HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20180808
AGENDA
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
August 08, 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 of July 25th, 2018
C. Public Comments
D. Commissioner member comments
E. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent)
F. Project Monitoring
223 E. Hallam
Project Monitor List
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. 5:20 NEW BUSINESS
A. 210 W. Main- Final Major Development Review, PUBLIC HEARING
V. 6:30 ADJOURN
Next Resolution Number: 12
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 JULY 25, 2018
1
Commissioners in attendance: Gretchen Greenwood, Jeffrey Halferty, Nora Berko, Scott Kendrick, Bob
Blaich, Roger Moyer, Richard Lai, Sheri Sanzone and Willis Pember.
Staff present:
Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk
Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney
Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Planner
Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner
Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mr. Kendrick moved to approve the draft minutes of June 20th, Mr. Lai
seconded. All in favor, motion carried.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: None.
DISCLOSURES OF CONFLICT: Ms. Sanzone will be stepping out for 304 E. Hopkins.
PROJECT MONITORING: Ms. Simon will follow up with a couple people outside of the meeting.
Mr. Halferty joined the meeting.
STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon mentioned the special meeting on August 1st, as well as the regular
meetings on August 8th and August 22nd. September will now be devoted to Lift 1A. Ms. Yoon will be
absent next week on August 1st.
CERTIFICATES OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: None.
CALL UPS: None.
PUBLIC NOTICE: Ms. Bryan said she has all required notices.
Mr. Halferty apologized for being tardy and said he will be stepping down for 500 W. Main.
Mr. Pember joined the meeting.
Ms. Simon mentioned there are no estimated time frames on the agenda so she recapped the time
frames for each item in order to stay on time and end by 7:00 p.m.
OLD BUSINESS: 304 E. Hopkins Ave.
Amy Simon
Ms. Simon said this is a continued public hearing for a demolition of a non-historic building located in
the historic downtown commercial area. The proposal is to build a one-story building with a basement.
The main floor will be occupied by a restaurant and the lower floor will be required second-tier
commercial space and cannot be directly connected to the restaurant and main floor. The project
requires mitigation for affordable housing. We are asking for the project to be continued tonight for
restudy. Staff finds the most restudy incomplete regarding the design guidelines. We have confirmed
P1
II.B.
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 25, 2018
2
that accessible circulation is required, such as an elevator or ramping to the second floor. The applicant
showed some massing studies and they are not proposing any changes to the front elements or to the
affordable housing or pedestrian amenity. Some prioritization is needed and staff still feels that these
items are important. Perhaps the pedestrian amenity isn’t as important as accommodating the second
floor or balancing out various issues that are regulating development on this property in a different way.
Staff is recommending continuation again. We feel this building is an odd fit for this area of downtown
and stature is lacking here. The planters have been deleted and some additional windows have been
addended, but the pedestrian amenity dimensions haven’t changed. Much of what they’re providing is
underneath that roof, but should be open to the sky.
Mr. Halferty asked for clarification on the view plane. Ms. Simon said they are under the view plane and
we are not recommending they pierce the view plane.
Mr. Kendrick asked about staff reaching out to APCHA and said he is unclear what their
recommendation was. Ms. Simon said the applicant has proposed offsite credits and APCHA supported
it and agreed with it, but they are not opposed to onsite either. This is evaluated on a case by case
basis.
Ms. Berko asked what the motivation is for one floor and Ms. Simon said the applicant can explain
further.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Chris Bendon of Bendon Adams, Bryce Johnson, advisor with Hillstone,
Mathias Lentz, Senior Architect with Hillstone
Mr. Bendon spoke about them wanting to do one thing and doing it really well. He covered the issues
from the last meeting and summarized for the board regarding the planters, standards and guidelines,
transparency and proportions, restudy of the second floor, trash, etc. We got rid of the “hot tubs” out
front (planters). They still have a desire to pull the building back off the property line and they feel it is
consistent with the character of the block. Our setback helps establish the prominence of White House
and not take away from it. We think there is a historic precedence and it also accommodates the street
level amenity. We did study enclosing the pedestrian amenity and showed plans on screen of ideas. We
think this is a bit disruptive and clumsy and looks terrible. The applicants want to remain restaurateurs.
