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.20180411
AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING April 11, 2018 4:30 PM City Council Meeting Room 130 S Galena Street, Aspen I. SITE VISITS A. Please visit the sites on your own. II. 4:30 INTRODUCTION A. Roll call B. Draft minutes for March 14th & March 28th C. Public Comments D. Commissioner member comments E. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent) F. Project Monitoring G. Staff comments H. Certificate of No Negative Effect issued I. Submit public notice for agenda items J. Call-up reports K. HPC typical proceedings III. OLD BUSINESS A. None. IV. 4:40 NEW BUSINESS A. 4:40 51 Meadows Road- Minor Development, PUBLIC HEARING B. 5:50 533 W. Hallam Street- Conceptual Major Development, Demolition, Relocation and Variations, PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM MARCH 14, 2018 V. 7:00 ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: 4 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. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 14, 2018 1 Chairperson Greenwood called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Gretchen Greenwood, Jeffrey Halferty, Nora Berko, Willis Pember, Scott Kendrick, Bob Blaich, Roger Moyer, Richard Lai. Staff present: Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Planner Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director APPROVAL OF MINUTES: February 14th was not included so no minutes were approved. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Mr. Moyer asked Ms. Simon if anything is being done regarding trees and how they adversely affect projects. Ms. Simon said she did reach out to the Parks Dept. and they would like to set up a future meeting regarding the concerns that have been expressed in HPC. Mr. Moyer said that everyone needs to have a serious discussion about the urban forest in Aspen, both positive and negative. Mr. Moyer also said that years back when they would get models from applicants, it was immensely helpful and that he would have liked to have seen one on this project and said they should encourage applicants to bring in models moving forward. Mr. Blaich and Ms. Berko seconded his statement. DISCLOSURES OF CONFLICT: None. PROJECT MONITORING: Ms. Simon said she sent the board an email the day before regarding projects that need an assignment. Most are projects that have been approved and some are off in the distance. She noted several addresses that need assignment soon. She said that since her email, Ms. Berko offered to work on 333 W. Bleeker and Ms. Greenwood offered to work on 834 W. Hallam and 208 E Main St. is assigned to Mr. Halferty. She still needs someone for 122 W. Main, which is Timberline Bank. Mr. Moyer volunteered. Ms. Greenwood clarified that she and Mr. Kendrick have one together, but nothing was listed by his name on the sheet. Ms. Simon said she may have forgotten to update it since the last meeting. Ms. Greenwood reminded the board to volunteer and get some of these items off of Ms. Simon’s plate. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon said they had issued an RFP for some improvements to the historic preservation permitting process so that project is underway and Gilbert Sanchez was selected as the lead. She said they will be holding some stakeholder meetings on this coming up and she is hoping by August to receive a plan. She said they also issued a request for research on Lift 1 as Council is exploring the base of that side of the mountain because she is concerned about the historic resource that is there. They are also going to be having deeper discussions on the HPC benefits that were a part of the work session that Council held previously. She said they will also be forming some stakeholder groups to discuss what adjustments are appropriate. Ms. Simon will not be here at the next meeting so Ms. Yoon will run the show next time with two applicants that night. CERTIFICATES OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: None. P1 II.B. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 14, 2018 2 PUBLIC NOTICE: Ms. Bryan confirmed she had received these previously for the continued project so she is ok with everything. CALL UPS: None. Ms. Simon said she should have mentioned earlier that they have added a project monitoring item to the agenda for tonight regarding Little Annie’s. PROJECT MONITORING: Ms. Simon said that what used to be Little Annie’s is currently under renovation to be converted to a new restaurant. She mentioned that Dave Rybak is the architect and Mr. Moyer is the monitor. As they looked at the façade of the building, some issues came up, such as the front door to the space. She said you would take two steps up into the restaurant and this must be eliminated for accessibility so the threshold will be dropped and there will be a slight ramp into the space. That required the replacement of the previous door and the HPC approval was for a painted door similar to what is existing, but the applicant wants to do a stained mahogany door instead. She said they are trying to maintain the rustic character so she thinks this finish is important and should be discussed with Mr. Rybak. PRESENTATION: 517 E. Hyman – Dave Rybak of Rybak Architecture and Development Mr. Rybak said he is here representing the new owner who is now going to operate the restaurant. While renovating the interiors, they discovered the original bar is a mahogany wood so they would like to bring that to the front door, which would tie the exterior and interior together. The natural red tones will work well with the mahogany siding. Ms. Greenwood asked Ms. Simon why they are being required to keep colors the same when that is not something which HPC decides. Ms. Simon said that is not the case, but that HPC does review finish. She said something being stained vs painted would be an issue for them to decide because it could affect the character of the building. Ms. Greenwood asked if the door is the same size in height and Mr. Rybak said it is the same width and design, but is about a foot taller and the head height remains the same, but they are extending the bottom panel. They will refabricate out of the mahogany wood so the current door will not remain there. Mr. Rybak said the façade was changed sometime in the 1970’s from a Swiss Chalet front to the historic rustic façade we see today. Sometime in the late 80’s a front porch was added in a very haphazard manner. It has evolved over the time period that Annie’s was operational, but have no original photos of the front façade. Ms. Berko asked one more time, if it’s not mahogany, it would be painted and Mr. Rybak said yes. Ms. Greenwood asked what the reasons was for bringing this before HPC and Mr. Moyer said it wasn’t his choice to bring it to the board and if she wants his opinion, he would approve as requested. Ms. Simon said it was her decision to bring it to the board. Ms. Greenwood said she would approve it as well. Mr. Pember asked how they can approve without knowing the rest of the finishes. Mr. Rybak explained what the plan is for the proposed finishes and said the flower boxes will remain and some were removed by the public. MOTION: Mr. Moyer moved to approve as requested, Mr. Blaich seconded. Roll call vote: Ms. Berko, no; Ms. Greenwood, yes; Mr. Pember, no; Mr. Kendrick, no; Mr. Moyer, yes; Mr. Blaich, yes; Mr. Lai, yes. 4-3, motion carried. Ms. Simon mentioned that Mr. Halferty was on his way. P2 II.B. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 14, 2018 3 Mr. Halferty entered the meeting. OLD BUSINESS: 533 W. Hallam St. Sarah Yoon Ms. Yoon said the app was continued by HPC at the last meeting on November 8th of last year and is subject to the old preservation guidelines and standards. This is a 6000-sq. ft. lot in the R6 zone district, which contains a Victorian home and a historic outhouse. Over the years, various additions and alterations have been made. The applicant is proposing to restore and relocate the historic resource forward and place it on a new basement foundation and construct a new addition. They are requesting setback variations pertaining to the basement and outhouse and they are also requesting the full 500 sq. ft. floor area bonus. The applicant has since revised the relocation distance to 8 ft. 6 inches towards Hallam St and they will not require a front yard variation. The new addition will now be closer to the rear lot line so they are seeking a rear yard setback variation to sit on the lot line. They have redesigned the connecting element creating a larger distance and Ms. Yoon showed the August proposal on the screen. The historic outhouse has now been moved to the southwest corner of the property, the fireplace was removed and replaced with windows and there has been no reduction to square footage with these changes. The numbers of materials have been reduced to the west elevation and changes have been made to heights on the addition. Staff appreciates the changes made with the height reduction with the gables. Regarding the rear yard setback, staff suggests bringing in the outhouse slightly so it doesn’t project into the property line. Looking at the overall mass and scale, it remains largely the same and the flat roof still reads as prominent form. Massing and scale was a huge issue echoed by multiple board members last time so they recommend further restudy by staff and they do not recommend the awarding the full 500 sq. ft. bonus. Staff recommends to consideration of partial floor area bonus and no more than 250 sq. ft. and staff supports the revised connector. Staff recommends continuation due to the scale and massing. Mr. Pember clarified that these staff comments are from version 3.1 that was submitted the previous day. Mr. Halferty asked how they got from 500 to 250 sq. ft. Ms. Simon said there was no specific set of criteria they used to determine the number, they just try to reflect on clear restoration elements related to square footage that the applicant is undertaking. Mr. Moyer asked about the page with staff recommendations and asked for the changes to this for version 3.1. Ms. Yoon said that since the changes, points 3 and 4 remain the same and points 1 and 2 have been done away with. APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Sara Adams of Bendon Adams, Bill Poss and William Lewis of Poss Architecture Ms. Adams said the Duncan’s wanted to attend, but were unable. She asked for more discussion after the presentation to clear up any questions with the board. Ms. Adams explained their relocation plan for version 3.0 and 3.1. and said their approach is now to really push the addition towards the alley. She summarized the relocation guidelines for the board. They moved the shed and said it’s now in a better location. She said the garage is almost on the alley and is a trade off in response to HPC in exchange for getting rid of the front yard variance because now they need rear yard variance. They do not feel they are asking for more than what they need on this project or more than other HPC projects are allowed. P3 II.B. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 14, 2018 4 She said they are respecting the side yards and the front yard and that the owners feel they are now utilizing the alley space. Mr. Poss said they discussed having a dialogue with the board to the owners since it helps make a better project. He spoke about some slides on the screen and said their structure will align with the neighbor’s structure. There are now 14 feet between the two structures on one side and 13 on the other. He continued to discuss the elevations showing on screen. Ms. Adams said the neighbor is aware of the changes that have been made to the plan and she has expressed her support for the project. Ms. Adams showed another comparison on screen which represents the longer connector. She said there is no requirement on the width of the connector and it reduces the height of the rest of the addition and allows for more one-story space. By allowing a wider connection, it’s an interesting solution for the property on the corner. The landmark is incorporated into the living space and is allowing the connector to function more as living space. The whole rear of the landmark is gone so she said they aren’t destroying any historic fabric whatsoever. Mr. Poss said they tried to use the historic resource as part of the mass and scaling. Ms. Adams went through the list of guidelines for the addition. She pointed out that the second story massing is pushed back by five feet. Mr. Poss showed the existing footprint on screen and discussed. He said they are adding 1, 073 feet on the main level. Half of the square footage they are building is below grade and said most of the family living is on the lower level. They are trying to be respectful of the massing that could potentially take place on this site. There are 928 square feet on the second level existing and the proposed is 1,040 for the master suite and office. Ms. Adams said the new addition is well under the height requirement. She said they are allowed 25 feet, but the addition is only at 21 feet. She said the flat roofs keep the height down since they showed a gabled roof previously. Mr. Poss said they have employed a simple non-descript architecture, which can be seen from west Hallam, but you can’t see the addition from the street. Ms. Adams added that it’s 52 feet back from the property on Hallam. Ms. Adams said they are asking for the whole 500-sq. ft. bonus and that they will be restoring all four façades, restoring the front porch, removing extensive vegetation, positioning drainage measures, removing non-historic additions at the rear of the property and preserving the old shed. Because of the aforementioned, they feel comfortable asking for the bonus. The main entry will be put back to the left side of the porch. They feel they meet all criteria and said they see the bonus as a way to restore the landmark. A way to give back to the community and find a way to suit their family. Ms. Adams ran down the list of why she feels they meet guidelines for the FAR bonus. It’s good to step back and look at all of the available bonuses. We aren’t asking for much and are proud of this project. We think it’s responsive to HPC and staff’s directive. Mr. Lewis showed a 3-D slide of the project to the board. Mr. Halferty mentioned that during the previous meeting, the link and connection were spoken about and asked if they could discuss the height difference between the new and old proposal. Ms. Adams said the height has dropped about 9 inches and it’s been elongated as well and set back about 4 feet P4 II.B. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 14, 2018 5 from the historic corner. Mr. Halferty also mentioned the trees on the west side and asked how that has progressed. Ms. Adams said the trees are staying so we have to respect Parks’ decision and the drip lines. Mr. Halferty mentioned the FAR bonus and asked where the square footage would be going and Mr. Poss said it’s in the basement. Mr. Pember asked if the neighbors letter would be entered into the record and Ms. Adams said there was one back in November, but there was not a new one circulated this week. Regarding the old evergreens, he asked if they plan to limb up the massive firs on Hallam St. as far as landscape solution and Ms. Adams answered yes, they are working with the Parks department and figuring out what will work. Public comments: None. Ms. Greenwood summed up what they need to discuss and focus on and she added a 5th item for each board member to discuss that isn’t something covered in the memo to stay on task. She said she is happy to have a dialogue on any corrections or mistakes that were made in discussion, but she is certainly not opening up another presentation. She suggested that all board members start with commentary on relocation. Relocation: Mr. Moyer said he is in agreement with the relocation as it stands. Mr. Blaich agreed as did Mr. Kendrick. Mr. Halferty and Ms. Berko also echoed the sentiment. Mr. Pember agrees provided that it’s tied to limbing up the evergreens. Mr. Lai agreed. Connecting element: Mr. Moyer said he is ok with it and that it’s an improvement. Mr. Blaich agreed as well as Mr. Kendrick who likes it and said it’s appropriate. Mr. Halferty said it’s an improvement and Ms. Berko said she appreciates it. By increasing it they are going into a setback question, which she has problem with. She likes it, but it ties into mass and scale and setbacks. In isolation, she approves, but big picture, she’s questionable. Mr. Pember said it’s a staggered connector and feels it’s successful from a planning point of view, but still seems kind of wide and clunky. Mr. Lai thinks the connector is an improvement. Ms. Greenwood thinks the connector is pushing them into setback issues and these setbacks are typically for historic property and not on new property. Creating more mass with the connector creates a philosophical difference on giving setbacks on new projects. Mass and scale: this is recommended by staff to restudy. Mr. Moyer said the advantage to what has been presented is that this is on a corner and they’ve done a pretty darn good job of allowing the addition to not over negatively affect the historic resource. He said perhaps the office height could be 7 feet instead of 9. Mr. Blaich said that all of the work is an improvement over the existing situation. After looking at the plans, everything gets bigger in Aspen, nothing gets smaller. It’s an improvement since last time. He generally thinks it’s a good project, but has a different opinion on the square footage allowance. He said he goes by that house a lot and every time, he looks at it and imagines and thinks they have done a good job of what it will look like. Mr. Lai thinks the project itself is good, but he likes the rhythm of the gabled roofs better. If he would choose one element that weakens the design, it’s the office in the back. The office is dark with a flat roof as if they are trying to hide it and he would like to have the owner consider getting rid of it or relocating the office to eliminate that part of the massing. They could also get rid of the FAR bonus if they do away with this. Ms. Berko said she appreciates the simplification, but she is very wary about mass and scale. She said there are a couple of recent projects in town that she has wondered how they happened due to the mass and scale. She said an applicant P5 II.B. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 14, 2018 6 can make a screen do anything they want, but seeing it in person is always a huge difference. She feels that this is still being driven by setbacks and bonuses and for her, doesn’t meet section 10.6 of the guidelines. She doesn’t find it compatible in size and scale and it’s a struggle for her. Mr. Halferty said he appreciates the applicant’s revisions. His biggest issue was with sections 10.7 and 10.9 regarding roof forms and has heard the concerns. He appreciates the link and agrees with Mr. Lai regarding the rhythm. He thinks they are set back far enough to adhere to the project. He thinks the variance helps and provides a strong separation and allows some breathing room. In this application, the mass and scale should be on the alley because it’s far enough from the historic resource so he feels they have listened to HPC’s comments. He thinks the roof porch will help as well so he supports mass and scale as proposed. Mr. Kendrick said in general, this project is a step in the right direction and he likes the connector. He said this is a project of give and take, but feels the mass is still heavy in his opinion and doesn’t like the link out to the lot line and doesn’t know that they need both variance and setback of the rear alley. Mr. Pember said regarding the mass and scale, the applicant has done a fabulous job of reducing and articulating the edges. He thinks that compared to the neighborhood, it is quite small. He doesn’t feel that mass and scale is the real subject and would like to focus on the second floor and the flat roof element and the proportional patterns. He also thinks Mr. Poss’ work is well done. He said the dark parts are recessive and he gets it, but feels it’s a question that should be focused on regarding the office and the stair in the back. Ms. Greenwood said she feels the building is on the correct path from the last time, but is more simplified in terms of the façade design. The mass and scale and proportions are odd to her and she’s not looking around the neighborhood, just how it relates to the historic resource and it’s the only thing that matters to her. As the building gets added onto, the form of the building grows and introduces large expanses of flat roofs and she doesn’t feel that it meets the guidelines. It’s not modern, but trying to replicate roof forms. There isn’t a rhythm established. The concept is good, but not quite there yet. The square footage on the site is difficult to work with, but she’s in favor of restudying that and reducing the FAR because for her, they fall short on 10.6 and it doesn’t reflect the small forms of the original building. This could be accomplished by reducing the floor area of the building so she agrees with staff on that. Mr. Lai clarified that he wasn’t talking about a rhythm of everything being the same, but likened it to a Beethoven piece. He said regarding the flat roofs, the connecting part where you have a flat roof, he doesn’t like on the second floor (office) it doesn’t become a non-statement, it becomes a statement so it has had the opposite effect. A rendering isn’t the reality and said he has a real problem with the two-story connection there. He feels they should consider eliminating it. Mr. Pember agreed word for word with what Mr. Lai said, but he thinks the rest is harmonious and very much likes it. Mr. Moyer said he agrees with Mr. Halferty and also said he would have painted that flat roof white and just make it go away. Mr. Blaich pointed out that it’s not just an office but also an elevator, which is good for access. FAR: Mr. Moyer said he concurs with staff, Ms. Berko said she does too and Mr. Kendrick agreed. Mr. Pember said their request for 500 is fine. Mr. Halferty agreed and said he would vote for the FAR as presented. Mr. Lai said he agrees with staff and doesn’t think it’s the epitome of historic preservation. He is for giving a reward, but doesn’t merit the maximum. Mr. Blaich is leaning towards the allowance of 500, but needs more feedback from presenters. Ms. Greenwood would grant the 500 if they solve the issue of that upper roof, but as of right now, she would vote for 250. Mr. Poss said they studied that flat roof section at great length and they would have used a gabled roof, but it’s much higher an impactful. He said they studied it at 10 feet apart, but they can re-look at this. P6 II.B. