be considered on a case-by-case basis. If a walkout space is feasible, it should be surrounded by a simple fence or rail. 10.1 Preserve an older addition that has achieved historic significance in its own right. 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. 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the primary building is inappropriate. An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is inappropriate. An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style should be avoided. An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate. 10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining visually compatible with these earlier features. A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material or a differentiation between historic, and more current styles are all techniques that may be considered to help define a change from old to new construction. P48 III.A. 533 W. Hallam Street Page 21 of 22 10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building. An addition that is lower than or similar to the height of the primary building is preferred. 10.7 If it is necessary to design an addition that is taller than a historic building, set it back substantially from significant facades and use a "connector" to link it to the historic building. A 1-story connector is preferred. The connector should be a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition and the primary building. The connector also should be proportional to the primary building. 10.8 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate. Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not alter the exterior mass of a building. Set back an addition from primary facades in order to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. A minimum setback of 10 feet on primary structures is recommended. 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. For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eavelines should be avoided. 14.17 Design a new driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual impact. Plan parking areas and driveways in a manner that utilizes existing curb cuts. New curb cuts are not permitted. If an alley exists, a new driveway must be located off of it. 14.20 Off-street driveways should be removed, if feasible. P49 III.A. 533 W. Hallam Street Page 22 of 22 Non-historic parking areas accessed from the street should be removed if parking can be placed on the alley. 14.22 Driveways leading to parking areas should be located to the side or rear of a primary structure. Locating drives away from the primary facade will maintain the visual importance the structure has along a block. P50 III.A. 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM March 14, 2018 Aspen Historic Preservation Commission c/o Ms. Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner City of Aspen 130 So. Galena St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: 533 West Hallam Conceptual Major Development Application Update Dear Commission and Ms. Yoon: Thank you for accepting this amended application for the March 14, 2018 HPC hearing. We have considered the comments from HPC and have made changes to the plan. We think it is important to step back and consider past feedback, proposals, and recommendations to date for this land use application to provide some context to our request. 2016 Application & Feedback In early 2016, the original application was submitted to redevelop 533 West Hallam; this establishes that the application is subject to the “old” Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The 2016 application requested demolition of the non-historic additions, relocation of the historic home toward Hallam Street, setback variations for the subgrade living space and for the historic shed, restoration of the historic landmark, and a new addition off the rear of the landmark. A Staff memo was prepared for the July 2016 HPC hearing that supported much of the application including removal of the non-historic additions and restoration of the front porches and gable ends. Staff supported picking up the house and relocating it 7’ toward Hallam Street to “allow the significant proposed addition to be located as far from the historic home as is practical.” The Staff memo further states that “there is no consistent front yard setback among the existing buildings along this block of Hallam, so no historic pattern is being disrupted by this move.” The July Staff memo recommended a restudy of the height of the addition and the design of the west elevation. HPC continued the July hearing to August to restudy the massing to make it less imposing. A suggestion was made by HPC to look at the breakdown of scale and to provide one story elements. The proposal was reworked to drop the height and a Staff recommendation of approval with conditions was forwarded to HPC. HPC ended up with a split 3-3 vote to support the project. The motion was eventually approved to continue the hearing to restudy the massing to make it lower in height and more compatible with the one P51 III.A. 533 West Hallam Street Conceptual HPC Reviews – updated 2/23/18 Page 2 of 17 story landmark. Set forth below is a study showing the height differential between historic and new additions from the August 2016 proposal that received a Staff recommendation of approval. The owners decided to sell the property prior to a third HPC hearing which included a detached duplex scenario also supported by Staff. The Duncans purchased the home in 2017, which included the continued Land Use application under the old Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The Duncans and their design team carefully reviewed the pending HPC application from 2016 including the meeting minutes and Staff recommendations to provide design direction. 2017 Application & Feedback The proposal presented in November of 2017 was a direct response to the concerns voiced by HPC in 2016: the landmark is proposed to be relocated to the front of the lot which was supported by Staff and HPC in 2016; the historic porches and gable end are proposed to be restored, which was supported by Staff and HPC in 2016; a 10’ long connecting element is proposed to link the new addition; and based on direction from HPC in August 2016, the mass was pushed below grade as much as possible within setbacks and tree driplines to allow a more sensitive transition between the landmark and the new addition through one story elements directly behind the landmark that do not step up to two stories until the rear of the property. Support for Historic Shed Location and Variations During the November hearing there was support for setback variations associated with the location of the historic shed along the alley, which is the traditional location for this type of outbuilding. Tree Removal There was discussion that the applicant should go back to the Parks Department to request removal of the cottonwood and spruce trees along the west yard that are driving the location of the massing. We have met with the Parks Department on multiple occasions, and they have indicated that the trees are required Figure 1: August 2016 proposal presented to HPC by Studio Leeds Architecture. Planning Staff recommended approval with conditions. P52 III.A. 533 West Hallam Street Conceptual HPC Reviews – updated 2/23/18 Page 3 of 17 to be protected as per the Tree Removal Ordinance. The Duncans wanted to remove the cottonwood tree as well, but unfortunately, Parks has the final decision on tree removal rather than the HPC. 500 sf FAR Bonus In November, some HPC members expressed discontent with the 500 sf FAR Bonus incentive in the Land Use Code and the concept that every applicant requests the Bonus. This incentive was created by City Council specifically to encourage this type of restoration and preservation. City Council today is concerned that the incentive has been abused by developers that build speculative developments, and the Duncans agree, but that is not the fact in this scenario. Furthermore, this project is subject to the Land Use Code and Design Guidelines in place in 2016 when the application was submitted, which provide for an FAR Bonus based on specific review criteria that balance restoration and new construction. We are aware of the worksession with City Council that occurred at the end of January to discuss incentives offered to historic landmark properties; however this project is to be judged on the specific 2016 criteria, and must not be subject to the current political climate. It is unfair and creates liability to HPC and to the City to subject any property to a prospective new policy rather than the laws under the applicable Land Use Code. The Duncans looked at past projects that were subject to the same Code and Design Guidelines as precedent to inform their application and request for the 500 sf FAR Bonus. This 533 West Hallam project meets or exceeds all of the specific review criteria for a Bonus which many previously approved projects are unable to achieve: a) The design of the project meets all applicable design guidelines; The design meets the applicable Design Guidelines as described below. b) The historic building is the key element of the property and the addition is incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic building; The historic building is moved out of the heavy vegetation to be more prominent on the site. In fact, nearly 40% of the mass of the historic resource, currently obscured, is presented to the street if moved out of the trees to be more prominent. The addition is attached to the landmark through a previously disturbed area along the rear façade (shown on subsequent pages). The visual integrity of the building is enhanced through the restoration of the historic gable ends. The location of the addition is setback from the restored historic gable end and concentrated along the alleyway. In summary, significantly more of the historic building will be visible and properly restored and preserved when compared to the existing deteriorated and compromised condition. c) The work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appearance; Extensive restoration work is proposed to the front, side, and rear of the building, the gable ends, and the two front porches facing Hallam Street (shown below). Further drainage and water penetration issues are resolved with the proposed development, which increases the longevity of the landmark and is requested by the neighbor to the East. P53 III.A. 533 West Hallam Street Conceptual HPC Reviews – updated 2/23/18 Page 4 of 17 d) The new construction is reflective of the proportional patterns found in the historic building's form, materials or openings; The new construction is mostly gable roof forms that mimic the landmark; they are designed to complement and celebrate the historic home, not to compete or overwhelm. Simple punched openings are proposed similar to the landmark. e) The construction materials are of the highest quality; Construction materials will be supportive and subordinate to the landmark while being high quality. The Duncans, unlike many speculative builders, have never built a home of poor quality materials and will not do so in this circumstance. f) An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building; In response to HPC comments from November 2017, the connecting element has been revised to be shorter in height. The length of the connector remains at the HPC guideline specification of 10’. g) The project retains a historic outbuilding; and/or Figure 2: Compromised street facing gable end. Figure 3: Compromised rear elevation of landmark. Figure 4: Front elevation showing enclosed front porch. P54 III.A. 533 West Hallam Street Conceptual HPC Reviews – updated 2/23/18 Page 5 of 17 An historic outbuilding is retained along the alley. The outbuilding is not original to the site, but has been noted as circa 19th century construction. The proposed location along the alley is aligned with the original location of this type of building. h) Notable historic site and landscape features are retained. Large trees are retained on site as shown on the site plan. By Parks Department edict, these trees will be protected during construction and driplines have been identified to dictate the size of the excavation for the basement level. Historic Preservation Some HPC members commented that the intent of this proposal was only to maximize floor area, and was not focused on historic preservation. This presumption is irrelevant to HPC’s review authority, and does not relate to the review criteria or to the Design Guidelines. The Duncans looked for a historic property for many years before finding 533 Hallam, and they are balancing the desire for a home to accommodate a growing family for multiple generations with their desire to have an historic home in Aspen. They have completed other historic restoration projects outside the area and embrace Aspen’s Historic