The guidelines do allow HPC to consider the historic context of the pedestrian amenity space. We think
this is a nice context and massing between the two buildings. We were asked to look at the main floor
ceiling height and it is just shy of 10 ft. 11. White house is about 9 ft. The 308 building is a little taller on
the inside. We are comfortable with the height we’re at, otherwise, it starts to feel like a vault when it’s
too high. Regarding the pedestrian amenity space, HPC can allow this space and allow it to be covered
and this would be a year-round covering. There are a couple ways to situate this space. It is a well-
designed and versatile space. There was a request from staff to look at variance, but we’re pleased by
the way this space works. It is a variance free project and the code is new so we don’t want to pursue a
variance. They don’t want to stumble into the new space with headlines of a variance. We looked at the
window heights and have made them higher and the sill has been lowered. The sill is about 30 inches or
so and very comfortable. We are not taking it all the way down to the ground. Regarding the discussion
of adding a second floor; there is complexity that comes with this. Massing is an issue so that it doesn’t
look clumsy and overstuffed and there is an exiting requirement with two egress points. The restaurant
is compromised on the ground floor and the affordable housing space doesn’t provide a great living
situation for someone. We’re not interested in pursuing a public vote. Mr. Bendon showed plans for a
P2
II.B.
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 25, 2018
3
two-bedroom unit upstairs and showed how the restaurant becomes severely compromised. It starts to
become a building that is purely comprised of mitigation and not much of a restaurant. There would
also be some view plane challenges. The last time we met, you guys wanted to see the recon, so we are
showing you the background work that we’ve done. We’ve had a good on-going conversation with the
environmental health department, which handles the trash for both locations, so this box has been
checked. We are very comfortable with this proposal and the board was close to supporting it last time.
The land use code prefers on site housing and we think the code is agnostic. The affordable housing
program is award winning so we feel this should be used. Mr. Bendon read some of the code regarding
affordable housing and replacement units to the board. The Hillstone family is looking at this with a
long view. They want this to be here for the next 30-50 years.
Mr. Halferty referred to the plans and noted the unit upstairs is large and asked if it would need a
variance for the view plane and Mr. Bendon said yes, for the mechanicals and vertical circulation and we
aren’t interested in pursuing public votes. Mr. Halferty asked about combining the trash area for both
restaurants and asked if they have a plan for down the road in case one space sells and leaves. Mr.
Bendon they will create an operating agreement regarding this and the easements. We’re not opposed
to any cross agreements. Mr. Lentz agreed and said they would get the proper documentation to
protect this area. Mr. Halferty asked about the front entry and if the design team looked into a
retractable awning. Mr. Bendon said they didn’t touch on that. Mr. Lentz said they studied different
types of awnings. We need protection all year round and the retractable awning would only extend 6
feet which wasn’t much. We also looked at the ability to have snow guards, gutters, etc. We feel this
would not provide the level of detail and comfort for guests. Mr. Bendon said what they have presented
provides a level of permanence.
Mr. Blaich noted the drawing on page 177 representing the affordable unit and said he doesn’t see any
evidence of access to that. Mr. Lentz said It’s schematic and just shows the space. It’s a detail that
would be added. Mr. Bendon said we’d have to have a long hallway. Is it conceivable? Sure, but we
wouldn’t pursue this.
Ms. Berko asked if there is potential massing that could be compatible and Mr. Bendon said not in our
estimation. We aren’t happy with how the plans look.
Mr. Pember asked them to explain the public amenity presentation from last time to now. Mr. Bendon
said they discussed with Hillstone and asked them if they’re interested in reducing it and they said no.
Mr. Johnson has been coming here for 40 years so he knows the sensitivity around view planes, etc.
White House has a comfortable space out front and so the answer to the question is no and no. Mr.
Lentz said they have to strike a balance with size. Aspen likes vitality on the street so we want to
contribute to that. We studied all options using different percentages and the function falls apart and
the process becomes unpleasant.