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 14, 2018 7 He said they can eliminate and give back 5 feet in the back and push the whole structure forward where it was at. Ms. Adams asked about the proportion of the connector as to whether the board thinks it’s too long or an issue with the width. Ms. Greenwood said it doesn’t need to be 12 feet since it’s standard at 10. Mr. Pember said it needs to be proportional to the resource. Mr. Halferty suggested that the link become shorter and move the resource a little bit more forward and that also helps the back-alley issue. MOTION: Mr. Pember motioned to continue to April 11th, Mr. Moyer seconded Ms. Greenwood said in summary that everyone is in agreement with points 1 and 2 in the memo. The majority of the board agreed that point 3, regarding mass and scale, needs to be restudied. The 4th point, the majority of the board is in favor of only granting 250 square feet of FAR bonus. This is just a summary of the positions of the board. Ms. Simon wanted to clarify that the board feels the applicant should take two feet back out of the link in order to get off of the alley by a small amount, to work on the flat roof part in particular and the floor area bonus is in question, leaving the board sitting at 250 square feet. Mr. Pember said it’s not the boards responsibility to make that decision regarding taking the link back down to 10 feet. Roll call vote: Mr. Kendrick, yes; Mr. Blaich, yes; Mr. Pember, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Berko, yes; Ms. Greenwood, yes; Mr. Lai, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes. 8-0 motion carried. MOTION: Mr. Kendrick moved to adjourn, Mr. Blaich seconded at 6:52 p.m. __________________________________ Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk P7 II.B. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 28, 2018 1 Chairperson Greenwood called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Gretchen Greenwood, Jeffrey Halferty, Willis Pember, Scott Kendrick, Bob Blaich, Roger Moyer, Sheri Sanzone. Absent were Nora Berko and Richard Lai. Staff present: Linda Manning, City Clerk Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MOTION: Mr. Halferty motioned to approve the February 14th minutes, Mr. Moyer seconded. All in favor, motion carried. MOTION: Mr. Halferty motioned to approve February 28th, Mr. Blaich seconded. All in favor, motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Ms. Greenwood mentioned a new board member who joined the HPC board, Sheri Sanzone. Ms. Greenwood welcomed her. Ms. Sanzone said she is a landscape architect and owner of Blue Green and she is very excited to be on the board. Mr. Pember mentioned that the Pritzker Prize was just announced and the first Indian architect was recognized; B.V. Doshi, who is based in India. Mr. Pember had the good fortune, while in graduate school, to study with him for a month in India and it was a fantastic experience. He is now 90 years old, so it is a lifetime achievement award basically. He is still able to travel and be there in person to accept the award. One thing that was noted was his work in affordable housing. Mr. Pember also mentioned that he had a coffee with Sara Yoon since she invited everyone to come aboard and chat with her so he would highly recommend it if anyone has time to do that. He enjoyed his time with her very much. DISCLOSURES OF CONFLICT: Mr. Halferty said he lives within 300 feet of 500 W Main so he will be recusing himself. PROJECT MONITORING: Ms. Yoon said Mr. Lai is out of town so Mr. Kendrick will be taking over for him as project monitor. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Yoon said Ms. Simon will be back on Monday. She also had an update on an HPC project. She said they just finished and launched the HP benefits survey. She sent out an email to everyone with the link so she asked that they make sure to fill it out. She also said to feel free to share the link with other interested parties. The survey will be open for around three weeks and they are sending it out as a community outreach. Ms. Garrow said the feedback will be used in the code amendment process and there will be a site visit with Council on April 10th to look at various projects and to please let them know if anyone is interested in attending. CERTIFICATES OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: None. PUBLIC NOTICE: Ms. Bryan has the appropriate notices. CALL UPS: None. P8 II.B. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 28, 2018 2 PRESENTATION: 135 E Cooper Ave Sarah Yoon Ms. Yoon said this is an Aspen landmark listed on both the Aspen Inventory and National Register. This has been in front of HPC a number of times and the most recent approval was in 2015 regarding the connector. Vesting expires in July 16th this year. The returning applicant has designed an alternate solution for the connecting element for HPC to review. The review is for a substantial amendment of the previous approval and will be subject to old guidelines. There is a one-story connecting element with an exterior path. Under the old design guidelines, a two-story on a corner lot is still appropriate in this case. This project also has unused floor area 70 sq. ft. that can be used towards the proposal. The approval of the connecting element was two-story element, which encompassed a set of stairs. There was a condition of approval from HPC where the connector had to tuck under the eaves of historic structure with approval of staff and monitor. The proposal tonight is two-story connecting element, but it eliminates the stairs and interior so it allows for a more simple element. The function still creates the desired distance between the historic resource and the addition. The proposal does call for the removal of a historic window in upper floor with relocation to the north side, which would require some removal of historic fabric. The proposal also includes changes to the yard and a Blue Stone paving material would be the replacement, which is not native. There are two unaccounted for spruce trees were planted close to the historic resource and staff would like them to be removed. Staff recommends approval with conditions: 1 The historic window on the west elevation is to be removed but they do not approve relocation or the new openings being introduced into that façade. 2 The new patio and walkway are to be red brick pavers or sandstone or along those lines and the applicant should provide a design for review by staff and monitor. 3 The requirement of submission for the building permit by July 2018 to comply with the 2015 code. 4 A commitment to remove the two rogue spruces Mr. Kendrick asked about the removal of the spruce trees and whether any mitigation fee would be associated. Ms. Yoon said since they were not accounted for, she does not believe there would be mitigation. Ms. Garrow said she is not sure they are of the size that would trigger mitigation so she is unsure if they have that information to be able to answer that tonight. She suggested that HPC could include it in the resolution. Ms. Greenwood asked what mitigation fees they are speaking of. Mr. Halferty said it’s for tree removal. Ms. Greenwood said tree removal is not typically in HPC review. Mr. Eigleberger said they spoke about this previously and both trees seem to be smaller than the requirement for removal. APPLICANT: Christof Eigelberger – representing Christy Ferer Mr. Eigelberger said this project is located on the corner of E cooper and Aspen. It is a historic Victorian located on Aspen side with the new addition heading down E cooper to the west. The sq. ft. added is 55 feet to only the 2nd story of the building. 2016 as granted was moved forward in addition to adding the 2nd story. This design accommodates the existing connector to be rebuilt to accommodate the story above. 1st story connector will be demoed, but rebuilt using the same foundation, same height and same width. The 2nd story connector will be narrowed. A small portion of the roof will have a little metal roof then go in to the structure allowing it to go underneath the eave. The entire connector will be glass and we went through several rounds of this with Ms. Simon and in the end went with glass P9 II.B. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 28, 2018 3 skylights. The whole thing will be a dark painted steel. The front façade facing cooper is a continuous façade of gazing. The other portion of the submittal was to address the exterior staircase going down to the basement area that they want to eliminate. He said they would like to eliminate it to clean up the entire façade and the backyard. Mr. Moyer asked if the current trim on the connector is white and Mr. Eigleberger said it is and the dark steel is a condition of the 2016 approval. We are proposing to keep all the trim work and exposed elements as in the 2016 approval. Mr. Moyer said if it is painted dark, it will it draw attention to it. Mr. Pember said they had a long conversation about that when they approved the dark metal and feel it will be more recessive than the white trim. White is more advancing in spatial relations. Mr. Blaich said they thought it better defined the separation too. Mr. Eigleberger said the transparency of the connector allows the new addition to be its own building. Ms. Ferer asked about the window that was approved for the cottage and wants to make sure it is retained. Mr. Pember said that was the last application. Ms. Greenwood clarified that the application is in for the link and all the other approvals stand as is. Ms. Ferer asked about the color of the stone because Ms. Simon had suggested it stay red. Ms. Yoon said as written, they are recommending a red brick paver or stands tone that stays in character of what is traditionally found here. Blue stone is not native or used here in this area. Mr. Ferer said the blue stone is closer to the new addition and it is there now and we are adding to it. Ms. Greenwood said they can discuss that as staff. Ms. Sanzone asked about sheet A302 and the photos of the rear area and if they current. Mr. Eigleberger said it is and shows the staircase and railing. We are trying to eliminate the railing and stars that protrude. Mr. Pember asked if the scope includes interior work. He said it is refreshing to not see a stair. Mr. Eigleberger said the idea is to go back and eliminate one of the interior staircases and use the primary stair within the newer portion to connect back to the Victorian. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. Ms. Greenwood suggested they talk about the issues and recommendations from staff. The historic window is approved to be removed. Regarding the new patio and walkways, they are still trying to determine the type of material to be used. Ms. Greenwood said she does not see there is enough information to see what is going where so this is a little difficult to discuss. The requirement for the building permit to be submitted by July 16th. Commit to the removal of the two spruce trees. Design of the new connector and the materials that have already been set by previous approvals. Mr. Pember said staff and monitor should take care of the paving. Ms. Sanzone said she is curious why staff is recommending that. Ms. Garrow said it goes back to guideline 1.9 on paving where it talks about using paving materials that are similar to that of the building style. Blue paving was not typically used so we are recommending a softer pallet of brick or sandstone, which is more typical. Ms. Sanzone brought up the photographs of what is there today and said it is a mix of different colors of sandstone so staff’s recommendation today may help tie that together. Ms. Greenwood what is being recommended is it is a staff and monitor decision and suggested that this might be a good one for Ms. Sanzone to monitor. Ms. Greenwood also explained that at times, they allow those decisions to be made by staff and monitor to allow the application to move on. Ms. Sanzone said she is in favor of the overall design. P10 II.B. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 28, 2018 4 Mr. Moyer said he is in favor of staff’s recommendation. Mr. Halferty said he is in favor of the project and asked if the gate is proposed to be wood. Mr. Eigleberger said it is and that there is an existing fence there and the property is required to have two parking spots. Mr. Blaich said he is in favor of the project and Mr. Kendrick said he is good with it. Mr. Pember said he likes everything in the resolution except the window is approved to be removed but not relocated. He asked if HPC is comfortable with this. Mr. Eigleberger said if it is shifted over, it begins to squish the other window. Ms. Greenwood said she feels this is a huge improvement since she has been present for every single hearing on this project. The simplicity is perfect for a two-story addition. She is ok with staff and monitor. She clarified that they are all in agreement on the recommendation from staff. Mr. Pember suggested they add to the resolution a line specifically saying to demo the stair around the hot tub as presented. MOTION: Mr. Pember moved to approve Resolution #2 with addition of #6 demolition of landscape stairs and interior courtyard as submitted in the application. He also clarified that this has nothing to do with the paver issue. Seconded by Mr. Moyer. Roll call vote: Mr. Pember, yes; Mr. Blaich, yes; Ms. Sanzone, yes; Mr. Kendrick, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Greenwood, yes. 7-0 motion carried. Mr. Halferty recused himself. Ms. Bryan mentioned regarding the notice, that she has a copy of the publication and the applicant checked the box that the notice had been mailed, but attached a photo of the posting. She said she doesn’t know if they needed to mail for this and needs some clarification. Ms. Yoon said it should be both. If they provide the mailing the next business day they can go ahead with the hearing. We just need proof of mailing by the next business day. PRESENTATION: 500 W Main Street Sarah Yoon Ms. Yoon said this building is also known as the Mesa store and consists of two 3,000 square foot lots. The historic resource is mostly situated on the corner lot S with an adjacent lot R used for parking. The previous application was withdrawn with a revised scope for interior and remodel. HPC will need to review the following items: the request for the front set back variation to rebuild the roof overhang, reconstruction of two missing historic brick chimneys and proposed window and door openings along the west elevation. The outdoor living features will not be included in this review application and will be addressed separately through a certificate of no negative effect process. Ms. Yoon showed historic photographs of the old Mesa store. The applicant is proposing to rebuild the existing roof overhang and return back to a pitched configuration, while the stairs and railing will remain the same. This will require a front yard variation. On the west elevation, the applicant is proposing to restore two chimneys, which will be used for mechanical flues and restore window #11. They will also introduce three new openings and a ground level door. On the overhang, there is a proposed new down spout. There are located electric and gas meters under the exterior stair, but need the attachment clarified. There is a new location for trash area and transformer. Staff recommends HPC approval with conditions: 1. Approval of the 0 front yard setback to rebuild the overhanging roof. P11 II.B. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 28, 2018 5 2. Provision of exact location and historical documentation for window 11 and provide cut sheets. 3. Confirm meter and other equipment and situation under stairs, prefer detachment to the extent possible. 4. Confirm meter and other equipment and situation under stairs, prefer detachment to the extent possible. 5. Review historic documentation for reconstruction of the chimneys. 6. Submit site work for cert of no neg process. 7. Previous approvals will be vacated. Ms. Garrow said she thinks because this is minor it only needs to be posted. We will confirm but thinks the posting is sufficient to proceed for tonight. Applicant John Rowland and Kurt Peterson both of Rowland & Broughton Mr. Rowland showed a slide of the existing condition. There is an overhang in the set back and any changes need approval of HPC. Historically, there are 4 chimneys and they are proposing to bring back three. The fourth would serve zero use for the project. There are no historic drawings of it and they plan to match what is there in the field and will work on that with staff and monitor. They will be restoring the windows to their historic glory and the framing is already there. There are lots of changes to the west façade with windows and doors. Mr. Peterson said the only two windows that don’t fit into a previous opening are two lower floor windows. Mr. Rowland said there is not a lot of light on the ground level so they are trying to capture as much light as they can. Mr. Peterson said they are moving the back door to the side of the building for the accessible entrance and parking will be along the back alley with a walkway to the accessible entrance. There is discussion around the mechanical meters below the exterior stairs. Ideally, they would like to not put any more mechanical equipment on the wall and prefer it to be under the stairs. Mr. Peterson said they are not looking to remove any of the historic siding with the placement of the meters. Ms. Greenwood asked if the front yard is the setback they are asking for and Mr. Rowland answered yes and said the covered roof is right on the property line. Ms. Greenwood asked if it applies to the front overhang. Mr. Peterson said they are not demoing, but deconstructing to see what is or not historic. Ms. Greenwood asked how they plan to control water and Mr. Rowland said through a gutter and downspouts. Right now, there is a false façade and a regime of cricketing that eventually gets the water to a downspout in the corner. Mr. Moyer asked if they have fully finished the demo inside and discovered the original framing. Mr. Rowland said it is in surprisingly good shape, but the rafters are charred from a stovepipe in the roof that had caught fire so it looks like modern architecture right now. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. Mr. Pember said that looking at the framing of the historic porch, there is asymmetry going on with the columns, but he noticed it is cleaned up in what is proposed and asked why they haven’t looked at some of these details regarding the asymmetry. Mr. Rowland said they are not currently like that today. Mr. Pember asked, if it isn’t like that today, why wouldn’t they try to replicate the column rhythm. Mr. P12 II.B. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 28, 2018 6 Rowland said it never occurred to him because that is as much information as they have and they didn’t feel like that was enough so they are keeping the columns and the stairs as is and ripping off the header to add the new roof. Mr. Pember asked about the new windows on the west façade and how the calculations were done because they almost look squarish. Mr. Rowland said it is borrowed from the rear. There are some old photos that show the original location. Ms. Greenwood said she isn’t clear about the existing slope of the roof over the stairs and asked if it is a continuation of the upper roof. Mr. Rowland said it is currently almost flat and the proposal is to hinge it. Ms. Greenwood asked what brand the windows are and Mr. Rowland said Colby. They have the best historical window out there. Ms. Greenwood said she has no problem with approving staff’s recommendation. Mr. Moyer asked about attaching utilities to the building and asked if they have to be attached or can they stand alone. Mr. Rowland said that because of the lap siding, it will never going to touch. Mr. Peterson said they would have to build a Unistrut frame to attach it to. Mr. Blaich said the recommendation reads that it should be detached from the building to the extent possible. Ms. Greenwood noted that everyone is in agreement to approve Resolution #3. MOTION: Mr. Blaich moved to approve, seconded by Mr. Moyer. Roll call vote: Mr. Blaich, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Mr. Kendrick, yes; Mr. Pember, yes; Ms. Sanzone, yes; Ms. Greenwood, yes. 6-0 motion carried. MOTION: Mr. Pember motioned to adjourn at 5:50 p.m., seconded by Mr. Kendrick. All in favor, motion carried. _________________________________ Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk P13 II.B. C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\4B8BF0AD-2AD6- 4B61-A134-2576AD1A7788\13839.doc 4/5/2018 HPC PROJECT MONITORS- projects in bold are under construction Nora Berko 1102 Waters 417/421 W. Hallam 602 E. Hyman 210 S. First 530 W. Hallam 333 W. Bleeker 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 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 834 W. Hallam Willis Pember 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 533 E. Main Roger Moyer 517 E. Hyman (Little Annie’s) 500 W. Main 406 S. Mill 223 E. Hallam Richard Lai Scott Kendrick 533 E. Main 122 W. Main Sheri Sanzone 135 E. Cooper Need to assign: 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 P14 II.F. 