Preservation Program. That is why this proposal is careful to address the HPC Design Guidelines and complies with all requirements for an FAR bonus. The landmark is severely compromised in its current state and needs serious restoration. The entire rear of the landmark is engulfed by a non-historic addition and the street facing west gable end has been heavily altered. The front porches are enclosed and the porch roofs have been rebuilt. The drawings below show the historic elements in pink and the non-historic additions in yellow. Figure 5: Photograph of existing conditions. Looking at the rear of the landmark. P55 III.A. 533 West Hallam Street Conceptual HPC Reviews – updated 2/23/18 Page 6 of 17 As you can see in the elevations, especially the rear and 5th Street facing facades, the landmark is severely compromised. The existing site plan and the proposed site plan are shown below to highlight the significant restoration of the historic landmark back to a traditional cross gable form. A complete restoration of the form of the historic landmark and of the front porches, in addition to important site planning measures such as positive drainage, ensures the future of the landmark building. P56 III.A. 533 West Hallam Street Conceptual HPC Reviews – updated 2/23/18 Page 7 of 17 The Duncans recognize it is important to find an appropriate balance between sensitive new construction and the preservation of character defining buildings. Across the nation, thousands of communities promote historic preservation because doing so contributes to neighborhood vitality, variety and quality of life. Preserving historic buildings creates a sense of place and a sense of pride for a community and for Figure 6: Existing site plan. Figure 7: Proposed site plan. P57 III.A. 533 West Hallam Street Conceptual HPC Reviews – updated 2/23/18 Page 8 of 17 future generations. The Land Use Code describes the importance of historic preservation and the City’s commitment to support property owners through benefits: “The City is committed to providing support to property owners to assist their efforts to maintain, preserve and enhance their historic properties. Recognizing that these properties are valuable community assets is the basic premise underlying the provision of special procedures and programs for designated historic properties and districts. Benefits to encourage good historic preservation practices by the owners of historic properties are an important aspect of Aspen’s historic preservation program. Historic resources are a valuable community asset and their continued protection is the basic premise supporting the creation of an innovative package of preservation tools that are unlike any other in the country. Aspen’s preservation benefits are in response to tight historic preservation control that have been legislated by the City since 1972. The Community Development Department and Historic Preservation Commission are dedicated to assisting property owners in renovating and maintaining their property.” The key to successful historic preservation in the context of 533 Hallam is finding the balance between new and old construction, and between the restoration/rehabilitation efforts and the requested incentives. The historic preservation approach taken by the design team is to restore the historic landmark and to move it forward to present it to the neighborhood in the most prominent way. The landmark sits at the 10’ setback line with the historic bay window, an allowed projection up to 18”, extending over the setback line. Shifting the house forward maximizes separation of the historic home from the new construction and provides space for the addition to be mostly one story before it steps up to two stories along the rear. As suggested in November 2017, the current plan reduces the addition height by another foot. And while creating an eye-pleasing low profile massing, the current plan also specifically addresses the 2016 HPC comment suggesting more one story elements. The powder room proposed along the rear corner of the landmark has been removed to further reveal the corner of the gable end facing 525 West Hallam. Image at left is the November 2017 proposal. Please reference Figures 8 and 9 on the next page. P58 III.A. 533 West Hallam Street Conceptual HPC Reviews – updated 2/23/18 Page 9 of 17 The historic shed/outhouse is incorporated onto the site along the alleyway – a traditional location for this type of structure; and the important mature trees along 5th Street are protected. The outhouse may not be original to the site, but nevertheless is incorporated into the proposal. Pulling the historic home out of the trees and modernizing the landscape, the drainage, and sprinkler system dramatically increase the longevity of the historic home compared to its current state. Drainage improvements at this project provide added preservation benefit for the adjacent historic landmark property at 525 W. Hallam. Relocation Relocating the house forward on the lot was requested as part of the 2016 application. Staff accurately stated in 2016 that “there is no consistent front yard setback among the existing buildings along this block of Hallam, so no historic pattern is being disrupted by this move.” Further HPC supported relocation during the 2016 meetings. We received positive feedback from Staff in August 2017 when we presented the massing and site plan in a preliminary meeting and were surprised in November 2017 by Staff’s reversal and by new concerns raised about moving the historic home forward on the lot. The current proposal does not change the relocation request as proposed in November. The request to move the home to the 10’ setback line, with bay window encroachment, recognizes the current and future development pattern in the West End. The R6 Zone District prescribes a 10’ setback, and almost all redevelopment opportunities in the 500 block of Hallam or the West End generally will comply the 10’ setback requirement creating a pattern of front yards that repeat throughout the neighborhood. This is already evident on most blocks within the West End neighborhood and is expected to continue. To not prominently place this historic home on the 10 foot building line does an injustice to the restoration effort Figure 8: November 2017 proposal. Figure 9: Updated proposal. P59 III.A. 533 West Hallam Street Conceptual HPC Reviews – updated 2/23/18 Page 10 of 17 and to the home itself. It is entirely in HPC’s interest that this high quality restoration is equal to the other existing and future homes nearby. Finally, relocation allows separation between the new and historic sections which is fundamental to Aspen’s historic preservation program and Design Guidelines. Connecting element and Massing In November 2017, the general direction to the Duncan’s design team was to restudy the connecting element and to simplify the massing. The building height has been reduced between 5” to 1’4” to reduce overall mass. The horizontal band that wrapped around the new construction has been modified and reduced in some areas to simplify the overall design. Dormers along the alley are reduced in height as well. The connecting element is 9” lower in height. Considering the grade change on the site, 9” is the maximum reduction that could be achieved for the connecting element without adding a step. An interior step is not workable due to older relatives that will be staying in the home. The revised proposal is below. Figure 10: Proposed height reduction. West Elevation facing 5th Street. Figure 11: November 2017 proposal. West Elevation facing 5th Street. P60 III.A. 533 West Hallam Street Conceptual HPC Reviews – updated 2/23/18 Page 11 of 17 Figure 12: Updated 3D rendering of West Elevation. The materials and colors have been refined to simplify the flat roof elements to reduce visual scale of the design. Figure 13: Previous proposal, November 2017. P61 III.A. 533 West Hallam Street Conceptual HPC Reviews – updated 2/23/18 Page 12 of 17 Applicable Design Guidelines to New Additions – Chapter 10, Building Additions This project is subject to the old Historic Preservation Design Guidelines in place in early 2016. Chapter 11 is not applicable because this is not a new building – it is a landmark with a proposed addition. 10.2 A more recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed. Non-historic additions that currently engulf the historic home are proposed to be removed. The entire rear façade of the landmark is compromised with non-historic additions that wrap around to the street facing west gable end. Non-historic alterations to the front porches are proposed to be removed. Restoration is proposed to return the landmark back to its original appearance and to a traditional cross-gable footprint. 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. • A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the primary building is inappropriate. • An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is inappropriate. • An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style should be avoided. • An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate. The new addition is carefully designed to be similar to the landmark, but not mimic or compete with the historic character of the 19th century miner’s cabin. The new addition design has been simplified to quiet some of the architectural elements previously proposed: for example, the thick horizontal band has been removed from the addition and the windows on the upper level are more simple. The decorative nature of the double front porches facing Hallam Street appropriately contrast with the simple detailing of the new addition. More elevated portions of the addition are darkened to recede into the background. The gable roof forms of the addition are a lighter color to relate to the landmark forms facing 5th Street. 10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. • An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining visually compatible with these earlier features. • A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material or a differentiation between historic, and more current styles are all techniques that may be considered to help define a change from old to new construction. P62 III.A. 533 West Hallam Street Conceptual HPC Reviews – updated 2/23/18 Page 13 of 17 The new addition is visually compatible with the landmark with gable ends facing 5th street, horizontal materials, and roof slopes that mimic the roof pitch of the landmark. The addition is setback from the landmark from the 5th Street façade and also behind the landmark toward the alley. Gable roof forms project toward 5th Street to repeat the historic gable end. Figure 14: Proposed site plan. Green dotted line shows historic façade and setback of new construction. Figure 15: 3D rendering of proposal to show Hallam Street view and success of modules and setbacks from landmark. P63 III.A. 533 West Hallam Street Conceptual HPC Reviews – updated 2/23/18 Page 14 of 17 10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building. • An addition that is lower than or similar to the height of the primary building is preferred. The addition directly behind the landmark is either lower or a similar height to the primary building. The second story flat roof element steps up 3’ above the ridge of the landmark but is setback 36’8” from the historic front porch. The height of the flat roof element has been reduced by 1’4”. The height of the entire addition has been reduced including the dormers along the alleyway to reduce height and mass on all elevations. Figures 16 and 17: 3D renderings of proposal to show Hallam Street view and success of modules and setbacks from landmark. P64 III.A. 533 West Hallam Street Conceptual HPC Reviews – updated 2/23/18 Page 15 of 17 10.7 If it is necessary to design an addition that is taller than a historic building, set it back substantially from significant facades and use a "connector" to link it to the historic building. • A 1-story connector is preferred. • The connector should be a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition and the primary building. • The connector also should be proportional to the primary building. The addition steps up to 2 stories about midway through the 100’ deep lot and massing is concentrated along the alley. A connector is proposed to attach to the reconstructed rear gable end. Please note that the Sanborn Maps do not show a typical cross gable footprint – an atypical footprint is shown that does not relate to a traditional miner’s cabin in Aspen. The connector is 10’ long along the west façade and is setback 3’ from the gable end as shown in the detail above. The design team reduced the height of the connector by about 9” to address concerns about the height of the connecting element in relationship to the gable end. Unlike other approved connectors in the West End, useable space is not proposed on top of the connecting