Ms. Greenwood said it looks like they’ve come back with the same presentation. Mr. Bendon said the
conversation has been around affordable housing. We had explored onsite, but we didn’t bring studies
last time so this time we’ve come back with the studies that we have done. By not providing the
affordable housing onsite, we are providing offsite through the program. Ms. Greenwood asked if they
have had any conversations with their neighbor to the east and Mr. Lentz said they’ve had some brief
conversations to avoid issues in the future. We will continue speaking with them and haven’t heard
anything negative to this point.
P3
II.B.
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 25, 2018
4
Ms. Simon recommend they don’t get drawn too deep into what is required by code. It’s complicated so
just keep it to the guidelines. This project will be going to city council due to a call up notice. You’ll see in
resolution, you have to grant four variations on design standards so it’s not really variance free and
there are exceptions being requested.
PUBLIC COMMENT: Peter Fornell – he said he can’t state enough how important the housing credit
program is and he feels this didn’t get the level of importance last time. The housing board has a full
staff which live and breathe the housing credit program on a daily basis. They made a unanimous
recommendation to use the housing credits for this project and they did this because the program
creates credits in residential zone districts and this is what we want. The notion that onsite is preferred
predates the program. This is a much better option and living in the alley downtown is not preferred.
Public comment closed.
Ms. Greenwood referred to page 14 as issues to be discuss. The focus of the project has been the
affordable housing issue, for the most part. We are here to focus on the building and whether it fits into
our commercial core and if it is appropriate for Aspen. We should look at the design considerations to
see if the building fits in.
Mr. Halferty said he appreciates the massing studies. The view plane is important and the massing is a
challenging aspect. There is a conflict architecturally with the proposed awning. The pedestrian amenity
could still use some study because we want that open to the sky aspect. The snow loads and drainage
are important, so he understands. The setback is encouraged because it sits back from the resource to
the west. That standard is a challenging one. He appreciates the heights. If you can get a unit up there,
that would be fantastic, but watching what happened next door, that wasn’t very pleasant. He’s a big
fan of the affordable housing credit program and thinks that is a good option due to the way this
building is laid out. He is in support of some of the variations and reductions and he likes that they don’t
want to ask for a lot. With some fine tuning, he thinks it’s moving forward and although the changes are
subtle, he likes them.
Mr. Blaich said that Mr. Halferty covered most of his thoughts, but he doesn’t support affordable
housing on this site and feels that it’s a huge mistake. A lot of the issues will be resolved if affordable
housing isn’t on this site.
Mr. Kendrick is in favor of the affordable housing credits on this project as there are too many
constraints. He likes that the building is trying to respect the historic property, but he’s not in favor of
the front porch and feels the windows are covered by the front porch. He does appreciate the planters
being removed. It’s getting closer.
Mr. Lai said his thoughts are a repeat from last time. He likes the idea of affordable housing downtown
and feels it’s good to have a mix, but he agrees that affordable housing on this site is a mistake. There
are too many impediments regarding the view plane and feels the cost is too great. He thinks the intent
of having a housing requirement in the downtown area is asking the restauranteur to spend too much
time, effort and money to meet this requirement. He agrees with having a minimalist approach in the
front façade. He wishes you didn’t have to have the stairs going down. He respects the fact that the
applicant identifies their intent to remain a restauranteur instead of a developer. He doesn’t mind the
P4
II.B.
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 25, 2018
5
solid awning, but sees the advantage of a retractable awning. Maybe it could be designed to be a
combo of both. Generally, he in favor as presented.
Mr. Moyer said there are two main issues here. The first one being housing and secondly, he doesn’t
see this as meeting any requirements for messy vitality in downtown and feels it doesn’t fit in. He thinks
it’s a no. He also thinks we need the downtown unit for a bachelor living downtown who can stumble
home at night. It’s a piece of crap. There was some bad press about this too.
Mr. Pember said he felt the affordable housing and massing studies were a little feigned in seriousness.
It’s a confused combination of elements and seems to be conflicted with itself. The setback is
extraordinary and that is part of the problem for him along with the awning. An awning that extends 6
feet, is a pretty generous awning. He thinks the building lacks stature. He read an excerpt from the staff
memo regarding the design guidelines.
Ms. Berko said she agrees with Mr. Moyer that the affordable housing be in town, but she understands
what APCHA is saying too. She’s having a hard time seeing how this western saloon front enhances and
respects and celebrates the white house. What you have on the east is challenging, but you could put
some energy into the staff recommendations of other items if the affordable housing is off the table
now. She feels that it deserves better.