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 (5 minutes) Chairperson identifies the issues to be discussed (5 minutes) HPC discussion (15 minutes) Motion (5 minutes) *Make sure the motion includes what criteria are met or not met. No meeting of the HPC shall be called to order without a quorum consisting of at least four (4) members being present. No meeting at which less than a quorum shall be present shall conduct any business other than to continue the agenda items to a date certain. All actions shall require the concurring vote of a simple majority, but in no event less than three (3) concurring votes of the members of the commission then present and voting. Procedure for amending motions: A “friendly amendment” to a Motion is a request by a commissioner to the commissioner who made the Motion and to the commissioner who seconded it, to amend their Motion. If either of these two do not accept the “friendly” amendment request, the requesting commissioner may make a formal motion to amend the Motion along the lines he/she previously requested. If there is no second to the motion to amend the Motion, there is no further discussion on the motion to amend, it dies for a lack of a second; discussion and voting on the Motion may then proceed. If there is a second to the motion to amend the Motion, it can be discussed and must be voted upon before any further discussion and voting on the Motion for which the amendment was requested. If the vote is in favor of amending the Motion, discussion and voting then proceeds on the Amended Motion. If the vote on the motion to amend fails, discussion and voting on the Motion as originally proposed may then proceed. P15 II.K. 51 Meadows Road Page 1 of 9 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner THRU: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 51 Meadows Road - Minor Development, Public Hearing DATE: April 11, 2018 ______________________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY: 51 Meadows Road is one of eight landmarked Trustee Townhomes designed by the architect Herbert Bayer and built in 1965. The townhouses are located within the Aspen Meadows, and in the Residential Multi-Family (RMF) zone district. The townhomes were arranged for maximum privacy and laid out on a descending curve overlooking Castle Creek. Originally owned by Trustees and Fellow of the Aspen Institute as private homes, they were also rented to visiting guests of the Institute. In 1991, the Aspen Meadows Master Plan envisioned the sale of the units on the free market and included designs for substantial expansion to the rear of each unit and the construction of three new units bookending the original row. Each unit is now permitted a maximum floor area of 2,500 square feet plus a garage or carport of up to 500 square feet. Historic designation occurred in 1995. The new units were constructed and the historic units have gradually been expanded and altered, particularly on the rear façade. None have been built out to the full extent anticipated in 1991 and approvals for those specific designs have expired. Staff has been unable to locate original drawings or historic photos of the Trustee Townhomes. While the street and side elevations of the units remain relatively consistent, minor window and door changes have occurred. On the rear façade, staff is unable to definitively determine the original design or whether all of the units matched. Our approach to this review is to seek preservation/restoration of the front and sides of the units and to recognize that the rear façade, visible from very few public vantage points, have seen extensive fenestration changes and some additions over the years. HPC is asked to conduct a Minor Development Review and review the following items: 1.) addition of 55 square feet to the rear of the unit 2.) replace some of the existing windows and doors in the same location 3.) enlarge some existing windows, widen fireplace enclosure, and add new windows 4.) replace existing paving P16 IV.A. 51 Meadows Road Page 2 of 9 APPLICANT: John J. McHugh and Ricki L. McHugh, represented by Menendez Architects PARCEL ID: 2735-122-39-005. ADDRESS: 51 Meadows Rd., Condominium Unit 5, The Trustee Townhomes At-The-Aspen Meadows, Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: Residential Multi-Family (RMF). Zoning Map of the Trustee Townhomes - 2018 51 Meadows Road – Front façade MINOR DEVELOPMENT The procedure for a Minor Development Review is as follows. Staff reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project’s conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project’s conformance with the Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. If the application is approved, the HPC shall issue a Certificate of Appropriateness and the Community Development Director shall issue a Development Order. The HPC decision shall be final unless appealed by the applicant or a landowner within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 26.316. Staff Response: The proposal involves a 55 square foot addition to the rear elevation sitting on top of an existing planter box foundation. All existing openings on the west and south elevations at the rear of the unit are proposed for replacement and reconfiguration, and new windows are proposed for the west face of the rear addition. Two small south facing windows along the side of the unit are to be replaced. The proposal for the east street facing façade is to replace all windows and a door, P17 IV.A. 51 Meadows Road Page 3 of 9 maintaining the size and configuration of the existing openings. No changes are proposed for the north elevation. ADDITION: The applicant proposes to extend the rear west elevation by 2’-10” which will increase the floor area by 55 square feet. On the main level this area will become crawlspace located next to the existing mechanical room. This addition on the upper floor will extend the entry space and allows room for a powder room next to the existing laundry. This scope of work will require the removal of the existing exterior planter. Staff is uncertain whether the planter is an original feature. While the removal of the planter may be a loss of historic fabric, staff finds the location of the addition towards the rear meets HP Design Guideline 10.10. The proposed roof and fascia finishes are proposed to match the existing conditions and meet HP Design Guideline 10.11. To distinguish the addition as a product of its own time, the proposal calls for a vertical siding of different width and profile. (HP Design Guideline 10.6). WINDOWS/DOOR REPLACEMENT: The applicant has verified in the application that past improvements and remodels to the townhouse included the replacement of original windows. Window replacement is now proposed for the west, south, and east elevations of the townhouse. The windows that are proposed to be replaced on the rear are not historic openings. It appears that the townhomes originally had very few windows on the shingled wall facing west. (Fig.1) All units have since added glazing to take advantage of views. The proposed new sliding P18 IV.A. 51 Meadows Road Page 4 of 9 windows and doors on the rear of this unit expand vertically and alter the ratio of solid wall to window openings and, although minimal, constitute the loss of original fabric. These changes need to consider the HP Design Guidelines dealing with size and proportion. (HP Design Guidelines 3.3, 3.5, 3.6). The new addition includes small new window configurations and openings to capture views and provide ventilation. These changes are all located on the proposed new addition that is at the rear of the historic resource and HP Design Guideline 3.7 offers more flexibility for adding new windows. It is, however, important that the new windows be similar in scale to the existing openings. Staff does not find that the configuration of these replaced windows on the shingled façade facing west are particularly consistent with earlier window design on rear and sides of the units, which included more asymmetrical placement, narrower window units and more solid wall. We recommend the window design on this wall only be further studied for review and approval by staff and monitor. Fig. 1 Trustee Unit believed to be relatively unaltered, (Unit number not indicated), date unknown. The west elevation contains a fireplace enclosure that projects outward. The applicant proposes to replace the fireplace that will result in an expanded width from the exterior. Perceived as an architectural feature, widening of the enclosure changes its relationship to the surrounding openings. According to HP Design Guideline 6.1, significant architectural features need to be preserved and identifying the original design intent becomes an important factor. This element is located on the same secondary façade as the proposed changes for the existing window openings. Building permit documentation indicate that this feature existed on other Trustee units, with a tall vertical flue. Two windows moving along the south elevation are to be replaced. The opening sizes are unchanged but one window, in a bathroom, is to be an l.c.d. unit so that it may be made opaque through electronic means. This is inconsistent with glazing throughout the complex. Staff recommends standard glazing and the use of an interior blind as needed. P19 IV.A. 51 Meadows Road Page 5 of 9 Four windows are to be replaced on the east elevation. The three narrowest windows are historic openings and were previously double hung windows, which should be required of the replacements. The square window is non-historic opening and could be better related to the proportions of the adjacent openings. Staff recommends restudy of the square window for review and approval by staff and monitor. When a window needs to be replaced, the appearance needs to match the original to the greatest extent possible because they are important character defining features of the historic resource, which applies to both Victorian and Modern buildings. Although no original windows remain, replacement windows need to carefully take into account the size, proportion, and type of window it is replacing. (HP Design Guidelines 3.3, 3.5, 3.6). If both original windows and historical documentation is unavailable for reference, consulting staff and monitor becomes important to help determine an appropriate replacement type. Cut sheets of all new windows will P20 IV.A. 51 Meadows Road Page 6 of 9 be required for review and approval by staff and monitor. Effort must be made to relate to the original material and design in the historic openings. The proposal calls for the replacement of a door on the east façade that is street facing. This door leads to the front balcony and is visible from the street. The proposal calls for a like-for-like replacement that maintains the same size and style door of that which is existing. This is in compliance with the HP Design Guidelines 4.2 and 4.4. Staff has no information about the original design. PAVING REPLACEMENT: The concrete paving leading up to the front door is proposed to be replaced with exterior grade porcelain tile. This change in material is not consistent with the overall character and replaces the material type that was used historically. HP Design Guideline 2.3 specifically refer to replacement of material needing to match the original and considering the overall design intent. Staff recommends the replacement material be concrete. __________________________________________________________________________ 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. ______________________________________________________________________________ P21 IV.A. 51 Meadows Road Page 7 of 9 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC approve the proposal with the following conditions. 1. Restudy the window configuration on the rear shingled wall to be more consistent with asymmetry and solid to void openings characteristic of the structure. The revised window design is subject to review and approval by staff and monitor. 2. Do not widen the projecting fireplace box on the rear façade as this appears to be an original feature. 3. Install standard glazing in the east facing bathroom window, not an l.c.d. unit. 4. On the east façade, the replacement windows in the historic openings must be double hung windows to match the original design. The applicant is asked to consider the installation of a painted metal panel, rather than shingles below the lower windows, a historic detail that has been lost, per a photo on file with the Planning Office. 5. On the east façade, restudy the replacement window for the existing square unit to better relate to the vertical proportions of the adjacent historic windows, subject to review and approval by staff and monitor. 6. Cut sheets of all new windows and doors must be provided for review and approval by staff and monitor. Effort must be made to relate to the original material and design of the historic windows as assessed through examination of adjacent structures and older phots. 7. The front walkway, which is concrete, may be replaced in kind but not replaced with pavers, as they are inconsistent with the historic material. EXHIBITS: Resolution #__, Series of 2018 A. Design Guidelines B. Application P22 IV.A. 51 Meadows Road Page 8 of 9 Exhibit A, Design Guidelines 2.3 Match the original material in composition, scale and finish when replacing materials on primary surfaces. • If the original material is wood clapboard for example, then the replacement material must be wood as well. It should match the original in size, and the amount of exposed lap and finish. • Replace only the amount required. If a few boards are damaged beyond repair, then only those should be replaced, not the entire wall. For AspenModern buildings, sometimes the replacement of a larger area is required to preserve the integrity of the design intent. 3.3 Match a replacement window to the original in its design. • If the original is double-hung, then the replacement window must also be double-hung. If the sash have divided lights, match that characteristic as well. 3.5 Preserve the size and proportion of a historic window opening. • Changing the window opening is not permitted. • Consider restoring an original window opening that was enclosed in the past. 3.6 Match, as closely as possible, the profile of the sash and its components to that of the original window. • A historic window often has a complex profile. Within the window’s casing, the sash steps back to the plane of the glazing (glass) in several increments. These increments, which individually only measure in eighths or quarters of inches, are important details. They distinguish the actual window from the surrounding plane of the wall. • The historic profile on AspenModern properties is typically minimal. 3.7 Adding new openings on a historic structure is generally not allowed. • Greater flexibility in installing new windows may be considered on rear or secondary walls. • New windows should be similar in scale to the historic openings on the building, but should in some way be distinguishable as new, through the use of somewhat different detailing, etc. • Preserve the historic ratio of window openings to solid wall on a façade. • Significantly increasing the amount of glass on a character defining façade will negatively affect the integrity of a structure. 4.2 Maintain the original size of a door and its opening. • Altering its size and shape is inappropriate. It should not be widened or raised in height. 4.4 When replacing a door or screen door, use a design that has an appearance similar to the original door or a door associated with the style of the building. • A replica of the original, if evidence exists, is the preferred replacement. • A historic door or screen door from a similar building also may be considered. • Simple paneled doors were typical for Aspen Victorian properties. • Very ornate doors, including stained or leaded glass, are discouraged, unless photographic evidence can support their use. P23 IV.A. 51 Meadows Road Page 9 of 9 6.1 Preserve significant architectural features. • Repair only those features that are deteriorated. • Patch, piece-in, splice, or consolidate to repair the existing materials, using recognized preservation methods whenever possible. • On AspenModern properties, repair is preferred, however, it may be more important to preserve the integrity of the original design intent, such as crisp edges, rather than to retain heavily deteriorated material. 10.6 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. • An addition shall be distinguishable from the historic building and still be visually compatible with historic features. • A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material, or a modern interpretation of a historic style are all techniques that may be considered to help define a change from historic construction to new construction. • Do not reference historic styles that have no basis in Aspen. • Consider these three aspects of an addition; form, materials, and fenestration. An addition must relate strongly to the historic resource in at least two of these elements. Departing from the historic resource in one of these categories allows for creativity and a contemporary design response. • Note that on a corner lot, departing from the form of the historic resource may not be allowed. • There is a spectrum of appropriate solutions to distinguishing new from old portions of a development. Some resources of particularly high significance or integrity may not be the right instance for a contrasting addition. 10.10 Place an addition at the rear of a primary building or set it back substantially 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 primary building is inappropriate. • Additions to the side of a primary building are handled on a case-by-case basis and are approved based on site specific constraints that restrict rear additions. • Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not alter the exterior mass of a building. 10.11 Roof forms shall be compatible with the historic building. • A simple roof form that does not compete with the historic building is appropriate. • On Aspen Victorian properties, a flat roof may only be used on an addition to a gable roofed structure if the addition is entirely one story in height, or if the flat roofed areas are limited, but the addition is primarily a pitched roof. P24 IV.A. HPC Resolution #_, Series of 2018 Page 1 of 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) GRANTING MINOR DEVELOPMENT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 51 MEADOWS ROAD, CONDOMINIUM UNIT 5, THE TRUSTEE TOWNHOMES AT-THE-ASPEN MEADOWS, ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION #__, SERIES OF 2018 PARCEL ID: 2735-122-39-005 WHEREAS, the applicant, John J. McHugh and Ricki L. McHugh, represented by Menendez Architects, has requested HPC approval for Minor Development for the property located at 51 Meadows Road, Condominium Unit 5, The Trustee Townhomes At-The-Aspen Meadows, 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 Minor 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.C.3.b and c 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, HPC reviewed the project on April 11, 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 _. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby approves Minor Development review for 51 Meadows Road with the following conditions: 1. Restudy the window configuration on the rear shingled wall to be more consistent with asymmetry and solid to void openings characteristic of the structure. The revised window design is subject to review and approval by staff and monitor. 2. Do not widen the projecting fireplace box on the rear façade as this appears to be an original feature. 3. Install standard glazing in the east facing bathroom window, not an l.c.d. unit. 4. On the east façade, the replacement windows in the historic openings must be double hung windows to match the original design. The applicant is asked to consider the installation of a painted metal panel, rather than shingles below the lower windows, a historic detail that has been lost, per a photo on file with the Planning Office. P25 IV.A. HPC Resolution #_, Series of 2018 Page 2 of 2 5. On the east façade, restudy the replacement window for the existing square unit to better relate to the vertical proportions of the adjacent historic windows, subject to review and approval by staff and monitor. 6. Cut sheets of all new windows and doors must be provided for review and approval by staff and monitor. Effort must be made to relate to the original material and design of the historic windows as assessed through examination of adjacent structures and older phots. 7. The front walkway, which is concrete, may be replaced in kind but not replaced with pavers, as they are inconsistent with the historic material. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 11th day of April, 2018. Approved as to Form: Approved as to Content: ______________________________ ____________________________ Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Gretchen Greenwood, Chair ATTEST: ______________________________ Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk P26 IV.A. 715 W. Main Street , Suite 104 Aspen, Colorado 81611 voice: 970.544.4851 fax: 970.544.1915 email:LMA@sopris.net HPC MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW INTRODUCTION March 07, 2018 Ms. Sarah Yoon Community Development Department City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street, 3rd Floor Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Ms. Yoon; Per previous meetings and in accordance with the Pre-Application Conference Summary dated January 17, 2018 I hereby submit the following project for Historic Preservation Committee consideration: Project Location: Address – 51 Meadows Road, Aspen. Legal Description – Trustee TWH at Aspen Meadows, Unit 5 Existing Conditions: 51 Meadows Road Townhome is listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Site and Structures as one of the Trustee Townhomes designed by Herbert Bayer within the Aspen Meadows. The Townhome is in the R/MF Zone District. The Aspen Meadows received an approval as a Specially Planned Area in January of 1992. This townhome was then approved to have a maximum floor area of 2,500 SF plus a garage or carport of 500 SF. The two-story townhome has undergone previous remodels, including the replacement of the original windows. Project Description: The motivation for the minor development is to add a modest addition to the rear of the townhome to provide additional utility space and improve the entry experience for the use of the homeowners. The homeowners would also like to replace exterior windows, exterior sliding patio door and to reconfigure the existing front entry door to match the configuration of some other units. The replacement windows and doors are desired to improve the views from within the home, improve aging and less efficient windows and, in some cases, to improve the alignment of different windows to each other. P27 IV.A. Proposed Design: The modest (55 SF) addition is located at the rear of the townhome and will not be visible from the street. The renovation/addition will leave all of the existing exterior materials intact and undisturbed, with the exception of what is affected by replacing the windows in the existing home and immediately adjacent to the new addition. The existing exterior materials disturbed by the construction of the new addition and the installation of the new windows will be carefully removed and preserved for re-installation. Due to the modest size of the addition, it was considered impractical to set the addition physically apart from existing townhome as required in the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. As illustrated in the Exterior Elevations, the exterior finishes for the new addition will be in keeping with the existing material and color palettes of the existing townhome. The addition will utilize an exterior wood siding with a subtly different profile and board width from the existing wood siding to make a subtle distinction as to the extent of the new addition. The new windows installed in the townhome will utilize the existing window rough openings with the exception of the west facing windows and the new patio door, which will utilize a taller head height than the previous rough openings. The proposed new window and door configurations are consistent with the Bauhaus design aesthetic as well as sympathetic to recent renovations and window configurations of the adjacent townhomes. The proposed improvements do not contain any new exterior lighting, thus a Lighting Plan has not been submitted. Please contact me with any questions and thank you for considering our request. Sincerely, Luis Menendez, A.I.A. P28 IV.A. City of Aspen Community Development Department Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Packet City of Aspen|130 S. Galena Street.| (970) 920 5090 Historic Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: March 2016 Attached is a Development Application for properties listed on the “Aspen Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures” or properties within Aspen’s Historic Districts. Included in this package are the following attachments: 1. Development Application Fee Policy, Fee Schedule, and Agreement for Payment Form 2. Land Use Application Form 3. Submittal Requirements 4. Summary of the Application Process 5. Matrix of Land Use Application Requirements/ Submittal Requirements Key 6. Public Hearing Notice Requirements 7. Affidavit of Notice All applications are reviewed based on the criteria established in the Aspen Municipal Code and “The City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines,” both of which are available to purchase at City Hall or on the web at www.bpcnet.com/codes/aspen under “Title 26” and www.cityofaspen.com , respectively. A CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT may be issued for minor work that does not materially change the historic character of the property or district, and the proposed work is clearly within the adopted design guidelines. A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPIRATENESS must be applied for if the proposed work will make a material changes that alter, diminish, eliminate or effect the historic or architectural character of the property or district in any way. We strongly encourage all applicants to hold a pre-application conference with a Planner in the Community Development Department so that any questions regarding the requirements for submitting a complete application, and the review process, can be addressed. A Preliminary consultation with the Zoning Officer and Building Department is also required in order to determine code compliance and to avoid changes to projects after the review process. ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ _____________________________ P29 IV.A. City of Aspen Community Development Department Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Packet City of Aspen|130 S. Galena Street.| (970) 920 5090 Historic Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: March 2016 Land Use Review Fee Policy The City of Aspen has established a review fee policy for the processing of land use applications. A flat fee or deposit is collected for land use applications based on the type of application submitted. A flat fee is collected by Community Development for applications which normally take a minimal and predictable amount of staff time to process. Review fees for other City Departments reviewing the application (referral departments) will also be collected when necessary. Flat fees are cumulative – meaning an application with multiple flat fees must be pay the sum of those flat fee. Flat fees are not refundable. A review fee deposit is collected by Community Development when more extensive staff time is required. Actual staff time spent will be charged against the deposit. Various City staff may also charge their time spent on the case in addition to the case planner. Deposit amount may be reduces if, in the o pinion of the Community Development Director, the project is expected to take significantly less time to process than the deposit indicates. A determination on the deposit amount shall be made during the pre-application conference by the case planner. Hourly billing shall still apply. All applications must include an Agreement to Pay Application Fees. One payment including the deposit for Planning and referral agency fees must be submitted with each land use application, made payable to the City of Aspen. Applications will not be accepted for processing without the required fee. The Community Development Department shall keep an accurate record of the actual time required for the processing of a land use application requiring a deposit. The City can provide a summary report of fees due at the applicant’s request. The applicant will be billed for the additional costs incurred by the City when the processing of an application by the Community Development Department takes more time or expense than is covered by the deposit. Any direct costs attributable to a project review shall be billed to the appl icant with no additional administrative charge. In the event the processing of an application takes less time than provided for by the deposit, the department shall refund the unused portion of the deposited fee to the applicant. Fees shall be due regardless of whether an applicant receives approval. Unless otherwise combined by the Director for simplicity of billing, all applications for conceptual, final and recordation of approval documents shall be handled as individual cases for the purpose of billi ng. Upon conceptual approval all billing shall be reconciled and past due invoices shall be paid prior to the Director accepting an application for final review. Final review shall require a new deposit at the rate in effect at the time of final submission. Upon final approval all billing shall be again reconciled prior to the Director accepting an application for review of technical documents for recordation. The Community Development Director may cease processing of a land use application for which an unpaid invoice is 30 or more days past due. Unpaid invoices of 90 days or more past due may be assessed a late fee of 1.75% per month. An unpaid invoice of 120 days or more may be subject to additional actions as may be assigned by the Municipal Court Judge. All payment information is public domain. All invoices shall be paid prior to issuance of a Development Order or recordation of development agreements and plats. The City will not accept a building permit for a property until all invoices are paid in full. For permits already accepted, and unpaid invoice of 90 days or more days may result in cessation of building permit processing or issuance of a stop work order until full payment is made. The property owner of record is the party responsible for payment of all costs associated with a land use application for the property. Any secondary agreement between a property owner and an applicant representing the owner (e.g. a contract purchaser) regarding payment of fees is solely between those private parties. P30 IV.A. P31 IV.A. City of Aspen Community Development Department Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Packet City of Aspen|130 S. Galena Street.| (970) 920 5090 Historic Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: March 2016 ATTACHMENT 2 - Historic Preservation Land Use Application PROJECT: Name: Location: (Indicate street address, lot & block number or metes and bounds description of property) Parcel ID # (REQUIRED)___________________________________________________________ Applicant: Name: Address: Phone #: _______________________Fax#:___________________E-mail:_______________________________________________ REPRESENTATIVE: Name: Address: Phone #: _______________________Fax#:___________________E-mail:________________________________________________ TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): Historic Designation Certificate of No Negative Effect Certificate of Appropriateness -Minor Historic Development -Major Historic Development -Conceptual Historic Development -Final Historic Development -Substantial Amendment Relocation (temporary, on or off-site) Demolition (total demolition) Historic Landmark Lot Split EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ P32 IV.A. City of Aspen Community Development Department Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Packet City of Aspen|130 S. Galena Street.| (970) 920 5090 Historic Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: March 2016 General Information Please check the appropriate boxes below and submit this page along with your application. This information will help us review your plans and, if necessary, coordinate with other agencies that may be involved. YES NO Does the work you are planning include exterior work; including additions, demolitions, new construction, remodeling, rehabilitation or restoration? Does the work you are planning include interior work, including remodeling, rehabilitation, or restoration? Do you plan other future changes or improvements that could be reviewed at this time? In addition to City of Aspen approval for a Certificate of Appropriateness or No Negative Effect and a building permit, are you seeking to meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation or restoration of a National Register of Historic Places Property in order to qualify for state or federal tax credits? If yes, are you seeking federal rehabilitation investment tax credits in Conjunction with this project? (Only income producing properties listed on the National Register are eligible. Owner-occupied residential properties are not.) If yes, are you seeking the Colorado State Income Tax Credit for Historical Preservation? Please check all City of Aspen Historic Preservation Benefits which you plan to use: Rehabilitation Loan Fund Conservation Easement Program Dimensional Variances Increased Density Historic Landmark Lot Split Waiver of Park Dedication Fees Conditional Uses Tax Credits Exemption from Growth Management Quota System P33 IV.A. City of Aspen Community Development Department Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Packet City of Aspen|130 S. Galena Street.| (970) 920 5090 Historic Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: March 2016 ATTACHMENT 3 - Dimensional Requirements Form (Item #10 on the submittal requirements key. Not necessary for all projects.) Project: Applicant: Project Location: Zone District: Lot Size: Lot Area: (For the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Existing:__________Proposed:_________________ Number of residential units: Existing:__________Proposed:_________________ Proposed % of demolition: __________ DIMENSIONS: (write N/A where no requirement exists in the zone district) Floor Area: Height Existing:_________Allowable:__________Proposed:________ Principal Bldg.: Existing:_________Allowable:__________Proposed:________ Accessory Bldg.: Existing:_________Allowable:__________Proposed:________ On-Site parking: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ % Site coverage: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ % Open Space: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Front Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Rear Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Combined Front/Rear: Indicate N, S, E, W Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Side Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Side Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Combined Sides: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Distance between buildings: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________ Existing non-conformities or encroachments and note if encroachment licenses have been issued: _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ Variations requested (identify the exact variances needed): ______________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ P34 IV.A. City of Aspen Community Development Department Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Packet City of Aspen|130 S. Galena Street.| (970) 920 5090 Historic Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: March 2016 Matrix of the City of Aspen’s Historic Preservation Land Use Application Requirements To review full procedures for all applications, reference 26.415 of the City of Aspen building code, Historic Preservation Ordinance. When submitting multiple step applications, do not replicate submission materials. Two copies of the application are required for a Certificate of No Negative Effect, 15 copies are required for each meeting. Also note that an electronic version of all text documents is required. Type of Review Application Requirements Fees Deposit Fee Notice Requirements Designation 1-9, 11,12 $0 Publication, Posting and Mailing Pursuant to Sections 26.304.060 (E) (3) (a) (b) (c.) at HPC and Council Exempt Development Consult with Historic Preservation Officer to confirm exempt status $0 None Certificate of No Negative Effect 1-9, 15, 17 $245 None Minor Development 1-10, 15, 16, 17, 36 $735 Posting Pursuant to Sections 26.304.060 (E) (3) (b) Major Development/Conceptual 1-10, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20 Development under 1,000 sf, $1,470 /Development over 1,000 sf, $2940 Publication, Posting and Mailing Pursuant to Sections 26.304.060 (E) (3) (a) (b) (c.) Major Development/Final 1-10, 16, 21, 22, 36 Paid at time of conceptual Publication, Posting and Mailing Pursuant to Sections 26.304.060 (E) (3) (a) (b) (c.) Substantial Amendment 1-10, 16, 23, 24, 25, 36 $735 Publication, Posting and Mailing Pursuant to Sections 26.304.060 (E) (3) (a) (b) (c.) Demolition 1-9, 26 $2,940 Publication, Posting and Mailing Pursuant to Sections 26.304.060 (E) (3) (a) (b) (c.) Relocation 1-9, 27-34 $2,940 Publication, Posting and Mailing Pursuant to Sections 26.304.060 (E) (3) (a) (b) (c.) Historic Landmark Lot Split 1-10 $1,470 Publication, Posting and Mailing Pursuant to Sections 26.304.060 (E) (3) (a) (b) (c.) at HPC and Council Rescinding Designation 1-9, 35 $1,470 Publication, Posting and Mailing Pursuant to Sections 26.304.060 (E) (3) (a) (b) (c.) at HPC and Council P35 IV.A. City of Aspen Community Development Department Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Packet City of Aspen|130 S. Galena Street.| (970) 920 5090 Historic Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: March 2016 KEY 1. Contained within a letter signed by the applicant, the applicant's name, address and telephone number, and the name, address, and telephone number of any representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. 2. The street address, legal description, and parcel identification number of the property proposed for development. 3. A disclosure of ownership of the parcel proposed for development, consisting of a current certificate from a Title insurance company, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the Development Application. 4. An 8 1/2" x 11" vicinity map locating the subject parcel within the City of Aspen. 5. A site plan depicting the proposed layout and the project’s physical relationship to the land and its surroundings. 6. A site improvement survey certified by a registered land surveyor, licensed in the State of Colorado, showing the current status of the parcel including the current topography and vegetation. (This requirement, or any part thereof, may be waived by the Community Development Director if the project is determined not to warrant a survey document.) 7. A written description of the proposal and a written explanation of how the proposed development complies with the review criteria and The City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines relevant to the development application. 8. Additional materials, documentation, or reports as deemed necessary by the Community Development Director. 9. Completed Land Use Application Form, Signed Fee Agreement, and Fee. 10. Dimensional Requirement Form. 11. Site or historic district boundary map. 12. Property or district description including narrative text, photographs and/or other graphic materials that document its physical characteristics. 13. Identification of the character-defining features that distinguish the entity which should be preserved. 14. Verification that the proposal complies with Section 26.410, Residential Design Standards, or a written request for a variance from any standard that is not being met. 15. Photographs, building material samples and other exhibits, as needed, to accurately depict location, extent and design of the proposed work. 16. An accurate representation of all major building materials and finishes to be used in the development, depicted through samples or photographs. 17. Scaled elevations and/or drawings of the proposed work and its relationship to the designated historic buildings, structures, sites and features in its context. 18. Scaled drawings of the proposed structure(s) or addition(s) depicting their form, including their height, massing, scale, proportions and roof plan; and the primary features of all elevations in the neighborhood context. 19. Supplemental materials to provide a visual description of the context surrounding the designated historic property or historic district including at least one (1) of the following: diagrams, maps, photographs, 3- D model (digital or physical) or streetscape elevations. 20. Preliminary selection of primary building materials to be used in construction represented by samples and/or photographs. 21. A statement, including narrative text or graphics, indicating how the Final Development Plan conforms to representations made or stipulations placed as a condition of the approval of the Conceptual Development Plan. 22. Final drawings of all proposed structures(s) and/or addition(s) included as part of the development at ¼” = 1.0’ scale 23. A revised site plan 24. Revised scaled elevations and drawings 25. Photographs and other exhibits to illustrate the proposed changes. 26. Written documentation that the Chief Building Official has determined the building an imminent hazard, or narrative text, graphic illustrations or other exhibits that provide evidence that the building, structure or object is of no historic or architectural value or importance. 27. A written description and/or graphic illustrations of the building, structure or object proposed for relocation. 28. A written explanation of the type of relocation requested (temporary, on-site or off-site) and justification for the need for relocation. 29. A written report from a licensed engineer or architect regarding the soundness of the building, structure or object, its ability to withstand the physical move and its rehabilitation needs, once relocated. 30. A conceptual plan for the receiving site providing preliminary information on the property boundaries, existing improvements and site characteristics and the associated planned improvements. 31. Evidence of the financial ability to undertake the safe relocation, preservation and repair of the building, structure or object; site preparation and construction of necessary infrastructure through the posting of bonds or other financial measures deemed appropriate. 32. Supplementary materials to provide an understanding of the larger context for the relocated property and its impact on adjacent properties, the neighborhood or streetscape. 33. If the applicant does not own the receiving site, proof from the site’s property owner of the willingness to accept the relocated building, structure or object. 34. Evidence that the applicant has or is seeking the necessary approvals to place the building on the identified receiving site. If the site is outside of the city limits, verification that the building will be preserved on its new site through a formal action of the other jurisdiction or a preservation easement. 35. A written description of how the property does not meet these criteria for designation. 36. A lighting plan indicating the location of all exterior light fixtures and site lighting, and cut sheets for each type of fixture proposed. Light fixtures must comply with the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and meet the City Lighting Code. P36 IV.A. City of Aspen Community Development Department Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Packet City of Aspen|130 S. Galena Street.