element. Grade changes onsite, the need to avoid interior steps for elderly family members, and required waterproofing of the connecting element are driving the proposed height in relationship to the historic eaves. The site restrictions associated with the large trees along 5th Street push the development toward the interior lot line; however, the new construction respects the 5’ side setback line. In order to balance the site restrictions and to respond to comments in 2016 that a large footprint is appropriate to reduce mass to one story, the connecting element is about 27’ wide. The Design Guidelines do not specify a width or a function for the connecting element – just that the length is 10 ft. or more, which is met with this proposal. The function and width of connectors are specified in the new Design Guideline which are not applicable to this project. We strongly believe that the intent of the connecting element – to distinguish between new and old construction - is met in this proposal. The width of the connection will not be visible to the public, furthermore, the proposed 27’ wide connecting element is appropriate on this site to facilitate single story massing on much of the lot and to accommodate the required dripline around the cottonwood tree. One story element One story gable end landmark Figure 18: One story elements directly behind the landmark. Figure 19: Detail of connecting element and reconstructed gable end. Figure 20: 1893 Sanborne Map footprint. P65 III.A. 533 West Hallam Street Conceptual HPC Reviews – updated 2/23/18 Page 16 of 17 10.8 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. • Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate. • Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not alter the exterior mass of a building. • Set back an addition from primary facades in order to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. A minimum setback of 10 feet on primary structures is recommended. The addition is proposed at the rear of the landmark and is setback from both street facing facades to reduce visual impacts on the historic landmark. The original proportions and character of the landmark, which are currently indistinguishable from non-historic additions, are proposed to be restored as part of this project. The addition is setback at least 10 feet from primary structures as recommended in the Guidelines. As suggested in Guideline 10.8, the majority of the floor area is proposed below grade with minimum sized lightwells to provide required egress. 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. The majority of the addition is gable roof forms to relate to the historic landmark. A few areas are proposed to be flat roof, for example the connecting element, to reduce height and mass. The flat roof areas are located at the interior lot line to reduce visibility from the street and to be respectful of views and sunlight at 525 W. Hallam. Figure 21: Street view of landmark. The addition is barely visible. Please note that a large spruce tree located on the adjacent 525 W. Hallam property would obstruct view of the addition from this vantage point. P66 III.A. 533 West Hallam Street Conceptual HPC Reviews – updated 2/23/18 Page 17 of 17 10.10 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features. • For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eavelines should be avoided. Historically important architectural features will be restored as part of this proposal. Loss or alteration of architectural details are not proposed. We appreciate HPC’s candid feedback in November and are hopeful that the height reductions and architectural changes address your concerns. Please note that there are no changes to the requested setback variations (related to the historic shed and the basement) or the Residential Design Standards described in November 2017. Demolition and Relocation remain unchanged from the November 2017 application. We are happy to answer any questions or to provide more information to help facilitate your review. Kind Regards, Kind Regards, Sara Adams, AICP Principal BendonAdams, LLC Attachments: A – Major Development Conceptual Review B – Setback Variances C – FAR Bonus D – Demolition & Relocation E – Residential Design Standards F - Pre-Application conference summary G - Land Use Application and Dimensional Requirements Form H – Vicinity Map I – Authorization to represent J – Disclosure of ownership K – Agreement to pay form L – HOA compliance form M – list of owners within 300 ft. will be furnished closer to the public hearing to ensure compliance with the 6 month requirement for the list. N – Streetscape O - Drawings and Survey P – Letter from structural engineer confirming ability to relocate structure. Q – Updated drawings P67 III.A. CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT March, 2016 City of Apen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5050 ATTACHMENT 3 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Project: ______________________________________________________________________________ Applicant: ______________________________________________________________________________ Location: ______________________________________________________________________________ Zone District: ______________________________________________________________________________ Lot Size: _______________________________________________________________________________ Lot Area: _______________________________________________________________________________ (For the purpose of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high-water mark, easement, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Existing: _____________ Proposed: _________________________________ Number of residential units: Existing: _____________ Proposed: _________________________________ Number of bedrooms: Existing: _____________ Proposed: _________________________________ Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): ______________ DIMENSIONS: Floor Area: Existing: _____________ Allowable: ___________Proposed ____________ Principal bldg. height: Existing: _____________ Allowable: ___________Proposed____________ Access. Bldg. height: Existing: _____________ Allowable: __________ Proposed_____________ On-Site parking: Existing: _____________ Required: ___________Proposed_____________ % Site coverage: Existing: _____________ Required: ___________Proposed_____________ % Open Space: Existing: _____________ Required: ___________Proposed_____________ Front Setback: Existing: _____________ Required ____________Proposed _____________ Rear Setback: Existing: _____________ Required: ___________Proposed _____________ Combined F/F: Existing: _____________ Required ___________ Proposed _____________ Side Setback: Existing: _____________ Required: ___________Proposed _____________ Side Setback: Existing: _____________ Required ___________ Proposed _____________ Combined Sides: Existing: _____________ Required ___________ Proposed _____________ Distance between Bldgs. Existing: _____________ Required: ___________ Proposed _____________ Existing: _____________ Required: ___________Proposed: _____________ Existing non-conformities or encroachments: __________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ Variations requested: _____________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ 533 West Hallam Street Lots A & B, Block 29, City and Townsite of Aspen R-6 6,000 sf 6,000 sf n/a1 1 n/a 3240sf + 500sf Bonus = 3740 sf 25 ft n/a 2 spaces 50% n/a 10 ft. 10 ft/5ft n/a 5 ft. min. 5 ft. min. 15 ft. 5 ft. 2 garden sheds sit in west side setback, rear yard setback encroachment. Duncan Skihaus LLC 4 5 74% 2,427 3,740 22'-7"22'-9 3/8" 2 spaces 2 spaces 35%56.8% 10 ft 10 ft 5 ft 5 ft 5 ft 5 ft 10 ft 10 ft 15' ft 15 ft 7'-10"7' 10" exhibit G setback variances requested - please refer to application for detailed description. 74.9% 21'-5 1/2" 43.8% P68 III.A. ConsultantARCHITECTUREPLANNING+( T ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 5 4 7 5 5 ( F ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 0 2 9 5 06 0 5 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N, C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1SHEET TITLEBILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES,ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C.THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C.NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDINGCOPYRIGHT THERETO.c2017PROJECT NO:Issue:SCALE:1/2/2018 4:33:30 PMDUNCAN SKIHAUS LLC533 W. HALLAMHPC 000HPC CONCEPTUALHPC 000VICINITY MAP AND INDEXHPC 001 SUPPLIED INFORMATIONHPC 002 SITE IMPROVEMENT SURVEYHPC 100 EXISTING SITE PLANHPC 101EXISTING MAIN LEVELHPC 102EXISTING UPPER LEVELHPC 103EXISTING ROOF PLANHPC 104EXISTING ELEVATIONSHPC 105EXISTING ELEVATIONSHPC 106 STREETSCAPEHPC 200 PROPOSED COMPARATIVE PLANHPC 202PROPOSED SITE PLANHPC 203 PROPOSED LOWER LEVELHPC 204PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL PLANHPC 205PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL PLANHPC 206PROPOSED ROOF PLANHPC 207PROPOSED ELEVATIONSHPC 208PROPOSED ELEVATIONSHPC 209PROPOSED PERSPECTIVES HPC 210PROPOSED PERSPECTIVESHPC 300 EXISTING UPPER LEVEL AREA PLANHPC 301 EXISTING MAIN LEVEL AREA PLANHPC 302 PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL AREA PLANHPC 303PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL AREA PLANHPC 304PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL AREA PLANHPC 305PROPOSED AREA ELEVATIONS-BASEMENTHPC 306PROPOSED AREA CALCULATIONSHPC 307EXISTING ELEVATION AREAS (DEMOLITION)HPC 308EXISTING ELEVATION AREAS (DEMOLITON)HPC 309EXISTING ROOF AREAS (DEMOLITION)HPC 401 ROOF OPTIONSHPC 401 ROOF OPTIONS HPC 501 RENDERINGSHPC 502 RENDERINGSHPC 503 RENDERINGSHPC 504 RENDERINGSHPC 505 RENDERINGSHPC 506 RENDERINGSHPC 507 RENDERINGSDRAWING INDEX1 10.11.2017 HPC PACKAGE2 01.02.2018 HPC PACKAGE2nd ROUNDP69 III.A. ConsultantARCHITECTUREPLANNING+( T ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 5 4 7 5 5 ( F ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 0 2 9 5 06 0 5 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N, C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1SHEET TITLEBILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES,ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C.THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C.NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDINGCOPYRIGHT THERETO.c2017PROJECT NO:Issue:SCALE:1/2/2018 4:33:30 PMDUNCAN SKIHAUS LLC533 W. HALLAMHPC 001HPC SUPPLIEDINFORMATION1 10.11.2017 HPC PACKAGE2 01.02.2018 HPC PACKAGE2nd ROUNDP70 III.A. ConsultantARCHITECTUREPLANNING+( T ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 5 4 7 5 5 ( F ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 0 2 9 5 06 0 5 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N, C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1SHEET TITLEBILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES,ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C.THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C.NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDINGCOPYRIGHT THERETO.c2017PROJECT NO:Issue:SCALE:1/2/2018 4:33:30 PMDUNCAN SKIHAUS LLC533 W. HALLAMHPC 002SITE IMPROVEMENTSURVEY1 10.11.2017 HPC PACKAGE2 01.02.2018 HPC PACKAGE2nd ROUNDP71 III.A. E T C G E E 7915 791579157 9 1 5 79157915 7 9 1 5 7 9 1 2 7912 7912 7912 7913 79137913 79147914791479147914 LOT K LOT L B L O C K 2 9 E X :7 9 1 2 .8 '± E X :7 9 1 2 .9 '± E X :7 9 1 3 .0 '±E X :7 9 1 2 .8 '± E X :7 9 1 4 .4 '± E X :7 9 1 4 .4 '± E X :7 9 1 4 .6 '± E X :7 9 1 4 .7 '± E X :7 9 1 4 .1 '± E X :7 9 1 2 .7 '± E X :7 9 1 4 .4 '± E X :7 9 1 5 .1 '± H A L L A M S T R E E T 7 4 .3 8 ' R I G H T -O F -W A Y A S P H A L T S U R F A C E F O U N D O R I G I N A L C I T Y B L O C K C O R N E R 1 " P I P E W /U N M A R K E D M E T A L C A P F O U N D N O . 5 R E B A R W /P L A S T I C C A P P .L .S . 1 4 1 1 1 F O U N D N O . 5 R E B A R W /P L A S T I C C A P P .L .S . 1 4 1 1 1 F O U N D N O . 5 R E B A R W /A L U M I N U M C A P P .L .S . 2 3 7 6 5 T H S T R E E T 7 6 .2 4 ' R I G H T -O F -W A Y A S P H A L T S U R F A C E B L O C K 2 9 A L L E Y 2 0 .6 9 ' R I G H T -O F -W A Y G R A V E L S U R F A C E 2 0 .3 9 0 5 5 .3 5 9 3 4 .8 6 9 0 5 .6 0 6 7 1 2 .3 0 8 0 C I T Y O F A S P E N C O N T R O L M O N U M E N T N O . 9 6 T H & F R A N C I S B A S I S O F E L E V A T I O N = 7 9 0 6 .0 9 ' LOT BLOT A F O U N D N O . 5 R E B A R W /A L U M I N U M C A P I L L E G I B L ECURB LINE (TYP.)LANDSCAPE TIMBER LANDSCAPE TIMBERLANDSCAPE TIMBERLANDSCAPE TIMBER LANDSCAPE TIMBER BUILDING LINELANDSCAPE TIMBER 5.3' X 6.3'OUT BUIL DI NG D U M P S T E R O N S K I D S N 74°13'37" WBASIS OF BEARING C I T Y O F A S P E N C O N T R O L M O N U M E N T N O . 2 0 7 T H & F R A N C I S 1 0 .0 0 0 0 S I D E Y A R D S E T B A C K S E E N O T E N O . 