Ms. Greenwood said we are almost unanimous that this isn’t a site for affordable housing. The credits
program is always a better choice, but as for the project, as a whole, you need to start over. You have
problems you’ve created yourself with the large setback and it doesn’t meet plate heights that are
consistent around Aspen. The façade doesn’t fit with the historic store fronts. The overhang over the
stairs doesn’t provide anything and we encourage you to come back with a different building. Create a
building which is a piece of Aspen. I don’t know where this belongs, but it’s not in Aspen.
Mr. Bendon summarized the suggestions and recommendations to make sure he was clear on all
aspects.
MOTION: Mr. Moyer motioned to continue, seconded by Mr. Blaich.
Mr. Moyer amended to add the date of September 12th, Mr. Blaich seconded.
Roll call vote: Mr. Pember, yes; Mr. Kendrick, yes; Mr. Blaich, yes; Ms. Berko, yes; Ms. Greenwood, yes;
Mr. Moyer, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes. 7-0, motion carried.
Mr. Bendon asked for a vote on affordable housing, but Ms. Bryan said that is not appropriate.
Ms. Sanzone reentered the meeting
NEW BUSINESS: 135 E. Cooper Avenue
Ms. Simon
Ms. Simon said this is a minor review with variations. In March, the board reviewed a connector that
links the historic house to a 2003 addition. There have been many conversations over the years and a
solution was found for a two-story link and this is in for a building permit right now. Now, we have a
separate proposal to expand the addition to the building. This must be reviewed under the new
guidelines. It was required that the two discussions be had separately because the connector came in
under the old code. In analyzing this application, we realized the property is over allowed in floor area.
P5
II.B.
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 25, 2018
6
In order to pursue the addition, which is 145 square foot addition, the applicant must free up some
existing floor area. They have proposed to demolish an attic level space in the historic home, which
serves as a bedroom and was granted a CO. That level of the house is to be removed and the freed up
area will be used for the proposed addition. You do need to consider if it complies with the design
guidelines and whether it complies with the setback. There is a long history with this property and HPC
had decided with the applicant that the west side was the best place to put an addition. It is a large
Queen Anne and on the national registry. HPC liked seeing the three sides of the house. The applicant
would like to expand the addition by moving the wall closer to Cooper by 5 ft. 10. The main challenge is
the addition coming into near alignment with the historic resource. Guideline compliance is our
concern. The addition was approved in 2003. You would have to grant another variance. Staff is
recommending continuation and restudy.
Mr. Pember asked how much are they exceeding the new guidelines and Ms. Simon said she doesn’t
know the number and the applicant can probably explain more in detail.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Mitch Haas representing the owner, Christy Farrer, Christof Eigelberger and
Cassandra Stevens of Eigelberger Architecture and Design.
Mr. Hass showed a plan on screen of the existing addition. It sits 2.8 feet from the property line today
and please take note of a couple of very large trees in the front. Immediately to the west is a big
concrete retaining wall. There is no other viable area to be used. He showed an area of a proposed
change to the existing footprint. It’s a very minor change in terms of the overall property and it doesn’t
take up a lot of square footage and barely extends where the lightwell is today. Mr. Haas showed plans
of where this has been and where it has gone since the beginning. Regarding guideline 10.3, he showed
a view of the home as it is today and said the right side is subordinate to the historic resource. The
addition is compatible in size and scale. Guideline 10.4 talks about the historic resource remaining the
entry point and main focus of the property as viewed from the street. The standard does allow HPC to
waive this and we feel we meet 2 out of 3. The addition relates to the resource and if we meet 10.8
regarding mass, we should meet this as well. Regarding guideline 10.6, it is a product of its own time
and we feel we meet this. We satisfy the letter and the spirit of the guidelines with a successful and
clean design. Regarding setbacks, we are asking for a simple variation, which he showed on screen. Staff
expressed concerns for a loss of front yard space, but this isn’t a criterion. By moving the west wall
forward, we are mitigating against impacts of the neighbor on the historic resource.