| (970) 920 5090 Historic Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: March 2016 ATTACHMENT 4 General Summary of Historic Preservation Review Process (Please see Section 26.415 of the Aspen Municipal Code for more detailed information) 1. An application is first transmitted to the Community Development Director to determine if it is complete. A complete application for a Certificate of No Negative Effect may be approved by the Community Development Director with no further review if it meets the requirements set forth for that type of work in the Aspen Municipal Code. 2. For all other types of reviews, the applicant shall be notified in writing whether the information is complete or if additional materials are required. 3. A date for a public hearing on a complete application will be scheduled before the HPC. Notice of the hearing shall be provided as required in the Aspen Municipal Code. 4. City Community Development Staff will 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 approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. 5. The HPC will review the application, the report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project’s conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The order of proceedings at the HPC meeting are as follows: 1. Applicant and public are sworn in 2. Staff presentation 3. Commission member questions 4. Public comment 5. Commission member comments 6. Applicant response/clarification 7. Commission motion and vote 6. The HPC will approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. If the application is a one- step review, and it is approved, the HPC will issue a Certificate of Appropriateness and the Community Development Director will issue a Development Order. If the application requires submittal for a final review, materials must be prepared and submitted according to the processes described above. A project that receives final approval will be issued a Certificate of Appropriateness and the Community Development Director will issue a Development Order. 7. HPC decisions are final unless appealed by the applicant or a landowner within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property, as provided in the Aspen Municipal Code. For Major Development, Demolition, or Relocation, a resolution of the HPC action will be forwarded to the City Council to allow them an opportunity to “call up” the decision if they feel there has been an abuse of discretion or denial of due process. No building permit can be issued for construction of the project until the thirty (30) day “call up” period has expired. P37 IV.A. City of Aspen Community Development Department Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Packet City of Aspen|130 S. Galena Street.| (970) 920 5090 Historic Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: March 2016 8. For Historic Designation and Historic Landmark Lot Split, the two types of historic preservation reviews in which City Council makes the final determination, staff will prepare a report including the recommendation of the HPC, and a hearing will be scheduled before Council. Council will evaluate the application to determine if the review criteria are met. The Council may approve, disapprove or continue the application to request additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. 9. HPC assigns a member of the Commission to be the “project monitor” for each project they approve. The monitor (and Staff) may periodically visit the site as work is under construction. If the applicant requests a change to any aspects of the project change after the HPC approval, the applicant, Staff, and the project monitor will attempt to address them without returning to the full HPC. 10. Before an application for a building permit can be submitted, a final set of plans reflecting any or all required changes by the HPC or City Council must be on file with the City. Any conditions of approval or outstanding issues which must be addressed in the field or at a later time shall be noted on the plans. 11. Once a Development Order has been received, a building permit application may be submitted. At this time the proposal will be reviewed for compliance with the Uniform Building Code and zoning regulations. Fees for water, sewer, park dedication fees, and employee housing will be collected if due. Any document, such as a plat, deed restriction, or other agreement which is required to be filed, must be recorded before the building permit will be issued. P38 IV.A. City of Aspen Community Development Department Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Packet City of Aspen|130 S. Galena Street.| (970) 920 5090 Historic Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: March 2016 ATTACHMENT 5 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICING REQUIREMENTS The forms of notice are required by the Aspen Land Use Regulations: publication in the newspaper, posting of the property, and surrounding landowners. You can determine whether your application requires notice, and the type of notice it requires, from the matric found in this application packet. Following is a summary of the public notice requirements, including identification of who is responsible for completing the notice. 1. Publication - Publication of notice in a paper of general circulation on the City of Aspen is to be done at least fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing. The legal notice will be written by the Community Development Department and will place the notice in the paper within the appropriate deadline. 2. Posting - Posting of a sign in a conspicuous place on the property is to be done fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing. It is the applicant’s responsibility to obtain a copy of the sign from the Community Development Department, to fill it in correctly and bring proof to the hearing that posting took place (use attached affidavit) 3. Mailing – Mailing of notice is to be made to all owners of property within 300 feet of the subject development parcel by the applicant fifteen (15) days prior to hearing. It is the applicant’s responsibility to obtain a copy of the notice from the Community Development Department, to mail it according to the following standards, and to bring proof to the hearing that the mailing took place (use the attached affidavit). Notice to mineral Estate Owner. An applicant for surface Development shall notify affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application for development. The applicant shall certify that the notice has been provided to the mineral estate owners. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those in the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of public hearing. Proof of notice must be provided at the public hearing. P39 IV.A. City of Aspen Community Development Department Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Packet City of Aspen|130 S. Galena Street.| (970) 920 5090 Historic Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: March 2016 ATTACHMENT 6 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: __________________________________________, Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: _________________________________, 20____ STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I, _____________________________________________________ (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: _____ Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. _____ Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the ___ day of ________________, 20___, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. _____ Mailing of notice: By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E) (2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (Continued on next page) P40 IV.A. City of Aspen Community Development Department Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Packet City of Aspen|130 S. Galena Street.| (970) 920 5090 Historic Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: March 2016 _____ Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. ____________________________________ Signature The foregoing “Affidavit of Notice” was acknowledged before me this ___ day of ____________________, 20___, by _______________________________________. WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My commission expires: _________________ ______________________________________ Notary Public ATTACHMENTS: COPY OF THE PUBLICATION PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL P41 IV.A. CITY OF ASPEN PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Sarah Yoon, 970.920.5144 DATE: January 17, 2018 PROJECT: 51 Meadows Road REPRESENTATIVE: Mitch Mitchell, Menendez Architects DESCRIPTION: 51 Meadows Trustee Road is listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Site and Structures as one of the Trustee Townhomes designed by Herbert Bayer within the Aspen Meadows. The Aspen Meadows received approval as a Specially Planned area in the early 1990s. This approval established maximum square footage for various buildings and uses on the campus. The Trustee Townhomes were approved to each have a maximum floor area of 2,500 square feet, plus a garage or carport of 500 square feet. All calculations will be according to today’s land use regulations. The owner of 51 Meadows proposes to increase square footage to the historic resource on the rear façade by adding a storage area behind the carport on the main level, and increase the space directly above the proposed extension with a new powder room and additional square footage to a reconfigured space, previously the laundry room. This total expansion does not appear to exceed 250 square feet of floor area, therefore, the project will be reviewed as Minor Development. The owner also proposes to replace existing windows with new steel windows on the west elevation surrounding the living room and the proposed upper level addition. A new steel sliding door to the living room on the south elevation is also proposed. Design review will be according to the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines and the Residential Design Standards. The Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) reviews all development of properties listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures and will perform all reviews for this project. The HPC Minor Development Review is a 1-step process: HPC review of application. REVIEW PROCESS: Step 1: The HPC will review all submitted documents regarding this minor development, and then provide final decision Below are links to the Land Use Application form and Land Use Code for your convenience: Land Use Code: http://cityofaspen.com/276/Title-26-Land-Use-Code HPC Design Guidelines: https://www.cityofaspen.com/DocumentCenter/Home/View/310 Land Use Application: http://cityofaspen.com/DocumentCenter/Home/View/305 Relevant Land Use Code Section(s): 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.410 Residential Design Standards P42 IV.A. 2 26.415 Historic Preservation 26.415.070.C Certificate of Appropriateness for a Minor Development 26.575.020 Calculations and Measurements 26.710.090 Residential Multi-Family (RMF) Review by: Staff for completeness and recommendation HPC for decisions Public Hearing: Yes, at HPC Neighborhood Outreach: No Planning Fees: $1,300 for 4 hours of staff time. Total Deposit: $1,300 Additional Engineering and Planning Staff hours, if needed, will be billed at $325 per hour. Any unbilled portion of this deposit will be refunded at the conclusion of the case. To apply, submit 1 complete copy of the following information: Completed Land Use Application and signed fee agreement. Pre-application Conference Summary (this document). Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current (no older than 6 months) certificate from a title insurance company, an ownership and encumbrance report, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner’s right to apply for the Development Application. Applicant’s name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant that states the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. HOA Compliance form (Attached). An 8 1/2” by 11” vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen. List of adjacent property owners within 300’ for public hearing. A site improvement survey (no older than a year from submittal) including topography and vegetation showing the current status of the parcel certified by a registered land surveyor by licensed in the State of Colorado. A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form of how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application and relevant land use approvals associated with the property. P43 IV.A. 3 Supplemental materials to provide a visual description of the context surrounding the designated historic property or historic district including at least one (1) of the following: diagrams, maps, photographs, models or streetscape elevations. A proposed site plan. Once the copy is deemed complete by staff, the following items will then need to be submitted: 1 digital PDF copy of the complete application packet 12 sets of all graphics printed at 11x17 Total deposit for review of the application. Disclaimer: The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right. P44 IV.A. City C970 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Homeowner Association Compliance Policy All land use applications within the City of Aspen are required to include a Homeowner Association Compliance Form (this form) certifying the scope of work included in the land use application complies with all applicable covenants and homeowner association policies. The certification must be signed by the property owner or Attorney representing the property owner. Property Owner (“I”): Name: Email: Phone No.: Address of Property: (subject of application) I certify as follows: (pick one) □ This property is not subject to a homeowners association or other form of private covenant. □ This property is subject to a homeowners association or private covenant and the improvements proposed in this land use application do not require approval by the homeowners association or covenant beneficiary. □ This property is subject to a homeowners association or private covenant and the improvements proposed in this land use application have been approved by the homeowners association or covenant beneficiary. Evidence of approval is attached. I understand this policy and I understand the City of Aspen does not interpret, enforce, or manage the applicability, meaning or effect of private covenants or homeowner association rules or bylaws. I understand that this document is a public document. Owner signature: _________________________ date:___________ Owner printed name: _________________________ or, Attorney signature: _________________________ date:___________ Attorney printed name: _________________________ P45 IV.A. P46 IV.A. P47 IV.A. P48 IV.A. P49 IV.A. From:John Sarpa john@johnsarpa.com Subject:Fwd: McHugh HOA Review Set Date:February 26, 2018 at 1:49 PM To :Luis Menendez LAM@menendezarchitects.com Cc:Ricki McHugh mchughaspen@me.com To whom it may concern, This letter is to confirm that the Trustee Townhomes Home Owners Association approves the attached plans for changes to Unit # 51 as proposed by Ricki and John McHugh. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. John Sarpa President Trustee Townhomes HOA John Sarpa Sarpa Development 501 East Hyman Ave. Suite 201 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Cell: 970-379-2595 John@JohnSarpa.com From: Luis Menendez <LAM@menendezarchitects.com> Date: February 17, 2018 at 3:36:48 PM GMT+13 To: Ricki McHugh <mchughaspen@me.com> Subject: McHugh HOA Review Set Hello Ricki, ANached, for your review, is a complete set of drawings. If everything looks acceptable please forward to John Sarpa for HOA Review. Regards, Luis Menendez A.I.A. Menendez Architects pc 715 W. Main Street, Suite 104 Aspen, CO 81611 Voice: 970.544.4851 Fax: 970.544.1915 www.MenendezArchitects.com P50 IV.A. VICINITY MAP Address 51 Meadows Road, Aspen Parcel ID Number 2735-12-239-005 Legal Description Subdivision: Trustee Townhome at Aspen Meadows, Unit 5 P51 IV.A. Pitkin County Mailing List of 300 Feet Radius Pitkin County GIS presents the information and data on this web site as a service to the public. Every effort has been made to ensure that the information and data contained in this electronic system is accurate, but the accuracy may change. Mineral estate ownership is not included in this mailing list. Pitkin County does not maintain a database of mineral estate owners. Pitkin County GIS makes no warranty or guarantee concerning the completeness, accuracy, or reliability of the content at this site or at other sites to which we link. Assessing accuracy and reliability of information and data is the sole responsibility of the user. The user understands he or she is solely responsible and liable for use, modification, or distribution of any information or data obtained on this web site. This document contains a Mailing List formatted to be printed on Avery 5160 Labels. If printing, DO NOT "fit to page" or "shrink oversized pages." This will manipulate the margins such that they no longer line up on the labels sheet. Print actual size. From Parcel: 273512239005 on 01/26/2018 Instructions: Disclaimer: http://www.pitkinmapsandmore.com P52 IV.A. CITY OF ASPEN ASPEN, CO 81611 130 S GALENA ST ASPEN INSTITUTE INC ASPEN, CO 81611 1000 N THIRD ST SMOOKE BARRY ASPEN TRUST LOS ANGELES, CA 90049 155 5TH ANITA DR SMOOKE JULIE ASPEN TRUST LOS ANGELES, CA 90049 155 5TH ANITA DR SMITH VICTORIA LEA NEW YORK, NY 10128 1160 PARK AVE REED PRESLEY FAMILY TRUST DENVER, CO 80202 999 18TH ST #1745 NSF 1976 INVESTMENTS LLC CARPINTERIA, CA 93013 4237 DEL MAR AVE SARPA JOHN G & JAN JONES ASPEN, CO 81611 71 MEADOWS TRUSTEE RD LAMM RICHARD D QPRT DENVER, CO 80246 5401 E DAKOTA #20 SHERMAN HARRIS D DENVER, CO 80246 5401 E DAKOTA #20 BLUEFIELD REAL ESTATE TRUST NEW YORK, NY 10022 599 LEXINGTON AVE STRICKLAND MARCIA D DENVER, CO 80209 1991 E ALAMEDA AVE TRUSTEE TOWNHOMES AT ASPEN MEADOWS CONDO ASPEN, CO 81611 11 MEADOWS RD P53 IV.A. C:\General CADD 12\Gxd\25192E.gxd -- 02/21/2018 -- 12:06 PM -- Scale 1 : 120.000000P54 IV.A. 715 W. Main Street , Suite 104 Aspen, Colorado 81611 voice: 970.544.4851 email:LAM@MenendezArchitects.com HPC Design Guidelines Response March 07, 2018 Ms. Sarah Yoon Community Development Department City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street, 3rd Floor Aspen, CO 81611 Re: 51 Meadows Road, Aspen Dear Ms. Yoon; This letter serves to complement our submittal of March 07, 2018 and to provide a more detailed explanation as to how the proposed new addition’s design and replacement of the existing windows conform to the HPC design guidelines, specifically the following sections: 3.1 Preserve the functional and decorative features of a historic window: No original windows exist or remain at the townhome. They have all been replaced in previous renovations/interventions with aluminum clad wood windows. 3.2 Preserve the position, number and arrangement of historic windows in a building wall: No alteration to the position, number and arrangement of existing windows is proposed. Two existing exterior sliding doors will be replaced with three, stacked awning windows that are consistent with the original Bauhaus design aesthetic and previous renovations on adjacent townhomes. Existing window sizes will be altered slightly to improve alignment of windows. 3.3 Match Replacement window to the original in its design: No original windows remain at the townhome and no records could be found illustrating the original window design of the project. All original windows have been replaced in previous renovations/interventions with aluminum clad wood windows and the configuration, operation and window type vary from townhouse to townhouse. The proposed new windows will be consistent with the existing window layout but the type of window will vary in some instances. 3.4 When replacing an original window, use materials that are the same as the original: P55 IV.A. No original windows remain at the townhome. They have all been replaced in previous renovations/interventions with aluminum clad wood windows. The new windows proposed for the townhome will utilize either an aluminum clad wood window similar to the existing windows or will utilize a metal-framed window that is consistent with windows evident in original Bauhaus style residences. 3.5 Preserve the size and proportion of a historic window opening: The existing windows to be replaced will utilize the existing rough openings in most instances. Two exterior sliding doors at the rear of the townhome will each be replaced with three stacked awning windows and will utilize a head height that is slightly taller than the existing sliding door rough opening. A third sliding door to the rear of the townhome will be replaced with a new sliding door that will also have a new rough opening head that is slightly taller than the original rough opening. The new sliding door and stacked awning windows are consistent with the Bauhaus style door and window sizes and proportions and achieve better alignment with the windows in the proposed addition. These new windows and door are also consistent with previous renovations performed on adjacent townhomes. 3.6 Match, as closely as possible, the profile of the sash and its components to that of the original window: No original windows exist in the townhome to confirm the original window characteristics. The majority of the windows that are being replaced in the townhome will be constructed of similar components to the existing windows. Several new windows located at the rear of the townhome may be constructed of thermally broken metal frames. These metal-framed windows are visually consistent with window construction utilized on original Bauhaus style residences. 3.7 Adding new windows on a historic structure is generally not allowed: No additional window openings in the existing townhome are proposed. 3.8 N/A 10.1 N/A 10.2 N/A 10.3 Design a new addition such that one’s ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained: The proposed addition is too small to successfully distinguish it from the existing structure via a different shape or via detachment. The proposed design makes a subtle gesture of using a different siding board width to differentiate the proposed from the original. 