7 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 910 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5N33° 34' 12"W507 .57 'S74° 19' 26"E 60.00'S15° 40' 34"W 100.00'N74° 19' 26"W 60.00'N15° 40' 34"E 100.00'10' - 0"10' - 0"5' - 0"5' - 0"METAL FENCEMETAL GATEWOOD FENCEWOOD GATEWOOD GATEPROPERTY CORNERMETAL FENCEBUILDING LINEHARDSCAPEPAVERSWOOD DECKWOODSTEPWOOD DECKHARDSCAPEPAVERSWOOD GATEENTRY PORCHLANDSCAPETIMBERSPROPERTY CORNERPROPERTY CORNERPROPERTY CORNER7x 3 SH EDDUMPSTER ONSKIDSUTILITIESGRAVEL ALLEYN 5TH STREETW HALLAM STREETLANDSCAPE TIMBERS5'-0" SETBACKPROPERTY LINE10'-0" SETBACKPROPERTY LINE10'-0" SETBACKPROPERTY LINE5'-0" SETBACKPROPERTY LINEWOOD GATEBUILDING LINENORTHConsultantARCHITECTUREPLANNING+( T ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 5 4 7 5 5 ( F ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 0 2 9 5 06 0 5 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N, C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1SHEET TITLEBILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES,ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C.THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C.NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDINGCOPYRIGHT THERETO.c2017PROJECT NO:Issue:SCALE:1/2/2018 4:33:31 PMDUNCAN SKIHAUS LLC533 W. HALLAMHPC 100EXISTING SITE PLANSCALE1/8" = 1'-0"1EXISTING SITE PLAN1 10.11.2017 HPC PACKAGE2 01.02.2018 HPC PACKAGE2nd ROUNDP72 III.A. PROPERTY LINE10' SETBACKPROPERTY LINE10' SETBACK5' SETBACKPROPERTY LINE5' SETBACKPROPERTY LINEUPUPUPUPNORTHConsultantARCHITECTUREPLANNING+( T ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 5 4 7 5 5 ( F ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 0 2 9 5 06 0 5 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N, C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1SHEET TITLEBILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES,ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C.THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C.NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDINGCOPYRIGHT THERETO.c2017PROJECT NO:Issue:SCALE:1/2/2018 4:33:31 PMDUNCAN SKIHAUS LLC533 W. HALLAMHPC 101EXISTING MAIN LEVELSCALE1/4" = 1'-0"1EXISTING MAIN LEVEL PLAN1 10.11.2017 HPC PACKAGE2 01.02.2018 HPC PACKAGE2nd ROUNDP73 III.A. PROPERTY LINE10' SETBACKPROPERTY LINE10' SETBACK5' SETBACKPROPERTY LINE5' SETBACKPROPERTY LINEDNUPNORTHConsultantARCHITECTUREPLANNING+( T ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 5 4 7 5 5 ( F ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 0 2 9 5 06 0 5 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N, C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1SHEET TITLEBILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES,ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C.THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C.NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDINGCOPYRIGHT THERETO.c2017PROJECT NO:Issue:SCALE:1/2/2018 4:33:31 PMDUNCAN SKIHAUS LLC533 W. HALLAMHPC 102EXISTING UPPER LEVELSCALE1/4" = 1'-0"1EXISTING UPPER LEVEL PLANATTIC CRAWL SPACE1 10.11.2017 HPC PACKAGE2 01.02.2018 HPC PACKAGE2nd ROUNDP74 III.A. PROPERTY LINE10' SETBACKPROPERTY LINE10' SETBACK5' SETBACKPROPERTY LINE5' SETBACKPROPERTY LINE12 : 1212 : 127 : 127 : 1212 : 1212 : 1212 : 1212 : 1212 : 1212 : 1212 : 1212 : 121 : 122.5 : 128.5 : 126 : 121 : 1212 : 1212 : 127 : 1214 : 1214 : 12 14 : 126 : 126 : 126 : 1214 : 12 14 : 1212 : 1212 : 12FLATFLAT6 : 126 : 12ConsultantARCHITECTUREPLANNING+( T ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 5 4 7 5 5 ( F ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 0 2 9 5 06 0 5 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N, C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1SHEET TITLEBILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES,ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C.THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C.NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDINGCOPYRIGHT THERETO.c2017PROJECT NO:Issue:SCALE:1/2/2018 4:33:31 PMDUNCAN SKIHAUS LLC533 W. HALLAMHPC 103EXISTING ROOF PLANSCALE1/4" = 1'-0"1EXISTING ROOF PLAN1 10.11.2017 HPC PACKAGE2 01.02.2018 HPC PACKAGE2nd ROUNDP75 III.A. ConsultantARCHITECTUREPLANNING+( T ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 5 4 7 5 5 ( F ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 0 2 9 5 06 0 5 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N, C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1SHEET TITLEBILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES,ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C.THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C.NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDINGCOPYRIGHT THERETO.c2017PROJECT NO:Issue:SCALE:1/2/2018 4:33:35 PMDUNCAN SKIHAUS LLC533 W. HALLAMHPC 104EXISTING ELEVATIONSSCALE3/8" = 1'-0"1EXISTING NORTH ELEVATIONSCALE3/8" = 1'-0"2EXISTING EAST ELEVATION1 10.11.2017 HPC PACKAGE2 01.02.2018 HPC PACKAGE2nd ROUNDP76 III.A. ConsultantARCHITECTUREPLANNING+( T ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 5 4 7 5 5 ( F ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 0 2 9 5 06 0 5 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N, C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1SHEET TITLEBILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES,ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C.THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C.NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDINGCOPYRIGHT THERETO.c2017PROJECT NO:Issue:SCALE:1/2/2018 4:33:38 PMDUNCAN SKIHAUS LLC533 W. HALLAMHPC 105EXISTING ELEVATIONSSCALE3/8" = 1'-0"1EXISTING WEST ELEVATIONSCALE3/8" = 1'-0"2EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION1 10.11.2017 HPC PACKAGE2 01.02.2018 HPC PACKAGE2nd ROUNDP77 III.A. Consultant ARCHITECTURE PLANNING+ ( T ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 5 4 7 5 5 ( F ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 0 2 9 5 0 6 0 5 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N, C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1 SHEET TITLE BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C.NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDINGCOPYRIGHT THERETO. c 2017 PROJECT NO: Issue: SCALE:1/3/2018 9:28:51 AMDUNCAN SKIHAUS LLC 533 W. HALLAM HPC 106 STREETSCAPE HALLAM STREET VIEW 5TH STREET VIEW 1 10.11.2017 HPC PACKAGE 2 01.02.2018 HPC PACKAGE 2nd ROUND P78III.A. LIGHT WELL BELOWLIGHT WELL BELOWLIGHT WELL BELOWLIGHT WELL BELOW9' - 4"HISTORIC ASSET IS RELOCATED 9'-4" FORWARD (NORTH) ON-SITE.PROPOSED STRUCTUREEXISTING STRUCTUREHISTORIC STRUCTURE TO BE PRESERVEDPDRCLBARCHINACABINETDININGOFFICEENTRY PORCHENTRY PORCHENTRYBREAKFASTKITCHENLIVINGFIREPLACEELEVATORELEVATORPANTRYENTRYSTORAGEDNUPSHEDBIKEPOWDER ROOM LOCATION FROM PREVIOUS SUBMISSIONNORTHConsultantARCHITECTUREPLANNING+( T ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 5 4 7 5 5 ( F ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 0 2 9 5 06 0 5 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N, C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1SHEET TITLEBILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES,ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C.THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C.NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDINGCOPYRIGHT THERETO.c2017PROJECT NO:Issue:SCALE:1/2/2018 4:33:40 PMDUNCAN SKIHAUS LLC533 W. HALLAMHPC 200PROPOSED COMPARATIVEPLANSCALE1/4" = 1'-0"1PROPOSED COMPARATIVE PLAN1 10.11.2017 HPC PACKAGE2 01.02.2018 HPC PACKAGE2nd ROUNDP79 III.A. P80III.A. LIGHTWELLLIGHTWELLCLO.LIGHTWELLLIGHTWELLBDRM#4W.C.BATH #2BDRM#1BDRM#2CLO.DRESSW.C.BATH #1W.C.BATH #2BDRM#3CLO.DRESSCLO.BATH #4W.C.ELEV.MECH.LAUNDRYMECH.PWDRFAMILY /GAMECLO.DRESSSHWRSHWRSHWRSHWRBENCHTUBTUBBENCHBENCHBENCHTVTVTVTVTVMEDIA STO.ELEV.PROPERTY LINE10' SETBACKPROPERTY LINE10' SETBACK5' SETBACKPROPERTY LINE5' SETBACKPROPERTY LINEUPConsultantARCHITECTUREPLANNING+( T ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 5 4 7 5 5 ( F ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 0 2 9 5 06 0 5 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N, C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1SHEET TITLEBILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES,ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C.THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C.NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDINGCOPYRIGHT THERETO.c2017PROJECT NO:Issue:SCALE:1/2/2018 4:33:40 PMDUNCAN SKIHAUS LLC533 W. HALLAMHPC 203PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL1 10.11.2017 HPC PACKAGE2 01.02.2018 HPC PACKAGE2nd ROUNDP81 III.A. PROPERTY LINE10' SETBACKPROPERTY LINE10' SETBACK5' SETBACKPROPERTY LINE5' SETBACKPROPERTY LINELIGHT WELL BELOWLIGHT WELL BELOWLIGHT WELL BELOWLIGHT WELL BELOWCHINACABINETBARDININGOFFICEENTRYKITCHENBREAKFASTLIVINGELEVATORPANTRYGARAGEBIKESTORAGEENTRYFIREPLACEENTRY PORCHENTRY PORCHENTRY PORCH10' SETBACKSHEDPATIO AREA10' - 0" 3' - 0"4' - 5"4' - 5"27' - 8 1/4"CLBENCHUPPDRNORTHConsultantARCHITECTUREPLANNING+( T ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 5 4 7 5 5 ( F ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 0 2 9 5 06 0 5 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N, C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1SHEET TITLEBILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES,ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C.THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C.NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDINGCOPYRIGHT THERETO.c2017PROJECT NO:Issue:SCALE:1/2/2018 4:33:41 PMDUNCAN SKIHAUS LLC533 W. HALLAMHPC 204PROPOSED MAIN LEVELPLANSCALE1/4" = 1'-0"1PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL PLAN1 10.11.2017 HPC PACKAGE2 01.02.2018 HPC PACKAGE2nd ROUNDP82 III.A. CLO. MASTER BDRM CLO. ELEV. W/D OFFICE LANDING MASTER BATH W.C.FIREPLACEDNBENCHSHWR 10' SETBACK PROPERTY LINE10' SETBACK5' SETBACKPROPERTY LINE5' SETBACK PROPERTY LINE10' SETBACKSHED NORTH Consultant ARCHITECTURE PLANNING+ ( T ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 5 4 7 5 5 ( F ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 0 2 9 5 0 6 0 5 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N, C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1 SHEET TITLE BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C.NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDINGCOPYRIGHT THERETO. c 2017 PROJECT NO: Issue: SCALE:1/4/2018 11:20:30 AMDUNCAN SKIHAUS LLC 533 W. HALLAM HPC 205 PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL PLAN 1 10.11.2017 HPC PACKAGE 2 01.02.2018 HPC PACKAGE 2nd ROUND P83III.A. SLOPE12:12SLOPE12:12FLATFLATFLATFLATFLATFLATFLATFLATSLOPE12:12SLOPE12:12SLOPE12:12SLOPE12:12SLOPE12:12SLOPE12:12SLOPE12:12SLOPE12:12SLOPE12:12SLOPE12:12FLATFLATFLATFLATSLOPE12:12SLOPE12:1210' SETBACKPROPERTY LINE10' SETBACK5' SETBACKPROPERTY LINE5' SETBACKPROPERTY LINE10' SETBACKNORTHConsultantARCHITECTUREPLANNING+( T ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 5 4 7 5 5 ( F ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 0 2 9 5 06 0 5 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N, C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1SHEET TITLEBILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES,ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C.THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C.NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDINGCOPYRIGHT THERETO.c2017PROJECT NO:Issue:SCALE:1/2/2018 4:33:41 PMDUNCAN SKIHAUS LLC533 W. HALLAMHPC 206PROPOSED ROOF PLANSCALE1/4" = 1'-0"1PROPOSED ROOF PLAN1 10.11.2017 HPC PACKAGE2 01.02.2018 HPC PACKAGE2nd ROUNDP84 III.A. 1' - 4"5"DASHED LINE REPRESENTS THE BUILDING HEIGHT FROM THE PREVIOUS SUBMISSION. 6"EXISTING GRADEPROPOSED GRADE21' - 0 5/8"FLAT ROOF MAX HEIGHTPITCHED ROOF MAX HEIGHTNARROW HORIZONTAL WOOD SIDINGWOOD FASCIAWOOD FASCIA6" HORIZONTAL WOOD SIDINGMETAL CLAD WINDOWS27' - 2 1/4"1' - 4"1' - 4"9 1/4"21' - 5 1/4"DASHED LINE REPRESENTS THE BUILDING HEIGHT FROM THE PREVIOUS SUBMISSION. METAL PANEL SIDING ConsultantARCHITECTUREPLANNING+( T ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 5 4 7 5 5 ( F ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 0 2 9 5 06 0 5 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N, C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1SHEET TITLEBILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES,ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C.THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C.NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDINGCOPYRIGHT THERETO.c2017PROJECT NO:Issue:SCALE:1/2/2018 4:33:44 PMDUNCAN SKIHAUS LLC533 W. HALLAMHPC 207PROPOSED ELEVATIONSSCALE1/4" = 1'-0"1PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATIONSCALE1/4" = 1'-0"2PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION1 10.11.2017 HPC PACKAGE2 01.02.2018 HPC PACKAGE2nd ROUNDP85 III.A. 21' - 0 5/8"EXISTING GRADEPROPOSED GRADE PITCH ROOF MAXHEIGHT FLAT ROOF MAXHEIGHT 10'-0" 18' - 5 1/2"METAL PANEL SIDING AROUND FIREPLACEMETAL CLAD WINDOWSWOOD SHINGLESWOOD FASCIANARROW HORIZONTAL WOOD SIDINGWOOD FASCIAWOOD COLUMNS10' - 1 1/4"21' - 5 1/2"1' - 4"9 1/4"1' - 4"DASHED LINE REPRESENTS THE BUILDING HEIGHT FROM THE PREVIOUS SUBMISSION. 