10.4 The historic resource is to be the focus of the property, the entry point, and the predominant structure as viewed from the street: P56 IV.A. The new addition is located at the rear of the historic townhome and is not visible from the street. The townhome will be unaffected as viewed from the street. 10.5 N/A 10.6 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time: The new addition will utilize an exterior wood siding that varies from the existing townhome’s wood siding in width and profile. The modest addition will only utilize approximately 200 square feet of new siding material. 10.7 When planning an addition to a building in a historic district, preserve historic alignments on the street: The new addition is located to the rear of the townhome and does not alter or affect the historic alignment at the street. The addition is not visible from the street. 10.8 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building: The modest size and scale of the addition is consistent with the existing size townhome and will not significantly alter its scale or massing. 10.9 If the addition is taller than a historic building, set it back from significant facades and use a “connector” to link it to the historic building: The new addition will not be taller than the existing townhome and will be viewed as a small extension of the existing building’s form and roof structure. 10.10 Place an addition at the rear of a primary building or set it back substantially from the front to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent: The new addition will be located at the rear of the townhome and will not be visible from the street. The modest size of the addition will have a negligible impact on the proportions and character of the townhome. 10.11 Roof forms shall be compatible with the historic building: The roof form of the new addition will be a modest extension of the existing flat roof structure of the townhome. 10.12 Design an addition to a historic structure that does not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features: No historically important architectural feature will be destroyed or obscured. The new addition will be located at an inside corner at the rear of the exterior of the existing townhome and will only displace two non-historic existing windows, a planter and a small portion of the existing wood siding. 10.13 N/A 10.14 N/A P57 IV.A. 10.15 N/A Please contact me with any questions. Sincerely, Luis Menendez, A.I.A. P58 IV.A. EXISTING CONDITIONS PHOTOS HPC-1 MEADOWS ROAD FROM SOUTH1 MEADOWS ROAD FROM SOUTH2 MEADOWS ROAD FROM NORTH3 TOWNHOME FROM REAR9 LOCATION OF PROPOSED ADDITION5 REAR FROM SOUTHWEST6 REAR FROM NORTH WEST7 FRONT ENTRY/CARPORT8 MEADOWS ROAD FROM EAST 4 715 W. Main Street, Suite 104 Aspen, Colorado 81611 voice: 970.544.4851 email: LAM@MenendezArchitects.com Drawing number: Print Date: Drawn By:MM 3/6/18 © 2018 Menendez Architects P.C. Mark:Description:Date: Title: HOA 02/16/18 HOA REVIEW Project: 51 MEADOWS ROAD Building Dept.:P59IV.A. 7835784510 NOTE: ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATION 100'-0" = SITE ELEVATION 7846.3' PROPOSED SITE PLAN HPC-01 SILL 7846.3' UNIT 5: EXISTING MULTI LEVEL RESIDENCE WITH ATTACHED CARPORT UNIT 4 UNIT 6 PROPOSED SITE PLAN SCALE: 1" = 10'-0"1 EDGE OF PAVEMENT. EXISTING CONCRETE SIDEWALK TO REMAIN. EXISTING CONCRETE PATIO/DECK TO REMAIN. SAW-CUT SECTION ALONG PROPOSED ADDITION, AS NEEDED, AND PATCH WITH NEW PAVING TO MATCH EXISTING. EXISTING ASPHALT PAVING TO REMAIN. EXISTING CONCRETE STEPS TO REMAIN. EXISITING SHED/TRASH ENCLOSURE TO REMAIN. EDGE OF CARPORT ABOVE. EXISTING PLANTING BED TO REMAIN. EXISTING WOOD FRAMED STAIRS TO REMAIN. EXISTING CANTILEVERED DECK TO REMAIN. KEYNOTES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 1 MEADOWS ROAD4 2 2 45.8' 39.3' 3 5 PROPOSED SINGLE LEVEL ADDITION. (WITH CRAWSPACE) 6 79 8 N 88°17’51” E 116.42’ S 84°20’47” E 1 1 3 . 5 1 ’53.09'39.39' NORTH 715 W. Main Street, Suite 104 Aspen, Colorado 81611 voice: 970.544.4851 email: LAM@MenendezArchitects.com Drawing number: Print Date: Drawn By:MM 3/14/18 © 2018 Menendez Architects P.C. Mark:Description:Date: Title: HOA 02/16/18 HOA REVIEW Project: 51 MEADOWS ROAD Building Dept.: HPC 03/21/18 MINOR DEV. REV.P60IV.A. C:\General CADD 12\Gxd\25192E.gxd -- 02/21/2018 -- 12:06 PM -- Scale 1 : 120.000000P61 IV.A. 7835784510NOTE: ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATION 100'-0" = SITE ELEVATION 7846.3'PROPOSED SITE PLANHPC-01SILL7846.3'UNIT 5: EXISTING MULTI LEVEL RESIDENCE WITH ATTACHED CARPORTUNIT 4UNIT 6PROPOSED SITE PLANSCALE: 1" = 10'-0"1EDGE OF PAVEMENT. EXISTING CONCRETE SIDEWALK TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH BROOM FINISHED CONCRETE. EXISTING CONCRETE PATIO/DECK TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH NEW SLAB WITH TILE FINISHED SURFACE. EXISTING ASPHALT PAVING TO REMAIN. EXISTING CONCRETE STEPS TO REMAIN. EXISITING SHED/TRASH ENCLOSURE TO REMAIN. EDGE OF CARPORT ABOVE. EXISTING PLANTING BED TO REMAIN. EXISTING WOOD FRAMED STAIRS TO REMAIN. EXISTING CANTILEVERED DECK TO REMAIN. KEYNOTES1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10111MEADOWS R O A D 42245.8'39.3'35PROPOSED SINGLE LEVEL ADDITION. (WITH CRAWSPACE)6798N 88°17’51” E 116.42’S 84°20’47” E 113.51’53.09' 39.39'NORTH715 W. Main Street, Suite 104 Aspen, Colorado 81611voice: 970.544.4851 email: LAM@MenendezArchitects.comDrawing number:Print Date:Drawn By:MM 3/26/18© 2018 Menendez Architects P.C.Mark: Description:Date:Title:HOA 02/16/18 HOA REVIEWProject:51 MEADOWS ROADBuilding Dept.:HPC 04/15/18 MINOR DEV. REV. P62 IV.A. EXISTING CONDITIONS PHOTOSHPC-1MEADOWS ROAD FROM SOUTH1MEADOWS ROAD FROM SOUTH2MEADOWS ROAD FROM NORTH3TOWNHOME FROM REAR9LOCATION OF PROPOSED ADDITION5REAR FROM SOUTHWEST6REAR FROM NORTH WEST7FRONT ENTRY/CARPORT8MEADOWS ROAD FROM EAST 4715 W. Main Street, Suite 104 Aspen, Colorado 81611voice: 970.544.4851 email: LAM@MenendezArchitects.comDrawing number:Print Date:Drawn By:MM 3/26/18© 2018 Menendez Architects P.C.Mark: Description:Date:Title:HOA 02/16/18 HOA REVIEWProject:51 MEADOWS ROADBuilding Dept.:HPC 04/15/18 MINOR DEV. REV. P63 IV.A. A-2011A-2021A-2031A-2041T.O. PWD ELEV: 95'-6"T.O. CONC. ELEV: 95'-6"T.O. CONC. ELEV: 95'-4"T.O. CONC. ELEV: 92'-2 1/2"444'-0"21'-8 3/4"2316'-6"15'-9 1/4"C41'-4"19'-4"BA22'-0"423144'-0"15'-9 1/4"6'-6"21'-8 3/4"CBA41'-4"19'-4"22'-0"EXISTING MAIN LEVEL PLANSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1UPCLOSETPANTRYLEDGEDNUPEXISTING MAIN LEVEL PLANHPC-2DN101LIVING ROOM102DINING ROOM103KITCHEN104BEDROOM #2105BATH #2107HALL106POWDER108MECHANICALADJOINING TOWNHOME 61ADJOINING TOWNHOME 41WOOD FRAMED STAIR TO GRADE. CONCRETE RETAINING WALL. PLANTING BED. CANTILEVERED DECK ABOVE. CONCRETE PATIO/DECK. BRICK FACED CONCRETE PLANTER.KEYNOTES1 2 3 4 5 61223456DWR/FMW ABOVEBUILT-IN SHELVINGLOUVER715 W. Main Street, Suite 104 Aspen, Colorado 81611voice: 970.544.4851 email: LAM@MenendezArchitects.comDrawing number:Print Date:Drawn By:MM 3/26/18© 2018 Menendez Architects P.C.Mark: Description:Date:Title:HOA 02/16/18 HOA REVIEWProject:51 MEADOWS ROADBuilding Dept.:HPC 04/15/18 MINOR DEV. REV. P64 IV.A. A-2011A-2021A-2031A-2041T.O. PWD ELEV: 104'-5 1/2"T.O. PWD ELEV: 100'-0"444'-0"21'-8 3/4"2316'-6"15'-9 1/4"C41'-4"19'-4"BA22'-0"423144'-0"15'-9 1/4"6'-6"21'-8 3/4"CBA41'-4"19'-4"22'-0"EXISTING UPPER LEVEL PLANSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1DNDNOPEN TO BELOWCLOSETCLOSETCLOSETDECKDNEXISTING UPPER LEVEL PLANHPC-3206MASTER BEDROOM201ENTRY202LAUNDRY204DRESSING ROOM205MASTER BATH203BALCONYADJOINING TOWNHOME 61ADJOINING TOWNHOME 41WALL MOUNTED ELECTRIC METER. GAS METER. CONCRETE SIDEWALK. ASPHALT PAVED PARKING/CARPORT. CARPORT ROOF OVERHEAD. CONCRETE PATIO/DECK BELOW. PLANTER BELOW. ASPHALT DRIVEWAY. CONCRETE RETAINING WALL.KEYNOTES1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 943589679521ELECTRIC PANELSW/D715 W. Main Street, Suite 104 Aspen, Colorado 81611voice: 970.544.4851 email: LAM@MenendezArchitects.comDrawing number:Print Date:Drawn By:MM 3/26/18© 2018 Menendez Architects P.C.Mark: Description:Date:Title:HOA 02/16/18 HOA REVIEWProject:51 MEADOWS ROADBuilding Dept.:HPC 04/15/18 MINOR DEV. REV. P65 IV.A. A-3011A-2012A-2022A-2032A-2042105-1104-1T.O. PWD EL: 95'-6"T.O. CONC. EL: 95'-6"T.O. CONC. EL: 95'-4"T.O. CONC. EL: 92'-2 1/2"444'-0"21'-8 3/4"2316'-6"15'-9 1/4"C41'-5 1/4"19'-4"BA22'-1 1/4"423144'-0"15'-9 1/4"6'-6"21'-8 3/4"CBA41'-5 1/4"19'-4"22'-1 1/4"2'-10"PROPOSED ADDITION5'-7" (VERIFY)2'-5"(VERIFY)PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL PLANSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL PLANUPCLOSETLEDGEDNDNADJOINING TOWNHOME 41UPADJOINING TOWNHOME 61EXISTING WOOD FRAMED STAIR TO GRADE TO REMAIN. EXISTING CONCRETE RETAINING WALL TO REMAIN. EXISTING PLANTING BED TO REMAIN. DASHED LINES DEPICT EXISTING BALCONY ABOVE TO REMAIN. NEW CONCRETE PATIO/DECK WITH NEW PORCELAIN TILE FINISH. EXACT TILE AND PATTERN TO BE DETERMINED. REPLACE EXISTING SLIDING GLASS DOOR WITH NEW WINDOWS, REFER TO EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS AND WINDOW SCHEDULE. REPLACE EXISTING WINDOW WITH NEW WINDOW, REFER TO EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS AND WINDOW SCHEDULE REPLACE EXISTING SLIDING GLASS DOOR WITH NEW SLIDING DOOR, REFER TO EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS AND WINDOW SCHEDULE. RECONFIGURE EXISTING KITCHEN AS SHOWN WITH NEW CABINETS, COUNTERTOPS, APPLIANCES, FIXTURES, ETC. RECONFIGURE EXISTING POWDER ROOM AND GUEST BATH #2 INTO A SINGLE BATHROOM AS SHOWN. REMOVE EXISTING FIREPLACE AND REPLACE WITH NEW LINEAR FIREPLACE. RE-FRAME FIREPLACE ENCLOSURE TO SIZE REQUIREMENTS OF NEW FIREPLACE. PROPOSED CRAWL SPACE UNDER PROPOSED INTERMEDIATE LEVEL ADDITION ABOVE. REMOVE EXISTING DUCT CHASE. REMOVE AND REPLACE EXISTING STAIR GLASS RAILING WITH NEW GLASS RAILING. REMOVE AND REPLACE EXISTING HEARTH EXTENSION WITH NEW 'FLOATING' HEARTH EXTENSION.KEYNOTES1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 WALL TYPE LEGEND101LIVING ROOM102DINING ROOM103KITCHEN104BEDROOM #2105BATH #2106HALL107MECHANICAL108CRAWLSPACEEXISTING PARTITION TO REMAINPROPOSED 2x WOOD STUD PARTITIONEXISTING PARTITION TO BE REMOVED122345668777791012SHADED AREAS INDICATE NEW CONSTRUCTION13141511HPC-424" sub-zeropantrylinenR-420DWMW ABOVEA-3011715 W. Main Street, Suite 104 Aspen, Colorado 81611voice: 970.544.4851 email: LAM@MenendezArchitects.comDrawing number:Print Date:Drawn By:MM 4/4/18© 2018 Menendez Architects P.C.Mark: Description:Date:Title:HOA 02/16/18 HOA REVIEWProject:51 MEADOWS ROADBuilding Dept.:HPC 04/15/18 MINOR DEV. REV. P66 IV.A. A-3011A-3011A-2012A-2022A-2032A-2042206-1206-2203-1205-1444'-0"21'-8 3/4"2316'-6"15'-9 1/4"C41'-5 1/4"19'-4"BA22'-1 1/4"T.O. PWD EL: 104'-5 1/2"T.O. PWD EL: 100'-0"4'-5 1/2"3 1/2"4'-0"7"± 9'-11 1/4"5 1/2"423144'-0"15'-9 1/4"6'-6"21'-8 3/4"CBA41'-5 1/4"19'-4" (VERIFY)22'-1 1/4"8'-9 1/4"2 1/2"2 1/2"7'-10 3/4" R.O.2 1/2"5 1/2"1"PROPOSED ADDITION2'-10"2 1/2"± 9'-6 1/4"PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL PLANSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1DNOPEN TO BELOWCLOSETCLOSETASPHALT PAVED CARPORTDECKDNADJOINING TOWNHOME 41UPnew lcd glassshower10" benchnew pocket doornew pocket doorADJOINING TOWNHOME 61PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL PLANREPLACE EXISTING WINDOW WITH NEW WINDOW, REFER TO EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS AND WINDOW SCHEDULE. NEW WINDOW AT NEW CONSTRUCTION, REFER TO EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS AND WINDOW SCHEDULE. EXISTING WINDOW TO REMAIN. CARPORT ROOF STRUCTURE ABOVE SHOWN DASHED. REMOVE EXISTING CONCRETE WALKWAY AND REPLACE WITH NEW LARGE FORMAT EXTERIOR GRADE PORCELAIN TILE OVER CONCRETE SLAB. EXISTING ASPHALT PAVED PARKING AND DRIVE TO REMAIN. EXISTING ELECTRIC METER TO REMAIN. EXISTING GAS METER TO REMAIN. EXISTING DOOR TO BE REPLACED. EXISTING ENTRY DOOR AND SIDELITE TO REMAIN AS-IS. RECONFIGURE MASTER BATHROOM AND DRESSING AREA AS SHOWN. RELOCATE EXISTING POWDER ROOM TO THIS LOCATION. RECONFIGURE EXISTING LAUNDRY ROOM AS SHOWN. RECONFIGURE EXISTING ENTRY AS SHOWN. EXISTING ELECTRICAL PANELS LOCATION TO REMAIN.KEYNOTES1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15EXISTING PARTITION TO REMAINPROPOSED 2x WOOD STUD PARTITIONWALL TYPE LEGEND206MASTER BEDROOM201ENTRY202LAUNDRY/POWDER204DRESSING ROOM205MASTER BATH203BALCONYEXISTING PARTITION TO BE REMOVED111122233319104567811112131415SHADED AREAS INDICATE NEW CONSTRUCTION2255HPC-5mirrored cabinets above countertop w/ 4" drawer. open below countertopW/DTRASH ENCLOSURE floor to clg. med. cab.36" x 72" tubmirrored cabinets, floor to ceilingcabinet closetbuilt-in dresser202-1715 W. Main Street, Suite 104 Aspen, Colorado 81611voice: 970.544.4851 email: LAM@MenendezArchitects.comDrawing number:Print Date:Drawn By:MM 4/4/18© 2018 Menendez Architects P.C.Mark: Description:Date:Title:HOA 02/16/18 HOA REVIEWProject:51 MEADOWS ROADBuilding Dept.:HPC 04/15/18 MINOR DEV. REV. P67 IV.A. 12438'-11 1/2"8'-11 1/2"1243TO PLYWD EL 95'-6"TO PLYWD EL 104'-5 1/2"TO PLYWD EL 95'-6"TO PLYWD EL 104'-5 1/2"EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSHPC-6EXISTING NORTH ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2EXISTING WINDOW TO REMAIN. EXISTING VERTICAL WOOD SIDING TO REMAIN. EXISTING FINISH TO REMAIN. EXISTING METAL PRIVACY SCREEN TO REMAIN. NEIGHBORING UNIT 61 CARPORT ROOF STRUCTURE. EXISTING BALCONY RAILING BEYOND TO REMAIN. EXISTING VENT TO REMAIN, TYPICAL. EXISTING CARPORT BEAM TO REMAIN, TYPICAL. EXISTING WINDOW TO BE REMOVED FOR REPLACEMENT. PROPOSED NEW WINDOW TO REPLACE EXISTING WINDOW, SAME SIZE AND SHAPE AS EXISTING PROPOSED NEW RANGE HOOD EXHAUST LOUVERKEYNOTES1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11NO WORK OF CONSEQUENCE PROPOSED FOR THIS ELEVATION1234567819111011715 W. Main Street, Suite 104 Aspen, Colorado 81611voice: 970.544.4851 email: LAM@MenendezArchitects.comDrawing number:Print Date:Drawn By:MM 3/26/18© 2018 Menendez Architects P.C.Mark: Description:Date:Title:HOA 02/16/18 HOA REVIEWProject:51 MEADOWS ROADBuilding Dept.:HPC 04/15/18 MINOR DEV. REV. P68 IV.A. T.O. PLYWD EL 100'-0"ABC4'-8"TO PLYWD EL 100'-0"ABCTO PLATE EL ±108'-1"TO CONC± EL 95'-4"± 3'-8 1/2"TO CONC± EL 95'-4"4'-8"8'-1"EXISTING WEST ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1PROPOSED WEST ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2EXISTING WINDOW TO BE REMOVED FOR REPLACEMENT. EXISTING WINDOW TO BE REMOVED. PROPOSED NEW WINDOW TO REPLACE EXISTING WINDOW, SAME SIZE AND SHAPE AS EXISTING. PROPOSED NEW WINDOW TO REPLACE EXISTING SLIDNG DOOR. RE-FRAME ROUGH OPENING HEAD TO NEW SIZE. PROPOSED NEW WINDOW IN NEW ADDITION WALL. NEW VERTICAL WOOD SIDING WITH DIFFERENT WIDTH AND PROFILE FROM EXISTING, PRIME AND PAINT. EXISTING WOOD SHINGLE SIDING TO REMAIN, PATCH AROUND NEW WORK AS NEEDED, TYPICAL. EXISTING FINISH TO REMAIN. EXISTING METAL PRIVACY SCREEN TO REMAIN. EXISTING TRIM BOARDS TO REMAIN. EXISTING SOFFIT AND FASCIA TO REMAIN. EXISTING WOOD GATE AND HARDWARE TO REMAIN EXISTING ROOFING TO REMAIN. EXISTING GLASS GUARDRAIL TO BE REMOVED, TYPICAL OF TWO. NEW ROOF AND FASCIA OVER PROPOSED ADDITION TO MATCH EXISTING. NEW SHEET METAL CLADDING, FLUSH WITH WINDOW FRAME. SAME COLOR AS WINDOW, TYPICAL. EXISTING BRICK PLANTER TO BE REMOVED. EXISTING STAIR TO REMAIN. WIDEN EXISTING FIREPLACE ENCLOSURE. KEYNOTES1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 191112333441755671010111213141516199EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSHPC-7ADJOINING TOWNHOME 41ADJOINING TOWNHOME 61ADJOINING TOWNHOME 41 ADJOINING TOWNHOME 6188715 W. Main Street, Suite 104 Aspen, Colorado 81611voice: 970.544.4851 email: LAM@MenendezArchitects.comDrawing number:Print Date:Drawn By:MM 4/4/18© 2018 Menendez Architects P.C.Mark: Description:Date:Title:HOA 02/16/18 HOA REVIEWProject:51 MEADOWS ROADBuilding Dept.:HPC 04/04/18 MINOR DEV. REV. P69 IV.A. T.O. PLYWD EL 100'-0"1244'-6"4'-5 1/2"33'-3 1/2"TO PLYWD EL 100'-0"1244'-6"4'-5 1/2"33'-3 1/2"TO PLYWD EL 95'-6"TO PLYWD EL 104'-5 1/2"TO PLYWD EL 95'-6"TO PLYWD EL 104'-5 1/2"2'-10"PROPOSED ADDITIONEXISTING SOUTH ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2EXISTING WINDOW TO BE REMOVED FOR REPLACEMENT. EXISTING SLIDING GLASS DOOR TO BE REMOVED FOR REPLACEMENT. PROPOSED NEW WINDOW TO REPLACE EXISTING WINDOW, SAME SIZE AND SHAPE AS EXISTING. PROPOSED NEW WINDOW TO REPLACE EXISTING WINDOWS. RE-FRAME TWO EXISTING ROUGH OPENING TO ALLOW ONE NEW ROUGH OPENING SAME OVERALL WIDTH AND HEIGHT AS TWO EXISTING WINDOWS. PROPOSED NEW SLIDING GLASS DOOR TO REPLACE EXISTING SLIDING DOOR. RE-FRAME ROUGH OPENING HEAD TO NEW SIZE. EXISTING VERTICAL WOOD SIDING TO REMAIN. EXISTING FINISH TO REMAIN. EXISTING CARPORT ROOF STRUCTURE TO REMAIN. NEW VERTICAL WOOD SIDING WITH DIFFERENT WIDTH AND PROFILE FROM EXISTING, PRIME AND PAINT. EXISTING TRIM BOARDS TO REMAIN. EXISTING SOFFIT AND FASCIA TO REMAIN. EXISTNG DOOR TO REMAIN. EXISTING VENT TO REMAIN, TYPICAL. EXISTING BRICK PLANTER TO BE REMOVED. EXISTING STAIR TO REMAIN. EXISTING BALCONY GUARDRAIL BEYOND TO REMAIN.KEYNOTES1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1611112334566678910111213141516EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSHPC-8715 W. Main Street, Suite 104 Aspen, Colorado 81611voice: 970.544.4851 email: LAM@MenendezArchitects.comDrawing number:Print Date:Drawn By:MM 4/4/18© 2018 Menendez Architects P.C.Mark: Description:Date:Title:HOA 02/16/18 HOA REVIEWProject:51 MEADOWS ROADBuilding Dept.:HPC 04/04/18 MINOR DEV. REV. P70 IV.A. 8'-11 1/2"CBA8'-11 1/2"CBATO PLYWD EL 95'-6"TO PLYWD EL 104'-5 1/2"TO PLYWD EL 95'-6"TO PLYWD EL 104'-5 1/2"EXISTING EAST ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1PROPOSED EAST ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSEXISTING WINDOW TO BE REMOVED FOR REPLACEMENT. EXISTING DOOR TO BE REMOVED FOR REPLACEMENT. PROPOSED NEW WINDOW TO REPLACE EXISTING WINDOW, SAME SIZE, SHAPE AND CONFIGURATION AS EXISTING. NEW DOOR TO REPLACE EXISTING DOOR, SAME SIZE AND STYLE AS EXISTING. EXISTING VERTICAL WOOD SIDING TO REMAIN. EXISTING WOOD SHINGLE SIDING TO REMAIN, TYPICAL. EXISTING CARPORT ROOF STRUCTURE TO REMAIN. EXISTING TRIM BOARDS TO REMAIN. EXISTING SOFFIT AND FASCIA TO REMAIN. EXISTING DOOR/SIDELIGHT TO REMAIN. EXISTING BALCONY AND GUARDRAIL TO REMAIN. EXISTING STAIR AND HANDRAIL TO REMAIN. KEYNOTES1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12111123333456788910111213HPC-9ADJOINING TOWNHOME 41ADJOINING TOWNHOME 61ADJOINING TOWNHOME 41ADJOINING TOWNHOME 61715 W. Main Street, Suite 104 Aspen, Colorado 81611voice: 970.544.4851 email: LAM@MenendezArchitects.comDrawing number:Print Date:Drawn By:MM 4/4/18© 2018 Menendez Architects P.C.Mark: Description:Date:Title:HOA 02/16/18 HOA REVIEWProject:51 MEADOWS ROADBuilding Dept.:HPC 04/04/18 MINOR DEV. REV. P71 IV.A. 1243TO PLYWD EL 100'-0"TO PLATEEL ±108'-1" (VERIFY)TO CONCEL 92'-2 1/2"5'-6"2'-10"PROPOSED ADDITIONBUILDING SECTIONSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1BUILDING SECTIONHPC-10107MECHANICAL201ENTRYWHITE AREAS INDICATE EXISITING TO REMAINSHADED AREAS INDICATE NEW CONSTRUCTIONLEGENDPROPOSED CRAWL SPACE715 W. Main Street, Suite 104 Aspen, Colorado 81611voice: 970.544.4851 email: LAM@MenendezArchitects.comDrawing number:Print Date:Drawn By:MM 3/26/18© 2018 Menendez Architects P.C.Mark: Description:Date:Title:HOA 02/16/18 HOA REVIEWProject:51 MEADOWS ROADBuilding Dept.:HPC 04/15/18 MINOR DEV. REV. P72 IV.A. 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 March 14, 2018 DATE: April 11, 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 outhouse 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. 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 are not granted as a matter of right. Based on the original submitted date of the application to develop this property, the application is subject to the “old” Historic Preservation Design Guidelines and Residential Design Standards (RDS), both of which were replaced in 2016. HPC has held two hearings on this project since November 2017, continuing for restudy each time. The applicant has resubmitted a revised design in response to the March 14th hearing. The commission is asked to consider the following new revisions: 1.) garage location relative to rear setback 2.) relocation of the historic outbuilding 3.) new gabled roof form for the above-grade second story addition 4.) request for 300 sf floor area bonus 533 W Hallam Street 1980 533 W Hallam Street 2015 P73 IV.B. 533 W. Hallam Street Page 2 of 14 APPLICANT: Duncan Skihaus LLC, represented by BendonAdams, LLC., and Poss Architecture and Planning 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 procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual level, is as follows. Staff reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project’s conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project’s conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan unless agreed to by the applicant. Staff Response: The recommendation for restudy provided by staff during the last HPC meeting in March focused on the relocation of the historic resource, the design of the connector, overall mass and scale of the addition and the floor area bonus. In particular staff had concerns with the massing of the second story addition with the flat roof. Staff expressed the massing concern being exacerbated by the inclusion of the 500 sf floor area bonus. The revised design for this application is Version 4 which focuses largely on a new roof design for the second story addition, site location of the new garage, location and orientation of the historic out building, and the floor area bonus request. The length of the addition has been reduced to address comments requesting a larger rear setback condition. The second story massing recommended for restudy has been redesigned as a combination of both flat and gable P74 IV.B. 533 W. Hallam Street Page 3 of 14 roof elements. The historic outbuilding is relocated to a position which requires setback variations but it is no longer proposed to sit directly on the property line and it has sound distance from the addition. The floor area requested for the bonus has been reduced to 300 square feet primarily by making adjustments to the basement and light wells. RELOCATION OF HOUSE: Regarding the relocation, HPC was accepting of the proposal shown on March 14th and staff supports the plan as well. CONNECTING ELEMENT: Regarding the connector, the applicant had proposed extending its length on March 14th, but resulted in a request for a waiver of the rear setback. HPC indicated that a minimum rear setback must be provided, so for this hearing slight reductions are made to the connector on both the west and east elevations to partly achieve a 2’ rear setback is provided. Staff supports HPC’s direction on these topics. GARAGE LOCATION: The March 14th design required the applicant to request a rear setback variation to locate the garage directly on the property line. HPC commented on various issues associated with the request for a 0’-0” rear setback relating to functional use of the garage and expected maintenance activity in the alley. The revised proposal does not change the location of the historic resource, but reduces the length of the addition in the connector space, the living space and the garage to create a rear setback. Some of the reduction in length is compensated for in the slight expansion of the main level living space towards 5th Street. Staff supports the dimensional changes made to the addition to allow for the garage to sit 2’-0” within the rear property lines. RELOCATION OF HISTORIC OUTBUILDING: The historic outbuilding has always been proposed to be relocated, but now is to be close to its existing location visible from 5th Street. The concerns brought up at previous meetings were the proposed 0’0” setback and the possibility of the overhangs of the eaves and the swing of the door over the property line. The applicant has relocated the historic out house to sit slightly within the property boundaries and repositioned the building so the door swings into the property. Staff supports the applicant’s decision to relocate and reposition the historic out building to address the zoning requirements. P75 IV.B. 533 W. Hallam Street Page 4 of 14 SECOND STORY ADDITION ROOF FORM: The applicant proposes a new second story roof form made up of gables and flat roofs. Both flat and gable ends bisect the prominent two story gable addition below the roof ridge. This newly proposed gable roof covers the space designated as the office/sitting room, washer and dryer room, and the adjacent landing. A dormer is also added for the proposed window on the east elevation. The flat roof element covers the stairs leading to the second story and the landing of the elevator. This new proposal changes the material choice of the second story element with the flat roof to a shingle siding to match the shingles on the gable roofs. The revisions have brought complexity to the second floor massing where reduction of mass has been desired by staff and HPC members. With the combined flat and gable roof forms, it is difficult to detect the applicant’s goal to reflect the historic roof form in the new construction. Although material choice is one that is discussed in more detail during Final Review, staff would like to mention the wood shingle siding visible on the west elevation does not appear elsewhere in the project and creates confusion to the reading of that massing. P76 IV.B. 533 W. Hallam Street Page 5 of 14 According to the drawings and calculations, since March 14th the applicant has reduced the above grade floor area by roughly 50 sf. from the master suite portion of the massing. This reduction has resulted from shaving a small area from the entire of the upper floor. Staff’s comments on the massing of the office/sitting room are still the concern. Staff recommends the additional study of the upper floor. According to the HP Design Guidelines 10.11, a simple roof form for the new addition is a condition that supports to goal for it to be compatible. P77 IV.B. 533 W. Hallam Street Page 6 of 14 300 SF FLOOR AREA BONUS: The applicant has reduced their requests for a floor area bonus to the amount of 300 square feet. The reduction has been achieved primarily through adjustments to the basement layout and window wells. The basement level has been reduced by 163 sf and the second floor area by 50sf. This is an overall reduction of 223 sf from the March 14th proposal. Staff continues to support awarding a floor area bonus of up to 250 square feet in regards to the preservation efforts that the applicant plans to undertake with this project as outlined in the criteria for awarding a floor area bonus (Section 415.110.F). 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. It should be noted that the work the applicant plans to undertake on the east, west and south sides of the resource is not an accurate reconstruction of the original building, the rear portion of which is long since demolished. While the applicant’s proposal to establish a cross gabled form for the preserved structure is appropriate given the circumstances, staff does not consider it to be restoration warranting a bonus. The staff opposition to the award of a floor area bonus in excess of 250 sf is related to the massing of the addition, specifically the proposed office/sitting area. Although the applicant has reduced the total bonus to 300 sf, staff finds that this reduction has not been done in a meaningful way to address the previous staff concerns related to the above grade massing. It is important to recognize that the project preserves a resource of approximately 680 sf in size with a proposed above grade addition over four times its size. Staff cannot recommend this demonstrates exemplary preservation practice. Staff continues to recommend a bonus be considered for the preservation efforts but to restudy the second floor of the addition. P78 IV.B. 533 W. Hallam Street Page 7 of 14 Floor area caluclations from March 14th Floor area calculations for April 11th __________________________________________________________________________ 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. ______________________________________________________________________________ P79 IV.B. 533 W. Hallam Street Page 8 of 14 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends continuation for the restudy of the following: Reduction of second floor massing and reduction of the above grade square footage by approximately 200 additional square feet, with a floor area bonus not to exceed 250 square feet. (50 square feet has been removed since the last hearing.) RECOMMENDED MOTION: “I move to continue the application for restudy.” ALTERNATIVE MOTION: “I move to approve Resolution No. ___, Series of 2018 approving the application as submitted." A majority vote in favor of the resolution will result in approval. A majority vote against the resolution will result in denial. EXHIBITS: Resolution ___, Series of 2018 A. Historic Preservation Guidelines B. Revised Application P80 IV.B. 533 W. Hallam Street Page 9 of 14 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. 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. P81 IV.B. 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. P82 IV.B. 533 W. Hallam Street Page 11 of 14 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. 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. P83 IV.B. 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. P84 IV.B. 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. P85 IV.B. 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. P86 IV.B. HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2018 Page 1 of 3 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 November 9, 2017, March 14, 2018 and April 11, 2018. HPC considered the application, the staff memo and public comments, and found the P87 IV.B. HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2018 Page 2 of 3 proposal consistent with the review standards and granted approval with conditions by a vote of __ to __. 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 for the garage/house. c. A ____ reduction of the rear yard setback to allow for the historic outbuilding. d. A ____ reduction of the east side yard setback to allow for the historic outbuilding. e. A ____reduction of the combined side yard setback to allow for the historic outhouse. 2. HPC hereby grants a ______ sq. ft Floor Area Bonus. 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. The landscape plan found in this March 14th application has not been reviewed nor approved, but will be reviewed for approval during Final Review. 5. 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. 6. 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. P88 IV.B. HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2018 Page 3 of 3 APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 11th day of April, 2018. Approved as to Form: Approved as to Content: ______________________________ ____________________________ Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Gretchen Greenwood, Chair ATTEST: ______________________________ Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk P89 IV.B. 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM March 27, 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 – version 4 Dear Commission and Ms. Yoon: Please accept this revised project that addresses the concerns raised by HPC during the March 14th meeting. Working closely with the Duncans, we have addressed these concerns while balancing historic preservation and new construction. This is the fourth design revision for this project: we expect that resolving these three items will conclude our Conceptual Design Review process. To recap: Version 1: Historic home is shifted forward to setback line, and a front variance for the projecting historic bay window only is requested. A 10 ft. connector is proposed, massing is pushed toward the alley and a 5 ft. below grade variance is requested for the basement. A two-story flat roof “office” on the second floor is proposed. Rehabilitation of the landmark, preservation of an outbuilding along the alley, preservation of mature trees, and design that meet the Guidelines result in the request for a 500 FAR Bonus. Version 2: The second story flat roof “office” is redesigned with a gable end facing the street. Version 3: Entire height of the addition and connector is dropped almost 1.5 ft. Small addition proposed at the southeast corner of the landmark is removed. Versi on 3.1: Historic home is shifted back 7 in. to eliminate front variance request for historic bay window. Connector is elongated to almost 13 ft. facing Fifth Street which pushes all mass toward the alley and results in a 0 ft. setback condition for the garage and below grade basement space. Second floor living space is pushed to the 5 ft. setback line. Old shed is shifted to the southwest corner of the property along the alley. The March 14th meeting concluded with a summary by HP Staff of the only items that needed revision: 1. Push the garage back from the property line along the alley. P90 IV.B. 533 West Hallam Street Version 4 Conceptual HPC Reviews – updated 4/11/18 Page 2 of 6 2. Restudy the second-floor flat roof massing. 3. FAR Bonus of 500 sf was still up for consideration pending the second-floor massing restudy. Version 4: Cross gable roof form with dormers is proposed for the second story “office.” Garage is pulled off the alley 2 ft. Living space is pushed slightly toward Fifth Street but remains significantly setback from the historic gable end by 12 ft 2 1/2in. The Floor Area Bonus request has been reduced to 300 sf. Re-working of the basement layout and window well depths has reduced the current overage to approximately 277 sf. Three-hundred square feet is requested to ensure code and other technical considerations can be accommodated for the current plan between now and the preparation of full construction drawings. Understanding that trade-offs and balance are inherent in all historic preservation projects, the design team has pushed and pulled the architecture to address mass and scale, to meet programmatic needs, to respect the front yard and side yard setbacks, respect the tree dripline and to meet all Design Guidelines. Garage relocation As directed by HPC, the historic landmark location along Hallam Street has not changed from version 3.1 presented on March 14th. A front yard variance is needed only for the bay window which extends 18 in. over the front setback. As directed by HPC in March, the garage has been pulled off the property line by 2 ft. To reduce above-grade massing the basement is pushed to the property line below grade which complies with Guideline 10.8. The second-floor massing has been moved back from the property line approximately 7 feet to minimize visual impacts on the landmark as described in 10.8. 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 old shed is relocated just off the property line to address Staff concerns about eave overhangs. The shed doors are proposed to swing into the yard. Second floor massing Based on HPC’s feedback in March, a cross gable roof form is proposed to replace the flat roof of the second floor “office.” The cross-gable roof form created with the intersection of the “office” gable with the “master bedroom” gable is reminiscent of the restored cross gable of the historic home (meets Guidelines 10.3, 10.4, 10.6 and 10.9). The office is setback 51 ft. from Hallam Street property line and 41 P91 IV.B. 533 West Hallam Street Version 4 Conceptual HPC Reviews – updated 4/11/18 Page 3 of 6 ft. from the Fifth Street property line (meets Guideline 10.8). The traditional roof form addresses HPC’s concerns about the flat roof and creates a stronger relationship between the landmark and the addition (meets Guidelines 10.6 and 10.9). Dormers, which are necessary to create some head height within the office, are only proposed on the east elevation to avoid over-complicating roof forms facing Fifth Street (meets Guideline 10.9). The new roof form allows the addition to read as having two connectors: one connecting the landmark to the addition and one between the one-story gable end and the two-story garage/bedroom (meets Guideline 10.7). 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. 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. 10.7 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 10.6 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. 10.9 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. FAR Bonus There was some confusion on the Board about how many criteria had to be met to be awarded the Bonus. The Land Use Code language is provided below. It is our understanding, based on the actual Code language and based on its application over the past decade that at least one criterion needs to be met to be award Bonus floor area. Many landmark properties that do not have historic P92 IV.B. 533 West Hallam Street Version 4 Conceptual HPC Reviews – updated 4/11/18 Page 4 of 6 outbuildings or mature landscaping are awarded the bonus, which would not be allowed if a project had to meet all of the criteria. Furthermore, the Code specifies that the more criteria met, the higher likelihood of receiving the full Bonus award of 500 sf. This statement would not be necessary or relevant if a project was required to meet all of the review criteria. 533 W. Hallam meets all of the review criteria for the FAR Bonus as described below. Land Use Code Section 26.415.110.F. Floor area bonus 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; The design meets the applicable Design Guidelines (see discussion above). 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. The addition is attached to the landmark through a previously disturbed area along the rear façade. 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. 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. d) The new construction is reflective of the proportional patterns found in the historic building's form, materials or openings; The new construction incorporates all gable roof forms (with the exception of a flat roof connector) 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 was extended to about 12 ft. 7 in. in version P93 IV.B. 533 West Hallam Street Version 4 Conceptual HPC Reviews – updated 4/11/18 Page 5 of 6 3.1 to exceed the 10 ft. requirement. Version 4 proposes a 12 ft. 2 1/2 in. connector between the historic home and the new construction and the second-floor massing has been restudied to replace the flat roof with a gable roof behind the landmark. g) The project retains a historic outbuilding; and/or 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 consistent with typical locations of this building type. 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. 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. We maximized historic restoration efforts in our original proposal last November and there are no other restoration opportunities for this property that are not already proposed. Staff recommends up to 250 sf of the 500 sf addition and cites the restoration of the front porch and the outbuilding as reasons to grant a small portion of the Bonus. Not mentioned in the Staff memo is the complete restoration of the east and west gable ends, and the entire south (rear) façade of the landmark. These are significant restoration efforts that should be recognized when considering the Bonus. Every façade of this landmark is proposed for restoration/reconstruction which is comparable to other projects that have received the full Bonus. The Duncans have worked hard to adjust their project in a way that is responsive to HPC comments and that just barely meets the needs of their growing and extended family. As mentioned in the application, the Duncans spend a lot of time in Aspen and are building this home for their family and for future generations. We are confident that you will find the proposed Version 4 addresses the outstanding issues raised on March 14th. Kind Regards, Kind Regards, Sara Adams, AICP Principal BendonAdams LLC P94 IV.B. 533 West Hallam Street Version 4 Conceptual HPC Reviews – updated 4/11/18 Page 6 of 6 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 – version 4 [April 11, 2018] 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 version 3 R – Preservation Brief 39 S - Updated drawings version 3.1 [March 14, 2018] T – Updated drawings version 4 [April 11, 2018] P95 IV.B. 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%44.6% 3,517 P96 IV.B. 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:3/22/2018 12:21:05 PMDUNCAN SKIHAUS LLC 533 W. HALLAM HPC 000 HPC CONCEPTUAL HPC 000 VICINITY MAP AND INDEX HPC 001 SUPPLIED INFORMATION HPC 002 SITE IMPROVEMENT SURVEY HPC 100 EXISTING SITE PLAN HPC 101 EXISTING MAIN LEVEL HPC 102 EXISTING UPPER LEVEL HPC 103 EXISTING ROOF PLAN HPC 104 EXISTING ELEVATIONS HPC 105 EXISTING ELEVATIONS HPC 106 STREETSCAPE HPC 200 PROPOSED COMPARATIVE PLAN HPC 202 PROPOSED SITE PLAN HPC 203 PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL HPC 204 PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL PLAN HPC 205 PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL PLAN HPC 206 PROPOSED ROOF PLAN HPC 207 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS HPC 208 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS HPC 209 PROPOSED PERSPECTIVES HPC 210 PROPOSED PERSPECTIVES HPC 211 PROPOSED PERSPECTIVES HPC 212 PROPOSED PERSPECTIVES HPC 300 EXISTING UPPER LEVEL AREA PLAN HPC 301 EXISTING MAIN LEVEL AREA PLAN HPC 302 PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL AREA PLAN HPC 303 PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL AREA PLAN HPC 304 PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL AREA PLAN HPC 305 PROPOSED AREA ELEVATIONS-BASEMENT HPC 306 PROPOSED AREA CALCULATIONS HPC 307 EXISTING ELEVATION AREAS (DEMOLITION) HPC 308 EXISTING ELEVATION AREAS (DEMOLITON) HPC 309 EXISTING ROOF AREAS (DEMOLITION) DRAWING INDEX 1 10.11.2017 HPC PACKAGE 2 01.02.2018 HPC PACKAGE 2nd ROUND 3 03.13.2018 HPC V3.1 P97IV.B. 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:3/22/2018 12:21:05 PMDUNCAN SKIHAUS LLC 533 W. HALLAM HPC 001 HPC SUPPLIED INFORMATION 1 10.11.2017 HPC PACKAGE 2 01.02.2018 HPC PACKAGE 2nd ROUND 3 03.13.2018 HPC V3.1 P98IV.B. 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:3/22/2018 12:21:06 PMDUNCAN SKIHAUS LLC 533 W. HALLAM HPC 002 SITE IMPROVEMENT SURVEY 1 10.11.2017 HPC PACKAGE 2 01.02.2018 HPC PACKAGE 2nd ROUND 3 03.13.2018 HPC V3.1 P99IV.B. ETCGEE791579157915 791579 1 5 7915791579127912791279127913791379137914 79147914 7914 7914LOT KLOT LBLOCK 29EX:7912.8'±EX:7912.9'±EX:7913.0'±EX:7912.8'±EX:7914.4'±EX:7914.4'±EX:7914.6'±EX:7914.7'±EX:7914.1'±EX:7912.7'±EX:7914.4'±HALLAM STREET74.38' RIGHT-OF-WAYASPHALT SURFACEFOUND ORIGINAL CITY BLOCK CORNER1" PIPE W/UNMARKED METAL CAPFOUND NO. 5 REBAR W/PLASTIC CAPP.L.S. 14111FOUND NO. 5 REBAR W/PLASTIC CAPP.L.S. 14111FOUND NO. 5 REBAR W/ALUMINUM CAPP.L.S. 23765TH STREET76.24' RIGHT-OF-WAYASPHALT SURFACEBLOCK 29 ALLEY20.69' RIGHT-OF-WAYGRAVEL SURFACE20.39055.35934.86905.606712.3080CITY OF ASPEN CONTROL MONUMENT NO.96TH & FRANCISBASIS OF ELEVATION = 7906.09'LOT BLOT AFOUND NO. 5 REBAR W/ALUMINUM CAPILLEGIBLECURB LINE (TYP.)LANDSCAPE TIMBERLANDSCAPE TIMBER LANDSCAPE TIMBER LANDSCAPETIMBERLANDSCAPETIMBERBUILDING LINELANDSCAPETIMBER5.3' X 6.3' OUT BUILDING DUMPSTER ON SKIDSN 74°13'37" WBASIS OF BEARINGCITY OF ASPEN CONTROL MONUMENT NO.207TH & FRANCIS10.0000 SIDE YARD SETBACKSEE NOTE NO. 71245678910111213141516172122232425N33° 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 FENCE METAL GATE WOOD FENCE WOOD GATE WOOD GATE PROPERTY CORNER METAL FENCE BUILDING LINE HARDSCAPE PAVERS WOOD DECK WOOD STEP WOOD DECK HARDSCAPE PAVERS WOOD GATE ENTRY PORCHLANDSCAPE TIMBERS PROPERTY CORNER PROPERTY CORNER PROPERTY CORNER7x3 SHEDDUMPSTER ON SKIDS UTILITIESGRAVEL ALLEYN 5TH STREET W HALLAM STREETLANDSCAPE TIMBERS 5'-0" SETBACK PROPERTY LINE 10'-0" SETBACK PROPERTY LINE 10'-0" SETBACKPROPERTY LINE5'-0" SETBACKPROPERTY LINEWOOD GATE BUILDING LINE 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:3/22/2018 12:21:07 PMDUNCAN SKIHAUS LLC 533 W. HALLAM HPC 100 EXISTING SITE PLAN SCALE 1/8" = 1'-0"1 EXISTING SITE PLAN 1 10.11.2017 HPC PACKAGE 2 01.02.2018 HPC PACKAGE 2nd ROUND 3 03.13.2018 HPC V3.1 P100IV.B. PROPERTY LINE 10' SETBACK PROPERTY LINE10' SETBACK5' SETBACKPROPERTY LINE5' SETBACK PROPERTY LINE UP UP UP UP 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:3/22/2018 12:21:07 PMDUNCAN SKIHAUS LLC 533 W. HALLAM HPC 101 EXISTING MAIN LEVEL SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"1 EXISTING MAIN LEVEL PLAN 1 10.11.2017 HPC PACKAGE 2 01.02.2018 HPC PACKAGE 2nd ROUND 3 03.13.2018 HPC V3.1 P101IV.B. PROPERTY LINE 10' SETBACK PROPERTY LINE10' SETBACK5' SETBACKPROPERTY LINE5' SETBACK PROPERTY LINE DN UP 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:3/22/2018 12:21:08 PMDUNCAN SKIHAUS LLC 533 W. HALLAM HPC 102 EXISTING UPPER LEVEL SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"1 EXISTING UPPER LEVEL PLAN ATTIC CRAWL SPACE 1 10.11.2017 HPC PACKAGE 2 01.02.2018 HPC PACKAGE 2nd ROUND 3 03.13.2018 HPC V3.1 P102IV.B. PROPERTY LINE 10' SETBACK PROPERTY LINE10' SETBACKPROPERTY LINE5' SETBACK PROPERTY LINE12 : 1212 : 127 : 12 7 : 1212 : 1212 : 1212 : 1212 : 1212 : 1212 : 12 12 : 1212 : 12 1 : 12 2.5 : 12 8.5 : 12 6 : 121 : 1212 : 1212 : 12 7 : 1214 : 1214 : 12 14 : 126 : 126 : 12 6 : 1214 : 12 14 : 12 12 : 1212 : 12 FLAT FLAT6 : 126 : 12Consultant 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:3/22/2018 12:21:09 PMDUNCAN SKIHAUS LLC 533 W. HALLAM HPC 103 EXISTING ROOF PLAN SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"1 EXISTING ROOF PLAN 1 10.11.2017 HPC PACKAGE 2 01.02.2018 HPC PACKAGE 2nd ROUND 3 03.13.2018 HPC V3.1 P103IV.B. 