5"6' - 6" PLATE HEIGHTMETAL PANEL SIDING 6"3D ELEVATION VIEW @ CONNECTORWOOD SHINGLESWOOD FASCIA METAL CLAD WINDOWS NARROW HORIZONTAL WOOD SIDING 6" HORIZONTAL WOOD SIDING WOOD FASCIA 1' - 4"5"DASHED LINE REPRESENTS THE BUILDING HEIGHT FROM THE PREVIOUS SUBMISSION. ConsultantARCHITECTUREPLANNING+( T ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 5 4 7 5 5 ( F ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 0 2 9 5 06 0 5 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N, C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1SHEET TITLEBILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES,ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C.THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C.NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDINGCOPYRIGHT THERETO.c2017PROJECT NO:Issue:SCALE:1/2/2018 4:33:47 PMDUNCAN SKIHAUS LLC533 W. HALLAMHPC 208PROPOSED ELEVATIONSSCALE1/4" = 1'-0"1PROPOSED WEST ELEVATIONSCALE1/4" = 1'-0"2PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION1 10.11.2017 HPC PACKAGE2 01.02.2018 HPC PACKAGE2nd ROUNDP86 III.A. P87III.A. P88III.A. P89III.A. ConsultantARCHITECTUREPLANNING+( T ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 5 4 7 5 5 ( F ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 0 2 9 5 06 0 5 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N, C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1SHEET TITLEBILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES,ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C.THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C.NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDINGCOPYRIGHT THERETO.c2017PROJECT NO:Issue:SCALE:1/2/2018 4:33:48 PMDUNCAN SKIHAUS LLC533 W. HALLAMHPC 209PROPOSED PERSPECTIVESNORTH ELEVATIONNORTHWEST ELEVATION WEST ELEVATIONSOUTHWEST ELEVATION1 10.11.2017 HPC PACKAGE2 01.02.2018 HPC PACKAGE2nd ROUNDP90 III.A. ConsultantARCHITECTUREPLANNING+( T ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 5 4 7 5 5 ( F ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 0 2 9 5 06 0 5 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N, C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1SHEET TITLEBILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES,ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C.THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C.NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDINGCOPYRIGHT THERETO.c2017PROJECT NO:Issue:SCALE:1/2/2018 4:33:48 PMDUNCAN SKIHAUS LLC533 W. HALLAMHPC 210PROPOSED PERSPECTIVESSOUTHWEST ELEVATIONSOUTHEAST ELEVATION WEST ELEVATIONNORTH ELEVATION1 10.11.2017 HPC PACKAGE2 01.02.2018 HPC PACKAGE2nd ROUNDP91 III.A. DNUP208 sf366 sf41sf < 5'-6"sf58sf <30" Vertical58sf <30" VerticalOPEN TO BELOWCHIMNEYEXISTINGSQUARE FEET FLOOR AREAGARAGE (<250 EXEMPT)TOTALUPPER LEVELFLOOR AREAATTIC <30" (EXEMPT)TOTALTOTALFAR1,853sf232sf1,853sf574sf116sf574sf2,427sfPORCH (EXEMPT)50sf<5'-6" (EXEMPT)41sfNORTHConsultantARCHITECTUREPLANNING+( T ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 5 4 7 5 5 ( F ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 0 2 9 5 06 0 5 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N, C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1SHEET TITLEBILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES,ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C.THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C.NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDINGCOPYRIGHT THERETO.c2017PROJECT NO:Issue:SCALE:1/2/2018 4:33:48 PMDUNCAN SKIHAUS LLC533 W. HALLAMHPC 300EXISTING UPPER LEVELAREA PLANSCALE1/4" = 1'-0"1EXISTING UPPER LEVEL AREA CALCULATIONS1 10.11.2017 HPC PACKAGE2 01.02.2018 HPC PACKAGE2nd ROUNDP92 III.A. 1,640 sf232 sf (GARAGE)<250 = 0207 sf31 sf50 sfEXISTINGSQUARE FEET FLOOR AREAGARAGE (<250 EXEMPT)TOTALUPPER LEVELFLOOR AREAATTIC <30" (EXEMPT)TOTALTOTALFAR1,853sf232sf1,853sf574sf116sf574sf2,427sfPORCH (EXEMPT)50sf<5'-6" (EXEMPT)41sfNORTHConsultantARCHITECTUREPLANNING+( T ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 5 4 7 5 5 ( F ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 0 2 9 5 06 0 5 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N, C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1SHEET TITLEBILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES,ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C.THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C.NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDINGCOPYRIGHT THERETO.c2017PROJECT NO:Issue:SCALE:1/2/2018 4:33:49 PMDUNCAN SKIHAUS LLC533 W. HALLAMHPC 301EXISTING MAIN LEVEL AREAPLANSCALE1/4" = 1'-0"1EXISTING MAIN LEVEL AREA CALCULATIONS1 10.11.2017 HPC PACKAGE2 01.02.2018 HPC PACKAGE2nd ROUNDP93 III.A. DCLO.MASTERBDRMCLO.ELEV.W/DOFFICELANDINGMASTERBATHW.C.LEVEL 21057 sfOPEN TO BELOWSHWRNORTHConsultantARCHITECTUREPLANNING+( T ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 5 4 7 5 5 ( F ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 0 2 9 5 06 0 5 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N, C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1SHEET TITLEBILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES,ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C.THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C.NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDINGCOPYRIGHT THERETO.c2017PROJECT NO:Issue:SCALE:1/2/2018 4:33:49 PMDUNCAN SKIHAUS LLC533 W. HALLAMHPC 302PROPOSED UPPER LEVELAREA PLANSCALE1/4" = 1'-0"1PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL AREA CALCULATIONS1 10.11.2017 HPC PACKAGE2 01.02.2018 HPC PACKAGE2nd ROUNDP94 III.A. ELEV.GARAGESTORAGEENTRYPANTRYPWDROFFICEENTRYENTRYHALLKITCHENBRKFSTDININGSTAIRSBIKESGARAGE AREA = 571 sfLEVEL 1 AREA = 2022 sf91 sf50 sf51 sfLIGHT WELL BELOWLIGHT WELL BELOWLIGHT WELL BELOWLIGHT WELL BELOW31sf43 sfBARCHINA CUPBOARDNORTHConsultantARCHITECTUREPLANNING+( T ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 5 4 7 5 5 ( F ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 0 2 9 5 06 0 5 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N, C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1SHEET TITLEBILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES,ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C.THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C.NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDINGCOPYRIGHT THERETO.c2017PROJECT NO:Issue:SCALE:1/2/2018 4:33:49 PMDUNCAN SKIHAUS LLC533 W. HALLAMHPC 303PROPOSED MAIN LEVELAREA PLANSCALE1/4" = 1'-0"1PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL AREA CALCULATIONS1 10.11.2017 HPC PACKAGE2 01.02.2018 HPC PACKAGE2nd ROUNDP95 III.A. LIGHTWELLLIGHTWELLCLO.LIGHTWELLLIGHTWELLBDRM#4W.C.BATH #2BDRM#1BDRM#2CLO.DRESSW.C.BATH #1W.C.BATH #2BDRM#3CLO.DRESSELEV.CLO.BATH #4W.C.ELEV.MECH.LAUNDRYMECH.PWDRFAMILY /GAMECLO.DRESSSHWRSHWRSHWRSHWRBASEMENT LEVEL AREA = 3472 sf23 sf25 sf33 sf27 sf60' - 9 1/2"2' - 1"13' - 8 1/2"5' - 0"6' - 2"12' - 1"12' - 1"11' - 5"8"5' - 0"5' - 0"53' - 1"5' - 0"21' - 5"4' - 6"36' - 6"1' - 5"5' - 0"42' - 5"NORTHConsultantARCHITECTUREPLANNING+( T ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 5 4 7 5 5 ( F ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 0 2 9 5 06 0 5 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N, C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1SHEET TITLEBILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES,ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C.THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C.NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDINGCOPYRIGHT THERETO.c2017PROJECT NO:Issue:SCALE:1/2/2018 4:33:50 PMDUNCAN SKIHAUS LLC533 W. HALLAMHPC 304PROPOSED LOWER LEVELAREA PLANSCALE1/4" = 1'-0"1PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL AREA CALCULATIONS1 10.11.2017 HPC PACKAGE2 01.02.2018 HPC PACKAGE2nd ROUNDP96 III.A. T.O.S. PLY WD @ BL88' - 5 1/2"36 sf 4' - 4"8"5' - 0"15 sf 6 sf 9"8"1' - 5"8 sf 60' - 9 1/2"627 10' - 3 3/4"T.O.S. PLY WD @ BL88' - 5 1/2"12 sf 1' - 5"2' - 1"10 sf 42 sf 5' - 0"9 sf 1' - 5"8"2' - 1"12 sf 9 sf 141 13' - 8 1/2"T.O.S. PLY WD @ BL88' - 5 1/2"42' - 5"10' - 3 3/4"437 T.O.S. PLY WD @ BL88' - 5 1/2"21' - 5"221 5' - 0"37 sf 4' - 4"8"14 sf 43 sf 5' - 0"9 sf 1' - 2 3/4"T.O.S. PLY WD @ BL88' - 5 1/2"5' - 0"37 sf 4' - 4"8"14 sf T.O.S. PLY WD @ BL88' - 5 1/2"547 53' - 1"4' - 6"33 sf 13 sf 8"3' - 10"38 sf 4' - 4"8"5' - 0"14 sf 32' - 6"335 10' - 3 3/4"-ABOVE GRADE (EXPOSED)-BELOW GRADEHATCH AREA LEGEND -(ELEVATIONS)ConsultantARCHITECTUREPLANNING+( T ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 5 4 7 5 5 ( F ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 0 2 9 5 06 0 5 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N, C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1SHEET TITLEBILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES,ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C.THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C.NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDINGCOPYRIGHT THERETO.c2017PROJECT NO:Issue:SCALE:1/2/2018 4:33:51 PMDUNCAN SKIHAUS LLC533 W. HALLAMHPC 305PROPOSED AREAELEVATIONS-BASEMENTLEVELConsultantARCHITECTUREPLANNING+( T ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 5 4 7 5 5 ( F ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 0 2 9 5 06 0 5 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N, C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1SHEET TITLEBILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES,ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C.THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C.NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDINGCOPYRIGHT THERETO.c2017PROJECT NO:Issue:SCALE:1/2/2018 4:33:51 PMDUNCAN SKIHAUS LLC533 W. HALLAMHPC 305PROPOSED AREAELEVATIONS-BASEMENTLEVELSCALE1/4" = 1'-0"11SCALE1/4" = 1'-0"22SCALE1/4" = 1'-0"33SCALE1/4" = 1'-0"44SCALE1/4" = 1'-0"55SCALE1/4" = 1'-0"66SCALE1/4" = 1'-0"77SCALE1/4" = 1'-0"88SCALE1/4" = 1'-0"99SCALE1/4" = 1'-0"1010SCALE1/4" = 1'-0"1111SCALE1/4" = 1'-0"1212SCALE1/4" = 1'-0"1313SCALE1/4" = 1'-0"1414SCALE1/4" = 1'-0"1515SCALE1/4" = 1'-0"16161 10.11.2017 HPC PACKAGE2 01.02.2018 HPC PACKAGE2nd ROUND1 10.11.2017 HPC PACKAGE2 01.02.2018 HPC PACKAGE2nd ROUNDP97 III.A. BASEMENT LEVEL FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONSBASEMENT LEVEL TOTAL = 424 sf LEVEL 1= 2,063 sfLEVEL 2LEVEL 1 TOTAL = 2,637 sf41 sf 91 sf50 sf+51 sf(EXCLUDED) = 233 sfLEVEL 1 AREAGARAGE AREALEVEL 2 TOTAL = 1,054 sf 3,240 sf500 sfTOTAL FAR ALLOWABLE LOT FAR ALLOWABLEEXCEPTIONAL AWARD BONUSSUMMARY 424 sf2,637 sf+1,054 sfBUILDING TOTAL = 4,115 sfBASEMENTLEVEL 1LEVEL 2BUILDING TOTAL = 3,740 sfGARAGE EXEMPTION 375 sfDECK AREA (EXCLUDED) = 574 sfBUILDING TOTAL-GARAGE EXEMPTION 4,115 sf-375 sfTOTAL AREA = 3,740 sf-ABOVE GRADE (EXPOSED)-BELOW GRADEHATCH AREA LEGEND -(ELEVATIONS)-LIGHT WELL-DECKSHATCH AREA LEGEND -(PLAN)-GARAGE-LIVABLEABOVE GRADE = 296 BELOW GRADE =2,423 ABOVE GRADE (296 sf) / BELOW GRADE (2,423 sf) =12.212.2 % X INCLUDED BASEMENT AREA (3,472 sf) = 424 sf TOTAL INCLUDED BASEMENT LEVEL AREA = 424 sfELEVATIONABOVE BELOW136 1526 83627 41210 542 961297141 84379221 103714 11439 1237 14 135471433 1315381416335TOTALS296 sf2,423 sfELEVATION AREAS (sf.) BASEMENT LEVEL FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONSConsultantARCHITECTUREPLANNING+( T ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 5 4 7 5 5 ( F ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 0 2 9 5 06 0 5 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N, C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1SHEET TITLEBILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES,ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C.THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C.NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDINGCOPYRIGHT THERETO.c2017PROJECT NO:Issue:SCALE:1/2/2018 4:33:51 PMDUNCAN SKIHAUS LLC533 W. HALLAMHPC 306PROPOSED AREACALCULATIONS1 10.11.2017 HPC PACKAGE2 01.02.2018 HPC PACKAGE2nd ROUNDP98 III.A. 64 sf7 sf124 sf3 sf76 sf3 sf68 sf23 sf10 sf6 sf83 sf728 sf34 sf12 sf21 sfEXISTINGSQUARE FEET WALL AREAROOF AREATOTALAREA OF DEMOLITIONSQUARE FEET WALL AREAROOF AREATOTALPERCENTAGE OF DEMOLITIONSQUARE FEET WALL AREAROOF AREATOTAL2,6633,2145,8772,1362,2674,40380.2%70.5%74.9%KEYEXISTING TO REMAINTO BE DEMOLISHEDConsultantARCHITECTUREPLANNING+( T ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 5 4 7 5 5 ( F ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 0 2 9 5 06 0 5 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N, C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1SHEET TITLEBILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES,ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C.THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C.NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDINGCOPYRIGHT THERETO.c2017PROJECT NO:Issue:SCALE:1/2/2018 4:33:52 PMDUNCAN SKIHAUS LLC533 W. HALLAMHPC 307EXISTING ELEVATION AREAS(DEMOLITION)SCALE1/4" = 1'-0"1NORTH ELEVATION DEMO AREASSCALE1/4" = 1'-0"2EAST ELEVATION DEMO AREAS1 10.11.2017 HPC PACKAGE2 01.02.2018 HPC PACKAGE2nd ROUNDP99 III.A. 184 sf667 sf 6 sf122 sf16 sf14 sf27 sf75 sf65 sf182 sf38 sf5 sfKEYEXISTING TO REMAINTO BE DEMOLISHEDEXISTINGSQUARE FEET WALL AREAROOF AREATOTALAREA OF DEMOLITIONSQUARE FEET WALL AREAROOF AREATOTALPERCENTAGE OF DEMOLITIONSQUARE FEET WALL AREAROOF AREATOTAL2,6633,2145,8772,1362,2674,40380.2%70.5%74.9%ConsultantARCHITECTUREPLANNING+( T ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 5 4 7 5 5 ( F ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 0 2 9 5 06 0 5 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N, C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1SHEET TITLEBILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES,ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C.THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C.NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDINGCOPYRIGHT THERETO.c2017PROJECT NO:Issue:SCALE:1/2/2018 4:33:53 PMDUNCAN SKIHAUS LLC533 W. HALLAMHPC 308EXISTING ELEVATION AREAS(DEMOLITION)SCALE1/4" = 1'-0"1WEST ELEVATION DEMO AREASSCALE1/4" = 1'-0"2SOUTH ELEVATION DEMO AREASSCALE1/4" = 1'-0"3NORTH SECTION DEMO AREASSCALE1/4" = 1'-0"4SOUTH SECTION DEMO AREAS1 10.11.2017 HPC PACKAGE2 01.02.2018 HPC PACKAGE2nd ROUNDP100 III.A. 7 : 127 : 1212 : 1212 : 1212 : 1212 : 1212 : 1212 : 1212 : 1212 : 121 : 122.5 : 128.5 : 126 : 121 : 1212 : 1212 : 127 : 1214 : 1214 : 12 14 : 126 : 126 : 126 : 1214 : 1214 : 1212 : 1212 : 12FLATFLAT6 : 126 : 127sf100sf310sf25sf39sf114sf40sf167sf61sf152sf125sf38sf38sf235sf31sf123sf217sf119sf135sf136sf120sf118sf112sf124sf117sf30sf89sf78sf78sf34sf12sf63sf15sf4sfKEYEXISTING TO REMAINTO BE DEMOLISHEDEXISTINGSQUARE FEET WALL AREAROOF AREATOTALAREA OF DEMOLITIONSQUARE FEET WALL AREAROOF AREATOTALPERCENTAGE OF DEMOLITIONSQUARE FEET WALL AREAROOF AREATOTAL2,6633,2145,8772,1362,2674,40380.2%70.5%74.9%ConsultantARCHITECTUREPLANNING+( T ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 5 4 7 5 5 ( F ) 9 7 0 / 9 2 0 2 9 5 06 0 5 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T A S P E N, C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1SHEET TITLEBILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES,ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C.THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C.NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDINGCOPYRIGHT THERETO.c2017PROJECT NO:Issue:SCALE:1/2/2018 4:33:53 PMDUNCAN SKIHAUS LLC533 W. HALLAMHPC 309EXISTING ROOFAREAS(DEMOLITION)SCALE1/4" = 1'-0"1ROOF DEMO AREAS1 10.11.2017 HPC PACKAGE2 01.02.2018 HPC PACKAGE2nd ROUNDP101 III.A. P102III.A. P103III.A. P104III.A. 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 8, 2017 Chairperson Halferty called the meeting to order at 4:33 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Jeffrey Halferty, Gretchen Greenwood, Willis Pember, Nora Berko, Bob Blaich, Roger Moyer, Richard Lai. Absent was Scott Kendrick. Staff present: Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk Amy Simon, Senior Planner Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES: October 11th, 2017 Mr. Blaich moved to approve, Mr. Moyer seconded. All in favor, motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Ms. Berko asked about taking a tour of St. Mary’s after the current renovation. Ms. Simon said yes, they have gutted the interior so it would be good for everyone to see. Mr. Halferty welcomed Sarah Yoon as the new Historic Preservation Planner. DISCLOSURES OF CONFLICT: None. PROJECT MONITORING: None. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon noted that she had a couple of reminders for the board. There is a special meeting next week at 4:30 for HPC because the next regularly scheduled meeting is cancelled for Thanksgiving. There is only one meeting in December due to Christmas. She emailed everyone yesterday about the public open house tomorrow for the mall study, which is in the library meeting room and the board can also attend the November 14th council discussion. There will be three variations of the mall renovation presented and it will be narrowed down and there will be a presentation to HPC in the new year. Mr. Pember entered the meeting. CERTIFICATES OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: Ms. Simon issued one for the White House Tavern restaurant to replace the stairs that enter into the kitchen from the west side of property. She has allowed them to replace the steps with stone. Mr. Halferty asked Ms. Bryan if she has the appropriate public notices for the agenda items and Ms. Bryan answered yes. CALL UP REPORTS: Ms. Simon said that staff appeared at city council to report HPC’s decision on 122 W. Main St., which was the remodel introducing some lodge units and council chose not to call up the approval for further discussion. P105 III.A. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 8, 2017 OLD BUSINESS: None. NEW BUSINESS: 201 E. Hyman Amy Simon This is a project that is nearing completion and HPC approved a renovation of this building into a larger single-family house, restoring a miner’s cottage and they have made an addition on the east side. There were preliminary indications of where the mechanical equipment would be placed on the inside and outside of the building. Some of the condenser units need to be a different selection as originally anticipated. They would sit in the east side yard setback between the addition and the Limelight building. It will be no more than 30 inches above and below grade. The equipment being spoken about tonight is not too tall, but being hung on the side of the building and violates the height variation. It is appropriately sized and meets the max decibel levels, but it does require a variation. Staff supports HPC granting this variation request and does not appear to have an impact on anyone else. The review criteria is on page 9 of the packet and we recommend approval. We received two public comment emails that are also attached in the packet. Ms. Berko asked if the Limelight has a five-foot setback and Ms. Simon said no. Applicant Presentation: Derek Skalko of 1 Friday Design along with Carl Schindler of Brikor, Brendan Guerin of Guerin Glass Architects, Steven Meyer of Brikor and Eric Aanonsen of Brikor. Mr. Skalko said this is a fairly self-explanatory ask. As you are all aware, 201 E Hyman is the old Hartman House, which sits at the intersection of E Hyman Ave and S. Aspen St. adjacent to the Limelight Lodge. Between the Limelight and 201 E. Hyman, is where we are proposing to put the mechanical equipment. The Limelight Lodge is 1 foot 8 inches off the property line and we are at our 5-ft. limit so there is about 6 feet eight inches between the two buildings. The packet explains what they are asking for and what the equipment is. We will ensure that the equipment is well-hidden and obscured, but also whisper quiet for the community. Ms. Berko clarified that the condensers weren’t where they were originally proposed to be and Mr. Skalko pointed out that Ms. Berko was the only original member on the board in 2012 who approved this project and the discussion at that time, really left it open ended. What we intended initially, it was to be on the cul-de-sac and an alley locate, so we held off and wanted to figure it out and be fair to surrounding neighbors. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. MOTION: Mr. Moyer moved to approve and grant the variance, Mr. Blaich seconded. Mr. Pember asked who the project monitor is and Ms. Simon said it was John Whipple. Mr. Halferty volunteered to be the new project monitor. P106 III.A. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 8, 2017 Roll call vote: Mr. Pember, yes; Mr. Blaich, yes; Ms. Berko, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Mr. Lai, yes. 6-0, motion carried. NEW BUSINESS: 533 W. Hallam St. Sarah Yoon This is a landmark Victorian that has been reviewed for conceptual twice previously before it was continued. Today’s application is brought to you by a new architect and owner, but will be judged under the old design guidelines. This is a 6000-sq. ft. lot within the R6 zone district. The lot allows a single- family home or two detached houses and the applicant is proposing a single-family home. HPC should review the following actions: to demolish all existing non-historic additions and relocate the historic building in a forward direction of 9 ft. 4 inches toward Hallam St. on top of a new basement addition. The garden shed will be relocated towards the alley and restoration work is proposed for the Victorian. New additions are proposed both above and below grade and the basement addition extends beyond the footprint of the Victorian. The addition will be connected with an above grade connecting element and the applicant will be requesting a 500-sq. ft. floor area bonus along with setback variations for the basement, the garden shed and the front bay window. The restoration work will focus primarily on the front porches of the historic Victorian. Much of the historic rear wall has been lost over the years with the various additions. The proposed rear wall does not represent the full extent of the historic footprint. The applicant proposes to restore both front porches and reestablish the entrance on the east side and they plan to bring the roof back to its original design. Staff supports this project. The site is in an area with mature trees and they have been identified as significant by the Parks Department. The Parks Department was consulted with this issue and offered recommendations on how to proceed with the basement excavation. Staff is concerned that relocation of the historic resource forward, will put the historic resource at risk by placing it closer to the tree and will take the resource out of historic alignment with the neighbor to the east. On that note, public comment has been submitted by a neighbor. Moving forward, staff is concerned with how the storm water will be handled with a full basement addition. This has been resolved in the past with man holes placed in front of the resource and we would like to avoid this moving forward. The new addition above grade has a connector and is important that it reads as a subordinate element between two resources and subordinate to the historic roofline. The current design has a height and a footprint that challenges this idea. For the setback variances being requested, there is a 5-ft. rear setback variation for the basement and a rear and east side yard setback variation for relocating the garden shed onto the lot line against the alley. Staff supports these setback variations with the condition that the garden shed be pulled slightly in towards the lot line. They are also requesting a front yard setback variation regarding the front bay window, but it needs additional study. The overall roof design is in conformance with the historic structure; however, the second story flat roof on the west side is overpowering in scale and massing. (Ms. Greenwood has joined the meeting.) Staff is not in favor of roof design option B for this reason. Staff does not support the full award of the 500-sq. ft. bonus because of these issues and suspect that the additional floor area has created the dominant massing above grade. Staff recommends continuation to December 13th. P107 III.A. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 8, 2017 Ms. Bryan announced Ms. Greenwood’s arrival and asked if she read the packet and is comfortable voting on this project and Ms. Greenwood said yes. Mr. Halferty asked Ms. Yoon to revisit the shed on the alley. She said the applicant wants to place the shed on the lot lines and staff wants to pull it inside of the lot lines slightly. Applicant Presentation: Sarah Adams of Bendon Adams along with the owners; Carlos (Charles) and Leslie Duncan and Andy Wisnoski of Poss Architecture as well as William and McKenzie of Poss. Mr. Duncan started out by saying he appreciates everyone being here. He stated that they are from Houston and plan to make this their family home and they aren’t building it to sell. He grew up here and his children have grown up here and they’ve seen a lot of redone houses in the west end. He would like to keep the old Victorian vibe alive and they have renovated old homes before and have been working with this team for the past seven months to present this application to the board. Ms. Adams mentioned the site visit that took place earlier today and said they met with Kristen Henry yesterday who is the neighbor on the east side and have recently met with the Parks department to establish the excavation parameters. They are presenting two different massing options in the packet. They have had site visits with an arborist and staff trying to respond to concerns that staff has raised at the end of last week. This property is on the corner of Hallam Street and 5th Street. After meeting with Kristen, they are really trying to be sensitive to her views and her sunlight, etc. Ms. Adams has checked with the Historical Society for pictures of the rear of the building and was unable to come up with anything unfortunately, but she did find pictures of the front porch so this will help in replicating and restoring this area. The historic resource is a little over 9 ft. of a move forward, shifted towards Hallam St. The bay window extends over the 10-foot setback line and the zoning code typically allows for an 18- inch projection for bay windows. We are actually asking for 7 inches on this and by being able to move this landmark forward, we are achieving more prominence since it is buried in the trees currently and this will allow it to be more visible. We currently have a large cottonwood on site as well as spruce trees. The Parks Department is protective of the cottonwood, so we pushed everything towards Ms. Henry’s home while respecting her five-foot setback. Parks is supportive of shifting the house forward as it’s a good preservation method and they will just have to limb up the trees no matter what. Ms. Adams mentioned that they went out and did an analysis of the existing setbacks on the block and there is a range in this neighborhood. Next door, Ms. Henry is at 15 ft. and at this point a year ago, planning was ok with moving it forward. One of their strategies was to push as much massing into the basement as possible and they are asking for a 5-foot setback along the rear below grade. They had received direction from Ms. Simon to restudy the flat roof so they looked at a more traditional gable and provide an alternate option, but they prefer the flat roof. It’s simple and keeps the height down and adds some interest to that corner. She summed up why they feel they meet the review criteria for the 500-square foot bonus. P108 III.A. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 8, 2017 Ms. Berko asked if they are planning to bring the connector down 10 ft. and tuck it under. Mr. Wisnoski said they haven’t proposed any changes to what they are currently doing at this point and it is within 10 inches of what they are talking about. Mr. Pember asked Ms. Yoon what the objection was to staff regarding the flue treatment (chimney) on the historic resource. Ms. Yoon said there was not historical documentation of the flues so they wanted them to do a restudy because the placement because it seemed a bit odd in the renderings. Ms. Adams said she felt it was best addressed during demolition, but they are happy to comply. Ms. Greenwood asked what the difference is in height between the existing Victorian and the tallest proposed gable towards the alley. Mr. Wisnoski said it is 10 ft. 6 inches. Ms. Adams noted that the height slopes toward Hallam St. Ms. Greenwood asked what the floor area is of the finished Victorian versus the addition on the back. Ms. Adams said the landmark is 686 sq. ft. of what is being restored. The addition is 1404 sq. ft. and the garage is 567.5 sq. ft. Mr. Blaich asked what the comparative square footage is between the existing structure and the new proposal. Ms. Adams said the existing floor area is 2,427 and what is proposed is 3,740. Mr. Lai mentioned reading the letter from the neighbor which was included and asked Ms. Yoon to elaborate on the setback from Hallam. Ms. Yoon said that if you want to move a historic resource, you want to make sure it will survive and that it’s in the best interest of resource. To staff, putting it into the trees was not in favor of the resource. They suggested doing some studies to move over to the east just for the Victorian in terms of the public comment. Mr. Lai said that another consideration should be as to how it relates to the existing street. Ms. Yoon said it is brought up in the memo, that it is still sitting on the historic site and moving that is going to bring it out of historic alignment with its neighbor so they are not in favor of moving forward. Mr. Wisnoski noted that the conversation with the neighbor was about the cabin too and she was not in favor of moving it to the east. It wasn’t an all or nothing kind of move for the whole house. He pointed out to her that they were bringing the house into alignment with the house on the west so she recognized the pattern they were creating of alignment along the street so she softened her position. Mr. Pember asked what the ceiling height is on the west view of the connector. Ms. Adams said it is 9 ft. 6 inches. Then he asked what the ceiling height is in the historic resource and she said it is vaulted ceilings. Mr. Wisnoski guessed that it is around 10 feet. Mr. Pember explained that he asked that question due to the 9-foot band that wraps around the addition and ties it all together and establishes the height of the porch on the west side and said it’s a very important dimension to the addition. Ms. Simon said it results in the connector sort of climbing on top of the roof. Mr. Lai asked for the staff recommendations to be put back on the screen. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. Ms. Adams said she would last like to point out the storm water design. She said the first they heard about this was on Wednesday of last week and that they didn’t know that was going to be something P109 III.A. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 8, 2017 planning would ask for at this point. Under the code the previous owner submitted under, it was not required, so it was a surprise to them and are asking for some flexibility. She said they are happy to show HPC the design at final. Mr. Halferty summarized what HPC needed to discuss. Ms. Greenwood said that her take on the project presented, is that the reason to move it forward is not for historic preservation, but because the rear of the property is being obliterated by the addition. She said it is being moved forward to create more buildable area on the site. She doesn’t feel that is an A+ solution to historic preservation. She likes the concept of the building moving forward because getting it away from the trees is a good solution for that façade, but allowing this to occur, means that there should be a benefit from that. You’re obliterating one entire side and the connector should be as minimal as possible so the four major facades of the historic structure should be prominent on this property and it falls short of that in terms of the massing. The footprint is three times the size. While she supports moving the resource forward, she doesn’t support the attachment and the fact that more than half of the back side of the building will no longer be visible. For her, this goes back to the reasons why they changed the code in the first place to not have gargantuan additions added onto these modest homes. It’s very disappointing to her to see this being presented and feels it’s a very unsuccessful project, it’s not historic preservation and she can’t support a bonus. She supports moving it forward, but only if it allows some breathing room, which it doesn’t in this presentation because it’s being attached in an uncomfortable way. This feels like a small resource with a train wreck attached because it overwhelms the historic resource. She is a little surprised that it would be taken so nonchalantly to not have a linking element. The addition itself, from a massing standpoint, has a lot going on with flat roofs and dormers. The historic resource should be a visual model for where you are taking the addition and this has very complicated looking gables that don’t seem to relate to anything on the historic resource. The complication of massing doesn’t meet our guidelines nor do the flat roofs. This needs to be simpler and quieter because it overwhelms the historic context on the corner. She wants them to rethink the whole proposal and do the restoration that they say they want to do by reducing the square footage on the site, bring down the massing, simplify the house and expose more of the historic resource. Mr. Lai said he concurs with staff in terms of the recommendations. He also questions the reason for the setting of the building forward. He agrees with Ms. Greenwood that the idea is not to preserve, but to increase the FAR. When we look at the configurations from 5th St. on page 401 of the memo, the complex is much too complicated. If you take away everything on the second floor that is in the middle component, it would be a lot more elegant. With the additional FAR, it spoils an elegant design. The gables echo the design of the historic building, so when you add the second story flat roof addition, it complicates the whole design like you are trying to squeeze every FAR possible out of the project, which is the root of all the problems. Ms. Berko said she echoes the staff recommendations. She doesn’t feel that 10.7 is met at all for the connector. She would like to see a connector not as living space, but connecting and she would like to see it tucked in and under. She doesn’t feel it meets mass and scale (11.3) as it totally overwhelms that P110 III.A. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 8, 2017 little house. Part of what she is feeling is that if one needs variances, there is too much program. The relocation is problematic for her. She said she cannot support moving the house forward because she feels that is destroying the historic streetscape. She said what happens across the street is not their concern so she is having a hard time. The words she keeps reading in the memo over and over are overpower”, “overwhelm”, “imbalance” and “complicate”, with the solution being “reduction” and simplification”. This is so overwhelming to her that she can’t support it. She feels the house has been completely buried by the construction on the back. Mr. Pember commented that the renderings are the most compelling to him as far as the ones that show the trees. Since the Parks department has determined that these trees have to stay, the resource needs to move, otherwise it’s getting crushed and is a fire hazard. It is not always fair or correct, but it’s Parks decision. He feels the addition slips in and out of the landscape in a convincing way and thinks it’s very musical the way it bounces up to a giant crescendo. It may be a half tone out of scale and too large, but everyone needs to remember that the back side has already been compromised before anyone drew their first line on this proposal. He thinks the concept is clever, but again, the band organizes the whole thing and it seems very chunky. Many contemporary architects around here miss the constructivists clues that these old buildings had. He feels the connector needs to be restudied, which needs a little more finesse. Mr. Blaich said he lives very close by and he doesn’t have a problem with moving it forward and doesn’t care if it is to maximize on the property or not and said the storm water issue has already been addressed. The connecting element needs restudy, but he doesn’t have a problem with it himself. He agreed with the restudy of the scale and massing, but thinks this is a great improvement over what exists and thinks it’s a better design proposal than what was previously presented. He feels that it’s a pretty good reflection of the historic resource and thinks it has that kind of resonance for him and it doesn’t look foreign. He feels that the scale and mass need to be reworked a little, but is generally positive and thinks it’s going in the right direction and feels it will be a good addition to the neighborhood. Mr. Moyer concurs with staff’s comments. He said connecting links came to be in the 1990’s when he was on HPC and he said the point was simple; it was not to look exactly like the historic resource and not to look exactly like the new addition. He feels the key to this proposal, is that the connecting link looks like the new addition and that has to be changed. Because the link is short, fat and high, it brings that mass closer to the resource and you have the impression that it’s overtaking or swallowing up the resource. It’s the big fish swallowing the little fish. He is with Ms. Greenwood, that he is only in favor of moving the resource forward unless it enhances the resource. He continued to speak about the trees and how they can be damaging to a historic resource and feels this topic needs much more discussion. He spoke about the sprinkler heads against the house. As far as the 500-sq. ft. bonus, he doesn’t feel they should give the full amount unless it is an exemplary project. He feels all applicants are expecting FAR because they build it into their project. Ms. Greenwood agreed. He feels this needs to be addressed with the City as well and restudy this before we give any FAR. He feels the underground variance should be granted and doesn’t have a problem with the shed being on the lot line. P111 III.A. 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 8, 2017 Mr. Halferty said in summary, he would have to agree with the board. He feels that 10.7 is a key point as far as compliance. The link is most problematic due to height and the way it crashes into the south façade. He does feel that the architecture of the addition and the modules is very clever and it does work in certain parts and the renderings are well done, but the mass and scale are the biggest problems. He mentioned 10.9 regarding the roof forms. He feels the gables are very well thought, but the flat roofs and combination into them, creates a competition. He feels the board should give variances and bonuses when they are warranted, but doesn’t feel that is the case here. He said restudy is warranted. It’s close to meeting the guidelines, but it needs to be massaged more. He said it makes sense moving the resource to the north if it helps HPC promote restoration. He is not sure if moving it more forward helps the situation due to the trees and to design around the tree, is very difficult. 10.9, 10.7 and 11.3 are sticking points for him. Specifically, he agrees with Mr. Pember regarding the link and feels it is busy, large, fat and detrimental to the historic resource. He agrees on the placement of the shed that was presented and he can support. He agrees and understands how the board feels about the floor area bonus. He approves of and supports staff recommendations, but feels the applicant has strong intent as do the architects and planners on this project. MOTION: Mr. Lai moved for continuance to December 13th, 2017, Mr. Blaich seconded. Ms. Greenwood moved to amend Mr. Lai’s motion and remove #5 regarding the FAR bonus, Mr. Moyer seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Berko, yes; Mr. Halferty, no; Mr. Pember, no; Mr. Blaich, no; Mr. Lai, yes; Ms. Greenwood, yes. 4 yes, 3 no, motion carried for continuance. Mr. Halferty motioned to adjourn, Mr. Moyer seconded at 6:45 p.m. Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk P112 III.A. neem m -------------------------------- v (� _ II III II II _ �a rtn.0 , I z � ; I d I I , i III I a I i i I I i i I 1i i I __________ I � I , , , ---------------------- , , FM , 1 i y , � i I i I , L-----------___- --------------------------------------- J nvan us CA IiI I N � � C � �� �1 • � - Q I 10 ;$ ---------------- Fa --Fa € Sg I R a , , N I i CIS i — LO � k 1 ;4 I �.n1 I I , I ( , b F ri °o sg mj 2g H 8 H G � l O I �iv 1 YY L L_I r ' s �J (t I TL —_________—� t� 1 i Cm CA I 1, 1 I. 1 le I Ic I �a 1 I NI 1 9 N � illii e � �� � � E � � �� e � `'• o �-o � e i i 1 1 e� 1 SIN � 1 1 0 0 2 i Ll EE ' ------- ' cp i oC - r:',. CD CA CA 1 `1 W cll r 1 I e� I - - :,-� p 7�j',_ pa5i-___ , �ij }., r� ' ------------------------- i ---- -------- �� , ( ' i ki• ,I,k >I All . 1 t s+ 1 1 t 1 y o r I(I; ! 1 I.I r�l��'45` s� i � .- � 43 'v �Cr i _ t � J\ , it f` qo j _�, - 10 �tl �1 DKV Am I it A . k r Lit R s \®i��3�. _ p, u - 2 2 O O r r v _ : Eli-. - e.r•ra 1 �,a. r•., a ?:4 �IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII�! o` i 1 f¢ II ?y Z i�" ;` r itc ( rte. ci 0 y FF 7� i-+��-�:-Y— !n J�" .}ter,•'`'?:u• 2 �ennlrrnlllr1111!n..•" ,ai:,,,�,. I � �l il.....::Y14 i.... n(...1 I,1!IIII'',iH �1��p � 1116111IIIIIIII11' � �:� I i 1 a I;umw uwo �\Y�� I�Illiilllililllllf � .�.' , ��"^�' IIIIIIIIIiill I y Ii o w I 1 Iwo I r.; W1 i n ° • t 'Iili y 0 I - .ry.ryAAff,,{{ Q a � - �`��� n =J�j�I� 11• i lu�nm�n 17�7. M l _.'.IJC:+,_ �5�.• ��F-pA^ Jed >yN � 73 I i V i t ! C 1 \ 1 IGI 1 1 l / 1 1 / I 1 / I ` / 1 / 1 / 1 1 1 1 1 I YI 1 I � aAQt LU � r I 1 I I 1 w _J T .i �I !f f ful y u�{ y w 51 m r_t , z • 03 _. : c y m N cIrr 4t- 13 1ty z i J f y 1r ` E Itti1H a � I o I 0 Ail o IU QQ ;�� r � p COR i�l'I °D f rf :,J L"j o {��;• cn i I Fz I N O El I ml 's Gx( z -j i 7� ri�•s�' 3 �j �•.aiAlf fK = f`t= O ,: El 3tr F _j S@! or rt�T-PR ooI I IWO CA I I i�i�i e v R e 1 a i i 5 e t y G F i•.i Y,JJ�f•Y3��� I:. i f• >F{ [r I •�tLiU�tlG'"; �ttil k,Njr�Lll s anL• fob y . ,,+���?t��t� Citi�• 24•• ,,. Yr . Mvk t1 Wr ti fi1F 11-A-,y^. _3=d �1r'�l'µ. �1 ]'�l��f�.• V, I Its �� N e t •� �� b7t`lrP-� - aq ri 13 I� �y •J�+k- 1, � l ,l � .c ant • � i � ill[. �, 1 5 i'•Ri�3{}'�1��i7��� _ Aa3• �d,�' �_ � �� }, a ` Frf••'- �,m� _ }�. t6 iN . `a, rs� • I f•�I.c�t�'='gyp".1.`�: �`�g: � �-7 ' • i ;A K I� rnb . _ as v I I Jill gI, pry{ �YY II-- of ..` .•_k't\�, o Y r ; Gtr 1 � �Pi.� u •� ' '�?,j '1� 1{Y i by * �•1 �I•�'i`�hAj 1 } it t 'i I `•`-��� � �55gg� x�;�• :. _ �� i� to � I', J_t i��llll �.-II s;7- is � D4 i, i n i � p i S\ tat tom.X11. 'i r. I:N111 t"fy „' ,i1tT•j.�:il�tl'.��1�T°It F � >• �..�.' rte_. r,E`r.Qt ' � I I � I Ilnry'I I M'i -d rte. i c .tt.� t Trl JJ (gyp I1 !�pq ;�•' 't�:��591Sy,;i rJl1 �yl��"��III IIL�II!nJlll In ?t t t PPP , � '{'. • 'fSn ti NC'1�4�1r 3w•t'. '' ,y � ppr r � i}�< it , , -_ Y'U � a =� Cj• [ tt� y� II-w I � •. R � �ly, -r ,',�� , ,r ,t,r , Vis`.]] .. �t-, wl:� .{ W(,l � / tit( !� ".2 • �„-•Y0i ift'I�II r•j,��,r+,"..,• lrir��:t� II � I I >, © = so :0 S S �_ 3 D d Vi H a m i +m ~ 2 N �. O , 0h O 3 O O < � cr •+ 2 ,fir A O d N C O 7 N 7 X QO) OQ 'j 0 N O f01 F S (D ear 00 S N qQ p N p O N rf S 7 Q 0 .S 0 fu C S 5 wcr 3 a c Q vCLlu 3 i. o N "00 p C N 00 d 0 0 c Q _. O17 R m 3 O. 3 d O 7 3 C ;,' O. rD 7 a p 00 C O. - Or N S M rf m fu O m O O1 � 3 rt �k — I y =y7i atn z -V Lrl f D w _ o f/r 1� ' C7 m 2 - m D Fn s © - --- y E 0 rD N m N i g 0 0 �N+ i a I I 1 10 ^ M i 3 i fD fD 0 I I O 01 3 e NrD 3 I I O1 :3 0 n n 0 n ' vii f� i E I 0 CL w a- o o I I i-i cu 0 `° '° " ° 1 i ; 3 m m 03 Q s d i SE Epi 3 F. a (D I N i O m c r+ N r+ Q S a 0 G7 01. 1 ; 3 (D 03 ..— , < 'C•r 1 I Q G 1 1 C. � i•• a � S 3 ____i Q ~ . lu CL ; i ! i : n a i m w' i i a w i i 3 m 1 1 I d N T d 7 i 1 5 d I i Ol � 0 i i li —' Eii ! � 3 i i I Z ___ I I In C) Lrl 1. EtiI. v C w 'o a G O l v M 3 of H 7 » rD n 3 P ;;: v Q m 3 N N M — C' (D BE CL ' ^ _ a G. rD l / 'W.r;- rD Q O t orq cr rD rL 6 fD -y �c' , � oQ al CL ro cu 0 0[D O 'O cr O, Ci O O M N' O' a f O O = a O iz N Q Dp Q h s O 7 a O d Q N 3 - � �, rD 3 �cmnm- n ®y ic'' D) = 3. Oro s ( < CU D w 3 5. o (D ,C �It vL 0 � � d Cr F o CDLn fD m N F T D W n ti M K S cr 0 \ fD CD �o G "- rD rp ,T F> OI � 1 CD � I V7 ca I . a $ 1 7 CL1 n H P! . r I - �I IV.nn• � I '-` 1 a (ND I -__________- . 7 Q Gm r n 1 ' I pax o' I I a OQ �—� 1 I 1 � i � ohm 1 � I I s•<•wrtilia Hort: I 1 � I 1 `l 1 \ Ln IW D uj r � N tA --I m D I o o a$ o = y c K Z z --------------------------- cOC 60 ID Ny D Or G Q IS n lal I — UL i n O 3 C A x � as ECU ° CL 0 CL ! {lyIJ{II tri / I i 1 0 rY M I a I N N 0 3 m \ J I I O d C 0 3 K ~ CD Q IliaCLCLi i Q 3 r- 0 c p 7 O CL fD O Q N 1 I la al 1 I (D N crO 0 fu i O C -0 3 A j M F ._._._-.._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._. 3 7 (D 7 O y. O DQ !+ M re 00' IN N N O � ° o 3 ct 3 w Q 7- !D - fD n 0 N -- 0 3 m II�IIIII' _'Y, � f ° :3 ,rD IN x.' O (D O o s m 3 =r Ol N n0 0 IM O C W 11 hk 3. c 'c �r m vii — it! _ .I,: qQ 0 a m r N eT C) 0 11 rt• tix Vis'.'=� � ����.1 L� V V O Gill t t rr ff (n ( c M ^` N N d CQ O � G 7 3 N (D � C Q c - N a V) = _r M C7 CL N cu Il,r r� .Il rr•' li .p 0 3 0 (D� =Q I n 7' a m k O 0. lit _ m CL > � C Oma 0 n W D W ® L' n m � "` _ :y tiK��`a , is ���'S£hT1t* rw�� t"' '�`� � •' I. � y (�� yY�A'� fFlII IIInIII o 1 � ak �t s�11 ,T � LL'. , p ..,i ci;u,py �� .s,! 7rJ : , x .. i`. . I • 11 R I f 1p 7 I y Intr xlFi f t` t t)R,+ri, F«/ l , / � Zn t'E auuuuwutry'�1Ip��l t •c ' �Y 7 F ,r i_t y% �•c`' :.+I��I��111111n�! I /(•;, f! ! DOL 1 /w tc �.f �''� � '' �.-raj �r � Vl`/ I I '�T- ✓ .. t,. a 14d. ��R 1 zY .n^ ae`j}V�7f� `xt't 4t 7Vit . . ;. UUI1111IDIi { r L rl '0r � 7 _ Yt.. .� ♦ Y ';. ZI..c.. / ` �Y17 vp 4fi/"q"7Fi:'n'�Fi���3r�' :a;1<7'Y�`;,; y.$_" • i� '�'I(1 '��!. c2 _ c m O m m m y v+ 3 3 'N•. fN rD 0 �r < rip G! N m r r h N -+ 3 7 O Q ? O O T� O C N N l V d n a m m CL N QrD � m O Q �` IA A N C+rY m 0 Gl 73 Si, w r l of ,. ,�•: JP t ' i W, r ; zun � ► W 4: 'V LA _ C7 2 m D r a a r, I • CJ =(Q.7777-- 5Q 5Q i I�III7III�4 I �$::rnriisan r' S o5ssei /e.(f �Arwuw.av F •^; 1 1 r f IF h 'I J �Ihtyi�` Il I I � pry( Ii I � i � I TI - = f e q. ���%J h �S 4 It r •�z.c Nk L41 I fIf r,1 r Y Li I �I iLL _�V�• A 11j �, Y i i nil HL t- Y� r R � I �V ❑D �l��V,klR1�Ji�17` � i, 11 (! Y, �-�t I ly �� 11111111111111+ `l.� 3� II1IrrI ty IIII L' 4: IQ4��,': t`;fir it 1 R .I •III 'k 1 o ,NP" ( `� Y -y' c O t) -n0 y O H r.+ log L________________________J log :• Y YY t 1 1 IN I , - nO 1 ^ 1 E 3 1 VO1 1 1 1 to I OI 1 1 1 1 I P 1 r + F-112 L ------ 1 I 1 j 1 3 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' � r 1 1 1 �--+ �•�Y i 0' a$� 1 � I 1 � 1 i [M4.1•.O� ; LgO.rao� �1 1� yu m b U'1 C W D C = m ^ a 1 fl 2 m� D m O o ' H H a Q O N M (D -h CL j m Z S j S WS S T S S ((DD •• M N N p m m m m f+ CL m m O w m o CL r+ -O aGQ tr n m 3 s Q, n t m n O ° ° 3 d o a) * 4A-.- 0 - a °J a O o, -h m m 0 0 � 90 n o M x Q Q ? + °, c o $ m d m o 3 Q m Q m rt O (A- r 3 p- . = c 'p cu •+ m r+ -• S '* (D v+ S G1 m 7 3 3 3 r- M S a m of C7 d LA. 3 7 M r+ m 7 'O 7 O m or (n r+ arQ O S �. a0 O m 00 3• c c 3 of '^ x °—' z � �O— rt CYcu_ n m N r* rm+ n O 3 -% 3 m 7C m ao = m m a O. m m oo ap m M Q 'O (n — n r0+ (3D O rt •O ' (n m f7 v+ vR: rDim0 CU+ cu 0 EA O •C C r+ M m S C v m m CL O S -, r+ m 'a m ao 3 r+ 3' 3 Q O 3 cu M cm p, rQ S 0, m r* Q r* S O cu S 3 On cu S V) o �, O. °- o' m c S m o 0 m o, o e, 3 p Q m a 7 ~' d (D m C p C. n .p m o v 3 m d o 5 C m (p0 '0m C m O O Q H cu H oo ; m vm CL dtA ao O ? a m CL ,m, o ; ; r+ N o Q O m s Ln 0 o r* o n (D 01 O dosi m vi c• •ma a O d CLCL o p- 0 0 3 a m O ° _a 0 3 d O m 00 'r 3 O CD O Q (gyp m n H Q a fu @Q C rte+ r' C M n 0 O 00 m N 3 s o• m o r"D m m m � d a Q vi 3 D W m a: n O 3 vCi C rr m 2 m (3D •G rm+ c 6 M rr m m n H O m _ m D � r cco i� cN nnnnn nnu ^ • A Q aJ Q =22 III M O CL IA r►s S s s 3 0fM C M M 0 0) M f. o a, M u, d Q 7C 7 O 00r+ O n ILII I IIIIIIIII{I ; "t c �. c M .6 rr N =rC III I IIIIIIIIiIRIIIy } � di• M• < nx r+ � it ,._ . H S 3 M ro <., lllll�f((jllllll r=r� M X. M 00 Z ao ao < :; CL v m 0. 3 dfu CL +.. ,. So d s : N `* m CL n• ,� Ori► 3 C c a? JU FD- to -- � 7 M s N O O m S N O 'a6 a O v CL m O CL lu � O n d _ r 0 M =' c —,'ylaeny a �, 00 N n '•c__?� S. d rpt CL 0 OJ CLnlu W 1:= Qlr.p j ao 3 o cr 3 2 m - M � (D (D c; z = m D - < m 0 N y O. Q_ O N Q N O_ n r. (D O O (D S D S 3 S S S =r S CD •• CD v=i .O•+• p fD 3 (D (D fD .O•r fD fD O Gi (D O_ = Q y "8 n m 3 _S CL cQi+ w �. n O p 7 of O O y �^ vO or (D o D, CL o m m O O w '* n 'C n .a _+ 3 (D O n ID a Q rt M M c = 0 5. 6 � � N (1 CU N H 7 O =* ^* 3 IM M j fD It ODl m A- � O (D in• A 0. 3 � 7' 3 — D] S •+ (D 3 IM C N (D < vii 00 �'i 3 O 3 ,�,� O d N X r-r IZI ,no Q rt Q 3 F) 0 6 3 n _M. ~' 3 m R O QO N (D :3rD Q O fD fD 04 Oq (D (D 2 3 O Ln _+, n C 'p � �' M R. M N Q Ln/ Q (A M O .0 (D CU (n n v+ � O' •O C ••r N 4 ry � Qq 3 (D in (D S S O O 3 y s < vzi �+ Q j 'C r�•r O � 3 rM QG O. 00 S -h N a' CL N M 3 a s cus o, r ' O m Q a M m o `t m o c wti h N O — ('QD 000 _0 (D y _ �L ^� rD CL — 0 �0 c CL (D LL. �. N QI (D fD O CL m CL CD CL LA IIA -tL m Ln Qj Di 0 N CL O. m i�F N Q_ CL CU Q (D m n fu O m c Q m IN to LU 3 LU 0 D ...q ff � O 3 m (D (D m D G S m � I t) CD VH ' H a Q O N ~ • H � S 0VO fD O. v O• " CL m O O rt 0 3 fD S CD •e m ,Or O MtD O fD .Oo m m O d m CL rt = m n M. O S0. d rOi n O' O O of MO w H a m C m fD p• O to � O (M O Q n -, n rT 3 m G m ni ? a � � O O m y � f2 fD X O_ O_(D CL fn n m ri O d (D 0 $ O .Na = S w fl N ul 3 9 rt 3 H O 3 — S .a fp fu ?aq H p m CCU H n O �^ O 3 rt v X m ° H v ° m m 3 r3D m O m a O �' m m oo m mn. -p 3 v+ m fl (DD of O M H O0 G' O C m a c �* fD m y rD _ m m o o °� 3 w n', S < 4n �+ d -a 3 .e fD B rt 0 3 m (D j O ? p S 7 m f!C a o v °.�' qo a ao s o, m CLd 3 (D CD] fll ry m rt ? O, fu S r0•t cr N O N \ a A O S m S w rt 7 ' a �' f�j N M m C O r. ii m O aq Nfu fD M .'a rt O D' O m rt v d 3 M 3 = c m i CL � M CL a a 'o N ' m CL o '4 N rt 6 t In S C �_ O O 3 S (D fu CL O O' 'O *, Ol O ('DQ m d U, � �. O d O m OrD rD rD C S m 7 (p rt 0 CL z _. o f7 mN m N O O D w w 6 n v _ m m� F. rD n 3 rt O G CD H D H N N lD 00 V M 04�h W < I ' O NM rt .0 _ O Q v rt C M ms D N n cr m w fl fl a d rD o 0 3 W 0 o n. N eY 3 m (Do o n o _ m cm m o 3 z 3 m o 1 0 x CL m o. ' m a o n o m' c t3 0 Q H Ui O z m m LJ C W D W r C - = m C7 70 = m D G r Fn- S> 6 i� ,qo!f• n w- iris; I w all milll�l�lll�lllh fpNa�``Il ' IIIII�Illltlll 'i�C�Q�rs�,yatFs!b;t{��, 'iI � �aa`cu uelotp6i;Sp'st�i ' ilQQ�ZGfQie$��;i�61i III�tlOnfitfiliCi�66fe�i•Ot 1$� je'�4Ei�l`c peSl�p�f611 izt�tt,I`ee tip. t14 IptI eto�'1 : Q to Stip fad 1�1 pcp °paf lltps°i�.t i e❑�4�c�t",,o,Itl�pBlpa°r 0.013,1111 lsi ��fT'�����)•�I�1� �� 6c° by°i I�•l etil `si � a�.�u�—� 4rnsC6�� tlelh°61`0j ,iE �tQt`MR'18 1 '�eoQQ���O -• lvf�>'8m �.1li•Iry