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:3/22/2018 12:21:12 PMDUNCAN SKIHAUS LLC 533 W. HALLAM HPC 104 EXISTING ELEVATIONS SCALE 3/8" = 1'-0"1 EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION SCALE 3/8" = 1'-0"2 EXISTING EAST ELEVATION 1 10.11.2017 HPC PACKAGE 2 01.02.2018 HPC PACKAGE 2nd ROUND 3 03.13.2018 HPC V3.1 P104IV.B. 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:3/22/2018 12:21:15 PMDUNCAN SKIHAUS LLC 533 W. HALLAM HPC 105 EXISTING ELEVATIONS SCALE 3/8" = 1'-0"1 EXISTING WEST ELEVATION SCALE 3/8" = 1'-0"2 EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION 1 10.11.2017 HPC PACKAGE 2 01.02.2018 HPC PACKAGE 2nd ROUND 3 03.13.2018 HPC V3.1 P105IV.B. 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:3/22/2018 12:21:17 PMDUNCAN 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 3 03.13.2018 HPC V3.1 P106IV.B. LIGHT WELL BELOWLIGHT WELL BELOWLIGHT WELL BELOWLIGHT WELL BELOW8' - 4 1/2"HISTORIC ASSET IS RELOCATED 8'-4 1/2" FORWARD (NORTH) ON-SITE.PROPOSED STRUCTUREEXISTING STRUCTUREHISTORIC STRUCTURE TO BE PRESERVEDPDRCLBARCHINACABINETDININGOFFICEENTRY PORCHENTRY PORCHENTRYCASUAL DININGKITCHENLIVINGELEVATORPANTRYENTRYSTORAGEDNUPSHEDBIKEPOWDER 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:3/23/2018 10:00:42 AMDUNCAN SKIHAUS LLC533 W. HALLAMHPC 200PROPOSED COMPARATIVEPLANSCALE1/4" = 1'-0"1PROPOSED COMPARATIVE PLAN1 10.11.2017 HPC PACKAGE2 01.02.2018 HPC PACKAGE2nd ROUND3 03.13.2018 HPC V3.1P107IV.B. 791579157914791379137914 791279127912141414 13Dining Entry Kitchen Mud Room Shed Entry Office 5th Street Gravel Alley Hallam Street Front Yard Setback Proposed Flower & Groundcover Bed Proposed Lawn Property Line Proposed Lawn Edge Of Street Proposed Residence Existing Aspen Tree To Remain Proposed Stone Paver Entry Walk Proposed Lawn Existing Trees Off Property Stone Paver Patio Light Well Per Architect 6' Tall Fence Along Property Line Property Line Stone Paver Garage Apron Proposed Lawn Light Well Per Architect Property Line Relocated Existing Shed 10' Side Yard Setback 10' Rear Yard Setback Light Well Per Architect Property Line Edge Of Gravel Alley Proposed Stone Paver Walkway Edge Of Street Proposed Lawn Existing Cottonwood Tree To Remain Proposed Flower & Groundcover Bed Stone Paver Patio Existing Spruce Trees To Remian Proposed 42" Tall Fence Proposed Lawn Proposed 42" Fence Proposed Stone Pavers On Concrete Building Line Building Line Proposed Trash Enclosure Garage Landscape Architecture • Environmental Planning 117 South Spring Street, Suite 202 • Aspen, Colorado 81611 Ph: (970) 925-8963 • Fax: (970) 925-1217 • Email: gma@rof.net GREG MOZIAN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Duncan Residence Landscape Plan Re. 03/22/18 3/16"=1'-0" 03/08/1809/28/17 10/31/17P108 IV.B. LIGHT WELL LIGHT WELL CLO. LIGHT WELL LIGHT WELL BDRM #4 W.C. BATH #2 BDRM #1 BDRM #2 CLO. DRESS W.C. BATH #1 W.C. BATH #2 BDRM #3 CLO. DRESS CLO. BATH #4 ELEV. MECH. LAUNDRY MECH. PWDR FAMILY / GAME CLO. DRESS SHWRSHWR SHWR W.C.BENCHTUBTUBBENCHBENCHBENCHTV TV TV TV TV MEDIA STO. ELEV. UP SHWR 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:3/22/2018 12:21:20 PMDUNCAN SKIHAUS LLC 533 W. HALLAM HPC 203 PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL 1 10.11.2017 HPC PACKAGE 2 01.02.2018 HPC PACKAGE 2nd ROUND 3 03.13.2018 HPC V3.1 SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED BASEMENT PLANP109 IV.B. PROPERTY LINE 10' SETBACK PROPERTY LINE10' SETBACK5' SETBACKPROPERTY LINE5' SETBACK PROPERTY LINE LIGHT WELL BELOW LIGHT WELL BELOW LIGHT WELL BELOW LIGHT WELL BELOW CHINA CABINET BAR DINING OFFICE ENTRY KITCHEN CASUAL DINING LIVING ELEV. PANTRY GARAGE BIKE MUD ROOM ENTRY ENTRY PORCH ENTRY PORCHENTRY PORCH10' SETBACKSHED PATIO AREA 3' - 1 1/4"4' - 5" CL BENCHUP PDR 11' - 0 3/4" 1' - 6 1/2"12' - 2 1/2" 1' - 6" 3' - 0" 2' - 0" DN 2' - 0" 3' - 0"5' - 10 1/2"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:3/22/2018 12:21:20 PMDUNCAN SKIHAUS LLC 533 W. HALLAM HPC 204 PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL PLANSCALE1/4" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL PLAN 1 10.11.2017 HPC PACKAGE 2 01.02.2018 HPC PACKAGE 2nd ROUND 3 03.13.2018 HPC V3.1 P110IV.B. CLO. MASTER BDRM CLO. ELEV. W/D OFFICE / SITTING ROOM LANDING MASTER BATH W.C. DNBENCHSHWR SHED 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:3/22/2018 12:28:28 PMDUNCAN 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 3 03.13.2018 HPC V3.1 P111IV.B. SLOPE 12:12 SLOPE 12:12 FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT SLOPE 12:12 SLOPE 12:12 SLOPE 12:12 SLOPE 12:12 SLOPE 12:12 SLOPE 12:12 SLOPE12:12SLOPE12:12SLOPE12:12SLOPE12:12FLAT FLAT FLATFLAT SLOPE 12:12 SLOPE 12:12 10' SETBACK PROPERTY LINE10' SETBACK5' SETBACKPROPERTY LINE5' SETBACK PROPERTY LINE10' SETBACKSLOPE12:12SLOPE12:12FLAT FLAT 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:3/22/2018 12:21:21 PMDUNCAN SKIHAUS LLC 533 W. HALLAM HPC 206 PROPOSED ROOF PLAN SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED ROOF PLAN 1 10.11.2017 HPC PACKAGE 2 01.02.2018 HPC PACKAGE 2nd ROUND 3 03.13.2018 HPC V3.1 P112IV.B. 1' - 4"5 5/8"DASHED LINE REPRESENTS THE BUILDING HEIGHT FROM THE PREVIOUS SUBMISSION. 6"EXISTING GRADEPROPOSED GRADE20' - 10 1/2"FLAT ROOF MAX HEIGHT PITCHED ROOF MAX HEIGHT NARROW HORIZONTAL WOOD SIDING WOOD FASCIA WOOD FASCIA 6" HORIZONTAL WOOD SIDING METAL CLAD WINDOWS 1' - 6 7/8"1' - 4"1' - 4"9 1/4"21' - 5 1/4"DASHED LINE REPRESENTS THE BUILDING HEIGHT FROM THE FIRST SUBMISSION. 2' - 4 3/8" 11' - 9 1/4" 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:3/22/2018 12:21:25 PMDUNCAN SKIHAUS LLC 533 W. HALLAM HPC 207 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"2 PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION 1 10.11.2017 HPC PACKAGE 2 01.02.2018 HPC PACKAGE 2nd ROUND 3 03.13.2018 HPC V3.1 P113IV.B. 20' - 10 1/2"EXISTING GRADEPROPOSED GRADE PITCH ROOF MAX HEIGHT FLAT ROOF MAX HEIGHT 18' - 5 1/2"METAL CLAD WINDOWS WOOD SHINGLES WOOD FASCIA NARROW HORIZONTAL WOOD SIDING WOOD FASCIA WOOD COLUMNS 10' - 1 1/4"21' - 5 1/2"1' - 4"1' - 6 7/8"9 1/4"1' - 4"DASHED LINE REPRESENTS THE BUILDING HEIGHT FROM THE FIRST SUBMISSION. 6'-6" INTERIOR PLATESHINGLE SIDING TO MATCH ROOF 3D ELEVATION VIEW @ CONNECTOR 2' - 4 3/8" 1' - 6 1/2" 13' - 9" 12' - 2 1/2" 11' - 9 1/4" EAVE TO EAVE 18' - 7 1/2" WOOD SHINGLES WOOD FASCIA METAL CLAD WINDOWS NARROW HORIZONTAL WOOD SIDING 6" HORIZONTAL WOOD SIDING WOOD FASCIA 1' - 4"5 5/8"DASHED LINE REPRESENTS THE BUILDING HEIGHT FROM THE PREVIOUS SUBMISSION. 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:3/22/2018 12:21:29 PMDUNCAN SKIHAUS LLC 533 W. HALLAM HPC 208 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"2 PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION 1 10.11.2017 HPC PACKAGE 2 01.02.2018 HPC PACKAGE 2nd ROUND 3 03.13.2018 HPC V3.1 P114IV.B. 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:3/22/2018 12:21:29 PMDUNCAN SKIHAUS LLC 533 W. HALLAM HPC 209 PROPOSED PERSPECTIVES NORTHEAST ELEVATION A NORTHEAST PHOTO A NORTHEAST ELEVATION B SOUTHEAST PHOTO B 1 10.11.2017 HPC PACKAGE 2 01.02.2018 HPC PACKAGE 2nd ROUND 3 03.13.2018 HPC V3.1 P115IV.B. 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:3/22/2018 12:21:30 PMDUNCAN SKIHAUS LLC 533 W. HALLAM HPC 210 PROPOSED PERSPECTIVES NORTH ELEVATION C NORTH ELEVATION PHOTO C NORTH ELEVATION D NORTH ELEVATION PHOTO D 1 10.11.2017 HPC PACKAGE 2 01.02.2018 HPC PACKAGE 2nd ROUND 3 03.13.2018 HPC V3.1 P116IV.B. 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:3/22/2018 12:21:30 PMDUNCAN SKIHAUS LLC 533 W. HALLAM HPC 211 PROPOSED PERSPECTIVES 1 03.13.2018 HPC V3.1 NORTH ELEVATION E NORTH ELEVATION F NORTH WEST ELEVATION G WEST ELEVATION HP117 IV.B. 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:3/22/2018 12:21:30 PMDUNCAN SKIHAUS LLC 533 W. HALLAM HPC 212 PROPOSED PERSPECTIVES 1 03.13.2018 HPC V3.1 WEST ELEVATION I SOUTHWEST ELEVATION J SOUTHWEST ELEVATION K SOUTH EAST ELEVATION LP118 IV.B. DN UP 208 sf 366 sf 41sf < 5'-6"sf58sf <30" Vertical 58sf <30" VerticalOPEN TO BELOW CHIMNEY EXISTING SQUARE FEET FLOOR AREA GARAGE (<250 EXEMPT) TOTAL UPPER LEVEL FLOOR AREA ATTIC <30" (EXEMPT) TOTAL TOTAL FAR 1,853sf 232sf 1,853sf 574sf 116sf 574sf 2,427sf PORCH (EXEMPT)50sf <5'-6" (EXEMPT)41sf 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:3/22/2018 12:21:30 PMDUNCAN SKIHAUS LLC 533 W. HALLAM HPC 300 EXISTING UPPER LEVEL AREA PLAN SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"1 EXISTING UPPER LEVEL AREA CALCULATIONS 1 10.11.2017 HPC PACKAGE 2 01.02.2018 HPC PACKAGE 2nd ROUND 3 03.13.2018 HPC V3.1 P119IV.B. 1,640 sf 232 sf (GARAGE) <250 = 0 207 sf 31 sf 50 sf EXISTING SQUARE FEET FLOOR AREA GARAGE (<250 EXEMPT) TOTAL UPPER LEVEL FLOOR AREA ATTIC <30" (EXEMPT) TOTAL TOTAL FAR 1,853sf 232sf 1,853sf 574sf 116sf 574sf 2,427sf PORCH (EXEMPT)50sf <5'-6" (EXEMPT)41sf 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:3/22/2018 12:21:31 PMDUNCAN SKIHAUS LLC 533 W. HALLAM HPC 301 EXISTING MAIN LEVEL AREA PLAN SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"1 EXISTING MAIN LEVEL AREA CALCULATIONS 1 10.11.2017 HPC PACKAGE 2 01.02.2018 HPC PACKAGE 2nd ROUND 3 03.13.2018 HPC V3.1 P120IV.B. D CLO. MASTER BDRM CLO. ELEV. W/D OFFICE / SITTING ROOMLANDING MASTER BATH W.C. LEVEL 2 990 sf OPEN TO BELOW SHWR 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:3/22/2018 12:21:31 PMDUNCAN SKIHAUS LLC 533 W. HALLAM HPC 302 PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL AREA PLAN SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL AREA CALCULATIONS 1 10.11.2017 HPC PACKAGE 2 01.02.2018 HPC PACKAGE 2nd ROUND 3 03.13.2018 HPC V3.1 P121IV.B. ELEV. GARAGE STORAGE ENTRY PANTRY PWDR OFFICE ENTRYENTRY HALL KITCHEN CASUAL DINING DINING STAIRS BIKES GARAGE AREA = 550 sf LEVEL 1 AREA = 2126 sf 92 sf 50 sf 51 sf LIGHT WELL BELOW LIGHT WELL BELOW LIGHT WELL BELOW LIGHT WELL BELOW 46 sf BAR CHINA CUPBOARD 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:3/22/2018 12:21:32 PMDUNCAN SKIHAUS LLC 533 W. HALLAM HPC 303 PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL AREA PLAN SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL AREA CALCULATIONS 1 10.11.2017 HPC PACKAGE 2 01.02.2018 HPC PACKAGE 2nd ROUND 3 03.13.2018 HPC V3.1 P122IV.B. LIGHT WELL LIGHT WELL CLO. LIGHT WELL LIGHT WELL BDRM #4 W.C. BATH #2 BDRM #1 BDRM #2 CLO. DRESS W.C. BATH #1 W.C. BATH #2 BDRM #3 CLO. DRESS ELEV. CLO. BATH #4 ELEV. MECH. LAUNDRY MECH. PWDR FAMILY / GAME CLO. DRESS SHWRSHWR SHWR W.C. BASEMENT LEVEL AREA = 3597 sf 23 sf 25 sf 33 sf 27 sf 65' - 5 1/2"14' - 8 1/2"3' - 0"6' - 0 7/8"12' - 1"12' - 1"12' - 1"3' - 0" 3' - 8"56' - 9"3' - 0"23' - 5"3' - 8"37' - 4"1' - 3 7/8"3' - 8"42' - 3 7/8"3' - 0"3' - 0"8"64' - 1 1/2" 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:3/22/2018 12:21:33 PMDUNCAN SKIHAUS LLC 533 W. HALLAM HPC 304 PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL AREA PLAN SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL AREA CALCULATIONS 1 10.11.2017 HPC PACKAGE 2 01.02.2018 HPC PACKAGE 2nd ROUND 3 03.13.2018 HPC V3.1 P123IV.B. -ABOVE GRADE (EXPOSED) -BELOW GRADE HATCH AREA LEGEND - (ELEVATIONS) 3' - 0" 21 sf 10 sf 10' - 10 1/8"9" 5 sf 2 sf T.O.F.F. @ BL 88' - 6 1/2" 695 sf 10' - 10 1/8"9" 5 sf 2 sf 10' - 10 1/8"3' - 0" 21 sf 10 sf 10' - 10 1/8"9" 5 sf 2 sf 8' - 8 1/2" 94 sf 10' - 10 1/8"5' - 6"10' - 10 1/8"59 sf 10' - 10 1/8"3' - 4" 36 sf 378 sf 233 sf 3' - 0"10' - 10 1/8"21 sf 10 sf 3' - 0"10' - 10 1/8"21 sf 10 sf 3' - 0"10' - 10 1/8"21 sf 10 sf 601 sf 55' - 5"10' - 10 1/8"3' - 0"10' - 10 1/8"21 sf 10 sf 3' - 0"10' - 10 1/8"21 sf 10 sf 36' - 0"10' - 10 1/8"390 sf 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:3/22/2018 12:21:35 PMDUNCAN SKIHAUS LLC 533 W. HALLAM HPC 305 PROPOSED AREA ELEVATIONS-BASEMENT LEVEL 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:3/22/2018 12:21:35 PMDUNCAN SKIHAUS LLC 533 W. HALLAM HPC 305 PROPOSED AREA ELEVATIONS-BASEMENT LEVEL 1 10.11.2017 HPC PACKAGE 2 01.02.2018 HPC PACKAGE 2nd ROUND 3 03.13.2018 HPC V3.1 1 10.11.2017 HPC PACKAGE 2 01.02.2018 HPC PACKAGE 2nd ROUND 3 03.13.2018 HPC V3.1 SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"1N 1 SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"2N 2 SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"3 3 SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"4 4 SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"5 5 SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"6 6 SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"7 7 SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"8 8 SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"9 9 SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"10 10 SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"11 11 SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"12 12 SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"13 13 SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"14 14 SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"15 15 SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"16 16 SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"17 17 SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"18 18P124 IV.B. BASEMENT LEVEL FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS BASEMENT LEVEL TOTAL = 226 sf LEVEL 1 = 2,126 sf LEVEL 2 LEVEL 1 TOTAL = 2,676 sf 46 sf 92 sf 50 sf +51 sf (EXCLUDED) = 239 sf LEVEL 1 AREA GARAGE AREA LEVEL 2 TOTAL = 990 sf 3,240 sf 300 sf TOTAL FAR ALLOWABLE LOT FAR ALLOWABLE HPC FAR INCENTIVE (500 POSSIBLE) SUMMARY 226 sf 2,676 sf + 990 sf BUILDING TOTAL = 3,892 sf BASEMENT LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 BUILDING TOTAL = 3,540 sf GARAGE EXEMPTION 375 sf DECK AREA (EXCLUDED) = 550 sf BUILDING TOTAL -GARAGE EXEMPTION 3,892 sf -375 sf TOTAL AREA = 3,517 sf -ABOVE GRADE (EXPOSED) -BELOW GRADE HATCH AREA LEGEND - (ELEVATIONS) -LIGHT WELL -DECKS HATCH AREA LEGEND - (PLAN) -GARAGE -LIVABLE ABOVE GRADE = 162 sf BELOW GRADE =2,562 sf ABOVE GRADE (162 sf) / BELOW GRADE (2,562 sf) =6.3% 6.3 % X INCLUDED BASEMENT AREA (3,597 sf) = 226 sf TOTAL INCLUDED BASEMENT LEVEL AREA = 226 sf ELEVATION ABOVE BELOW 1 21 10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 18 16 TOTALS 162 sf 2,562 sf ELEVATION AREAS (sf.) BASEMENT LEVEL FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS 17 5 2 695 5 2 21 10 5 2 94 59 36 378 233 21 10 21 10 21 10 390 15 601 21 10 21 10 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:3/22/2018 12:21:35 PMDUNCAN SKIHAUS LLC 533 W. HALLAM HPC 306 PROPOSED AREA CALCULATIONS 1 10.11.2017 HPC PACKAGE 2 01.02.2018 HPC PACKAGE 2nd ROUND 3 03.13.2018 HPC V3.1 P125IV.B. 64 sf 7 sf 124 sf 3 sf 76 sf 3 sf 68 sf 23 sf 10 sf 6 sf 83 sf 728 sf 34 sf 12 sf 21 sf EXISTING SQUARE FEET WALL AREA ROOF AREA TOTAL AREA OF DEMOLITION SQUARE FEET WALL AREA ROOF AREA TOTAL PERCENTAGE OF DEMOLITION SQUARE FEET WALL AREA ROOF AREA TOTAL 2,663 3,214 5,877 2,136 2,267 4,403 80.2% 70.5% 74.9% KEY EXISTING TO REMAIN TO BE DEMOLISHED 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:3/22/2018 12:21:37 PMDUNCAN SKIHAUS LLC 533 W. HALLAM HPC 307 EXISTING ELEVATION AREAS (DEMOLITION) SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"1 NORTH ELEVATION DEMO AREAS SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"2 EAST ELEVATION DEMO AREAS 1 10.11.2017 HPC PACKAGE 2 01.02.2018 HPC PACKAGE 2nd ROUND 3 03.13.2018 HPC V3.1 P126IV.B. 184 sf 667 sf 6 sf 122 sf 16 sf 14 sf 27 sf 75 sf 65 sf 182 sf 38 sf 5 sf KEY EXISTING TO REMAIN TO BE DEMOLISHED EXISTING SQUARE FEET WALL AREA ROOF AREA TOTAL AREA OF DEMOLITION SQUARE FEET WALL AREA ROOF AREA TOTAL PERCENTAGE OF DEMOLITION SQUARE FEET WALL AREA ROOF AREA TOTAL 2,663 3,214 5,877 2,136 2,267 4,403 80.2% 70.5% 74.9% 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:3/22/2018 12:21:38 PMDUNCAN SKIHAUS LLC 533 W. HALLAM HPC 308 EXISTING ELEVATION AREAS (DEMOLITION) SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"1 WEST ELEVATION DEMO AREAS SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"2 SOUTH ELEVATION DEMO AREASSCALE1/4" = 1'-0"3 NORTH SECTION DEMO AREAS SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"4 SOUTH SECTION DEMO AREAS 1 10.11.2017 HPC PACKAGE 2 01.02.2018 HPC PACKAGE 2nd ROUND 3 03.13.2018 HPC V3.1 P127IV.B. 7 : 12 7 : 1212 : 1212 : 1212 : 1212 : 1212 : 1212 : 12 12 : 1212 : 12 1 : 12 2.5 : 12 8.5 : 12 6 : 121 : 1212 : 1212 : 12 7 : 1214 : 1214 : 12 14 : 126 : 126 : 12 6 : 1214 : 1214 : 1212 : 1212 : 12 FLAT FLAT6 : 126 : 127sf 100sf 310sf 25sf 39sf 114sf 40sf 167sf 61sf 152sf 125sf 38sf38sf 235sf 31sf 123sf 217sf 119sf135sf 136sf 120sf 118sf 112sf 124sf 117sf 30sf 89sf 78sf 78sf 34sf 12sf 63sf 15sf 4sf KEY EXISTING TO REMAIN TO BE DEMOLISHED EXISTING SQUARE FEET WALL AREA ROOF AREA TOTAL AREA OF DEMOLITION SQUARE FEET WALL AREA ROOF AREA TOTAL PERCENTAGE OF DEMOLITION SQUARE FEET WALL AREA ROOF AREA TOTAL 2,663 3,214 5,877 2,136 2,267 4,403 80.2% 70.5% 74.9% 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:3/22/2018 12:21:39 PMDUNCAN SKIHAUS LLC 533 W. HALLAM HPC 309 EXISTING ROOF AREAS(DEMOLITION) SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"1 ROOF DEMO AREAS 1 10.11.2017 HPC PACKAGE 2 01.02.2018 HPC PACKAGE 2nd ROUND 3 03.13.2018 HPC V3.1 P128IV.B. '1 EXHIBIT AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E),ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 51 Meadows Road ,Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: April 11 12018 STATE OF COLORADO ) County of Pitkin ) I, Ricki McHugh (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304-060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. X Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Saidtice as posted at least fifteen ) days prior to the public hearing on the d r of 20 / to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the ported notice (.sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen'(15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so,noticed is attached hereto. Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach, summarized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the neighborhood outreach summary, including the method of public notification and a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto. (continued on next page) Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development. The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions, PDs that create more than one lot, and new Planned Developments are subject to this notice requirement. Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to t public hearing on such amendments. Signature The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" wacknow),edge�l before me this day of t\nn 201> by t� 1 lL�y h WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL MICHELLE T.ALLMON NOTARY PUBLIC M commission expires: -4 a a01 q STATE OF COLORADO NOTARY ID#19994008989 My Comrnisaion Expires July 1, 2019 }1 Not u lic ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: • COPYOFTHEPUBLICATION • PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE(SIGN) • LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL • APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTATE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3 .Z JEPI, YRA-IM p �I?Lfa ,i pWL cit:�,J rtnVr�rttluta 'e,tis i r. . d ']�'r r' _ Z° _ L,`��1� �' web:Jrlf =f.�>f'hr"'`JJ `.. '♦,y ' Y ti `tr ..K �•.S,�r '•ar s I '�`- -... . ai�`�"ri 1 J J'/� ,.: P -I�"��' 44 TE � �� ! te". �'f �f - r mrd•' !' ����'� ~I 71 N,.�'•� •.� � �,..R�e'..�.�-��, -n� � � /,./ � f� 'Ir�y 3' •ia ./ t '>, ->avvel-"��.1�' it is 1. '� �v e r �ty ss'r �¢'%. �` ! �4�.^Iftil ! s1 r !` vla.M'#1� •. f l � i' •pr «c` ` . � -m ! i � -�-p-- 1 `ti -.,r E 1 �,✓° l'�r4q. .E ,til ur»✓ +} .y -:� +.t t - j Ar "IA �r Y >En"vt a n '�r�.<' t ♦ � D - �r r��%P"Imo-.�•. 1 S�/ >1'� I-ryv 4-M FAI�M m • y.] d .�'? ,l.sl �' r a +Tae /q � �a:�rRsr" •$ e' -.-.yy`t-<�u,i �Y - .ems- \ x�f{~>i,�`A9gy - %iw sem" ♦ECa"'_7."S"Y++�irl•^ >u:1 1 v `y`>^�.! -•i'y2r - .$„C. r. .�'u c ' .�, s2"� nw �rr 1 1 .qv axI "Cdr y, i4 _�,., _<Si` �r•ti.'eS�t /i e 1"a '.se5 .. �- �.-� :a�:€frJ..�. !! � 1i- ��• 't �-'�A-0I� 1J !.rQ�.��F'��.'-�'a.'.i ��.:1 r l�, +>i aL. EXHIBIT From:John Sarpa<johriffiohnsarpa.c om> Date: April 10, 2018 at 7:44:10 PM MDT To: Ricki McHugh <mchughaspen@me.com> Subject: Re: Original fireplaces Sure Ricki. The original Trustee townhomes which our flnn'purchased in 1984 (Savanah Limited Partnership) had fireplaces in the north west comer of the living room. Most townhome owners changed the location of it, as did Merrill Ford with hers in number 51. Please let me know if you would like any other information. Regards John SARPA John Sarpa Sarpa Development 501 East Hyman Ave- Suite 201 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Cell: 970-379-2595 John@JohnSarpa.com ,i, or '��'b c 3 or rl `�� ��• �YY��� �: �- 1• . 3 ,�o -w gin. � � , �3 .� - �,"�+ 1 ;a LO [n Sz W O Ul ci c K —•� Cc U a ��. aJe O) N U r. N U- of O g q r scr _ •. (. � 11 � J �L n y . � ..+� � ar W .� ,� Shy y ��y i r � s1� fB Q)- CL � .-PAR �L y` x t a<e •. �.1 .� � �-�� `���6�L ,�;�-'may COc�c�/�GL ��ti-�-�. Com- '"�'' /�/ �`A�'- ����� ���G��-� ���«�� �� _ ,.��� C-z- G ��v � �--. _ �� �� d �a