Mr. Kendrick asked how they are getting rid of square footage and Mr. Haas said it would be the third
floor attic space with low ceilings that will be removed because it’s not a functional space. The floor will
be taken out. Mr. Kendrick asked what happens to the existing light well and Mr. Haas said that
bedroom below would no longer be a bedroom so it would no longer require a light well and it will now
become a gym. We are not adding below grade space.
Ms. Greenwood noticed the height of the addition is taller than historic gable and asked how much
taller it is. Mr. Eigleberger said the current eave of the historic gable is lower by a foot and a half than
the newer addition. It is 18 inches higher.
Mr. Halferty said there was some discussion last week on a landscape plan and wanted to know if they
have investigated a landscape plan yet. Mr. Eigleberger said we have not addressed this, but we would
like to create a planting bed in front of the new addition indicating it is not a point of entry.
P6
II.B.
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 25, 2018
7
Ms. Sanzone asked if a landscape plan was required as a part of this and Mr. Eigleberger said no. Ms.
Simon said they didn’t propose any changes so we accepted things would stay the same, but now this is
new information so we would need condition of approval. Ms. Sanzone asked if they’ve met with parks
about the evergreen tree and Mr. Eigleberger said yes, they want to preserve that tree and we came to
an agreement to not damage any of the root systems and have no bearing point on the tree.
Mr. Moyer asked about removing the light well due to safety issues. He asked if there was anywhere
else to put it that would not interfere with setbacks. Ms. Simon said they initially wanted to put one on
the west side and she spoke with the building department about it and there are two lightwells in the
basement on the east side that are considered adequate. Mr. Eigleberger pointed out a very large
walkout area in the basement used by the living space down there along with the bedroom spaces down
there.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
Mr. Halferty said he appreciates the evolution of the property as he has seen it a lot as it becomes more
and more thought provoking. He feels the proposed addition and the square footage is good and shows
proper camouflage and is the appropriate place to meet guidelines. The footprint is in compliance and
he feels the variance is ok. Guideline 10.8 is met. The new roofline is more in line with what we’ve had
historically and the addition exceeds the setbacks in the R6 zone. He continued to list off the rest of the
guidelines and feels the project complies with all of them. He still feels the historic resource is the main
focus and he can support this.
Mr. Lai said that looking at the north elevation, he is worried a little about the proportions. He would
like to see a restudy with greater articulation and a finer scale of the windows.
Mr. Kendrick said the mass and scale of the addition is already quite large. The new addition will just add
to it and he feels that it takes over. The density on that lot takes away from the historic resource so I
would like to see a restudy.
Ms. Berko said she will support staff’s recommendations. She is really sensitive to adding square
footage to the addition and feels it is a burden on the resource and the neighborhood. She supports and
agrees with all of staff’s recommendations.
Ms. Greenwood said the photo on the screen says a thousand stories. The addition is not subordinate to
the resource, as it is. We’ve seen this property a lot and feels uncomfortable with them asking for a
variance. It needs restudy and need to bring the mass and scale down. The resource needs to maintain
as the dominant building. It’s important that the addition sits back and is subordinate.
Mr. Pember said he thinks the existing addition is vile. He supports doing something better to this.
Mr. Blaich said the aesthetic and scale of the addition are the big concerns for him and he suggests
restudy.
MOTION: Mr. Kendrick moved to restudy and continue to September 12th, Mr. Moyer seconded.
Roll call vote: Mr. Blaich, yes; Ms. Berko, yes; Mr. Pember, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Mr. Kendrick, yes; Mr.
Moyer, yes; Ms. Greenwood, yes. 7-0, motion carried.
MOTION: Mr. Blaich motioned to extend the meeting, Mr. Moyer seconded. All in favor, motion carried.
P7
II.B.
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 25, 2018
8
NEW BUSINESS: 500 W Main St.
Amy Simon
Ms. Simon reminded the board that Rowland & Broughton is moving their offices to 500 W. Main (the
Mesa Store), which they bought a couple of years ago. HPC reviewed a substantial addition with
commercial and residential and the team scaled back from that and now they are just remodeling the
historic building, which will accommodate their office. There is all kinds of restoration going on with
porches, windows, chimneys, etc. They are looking at other options now, such as, splitting off the west
lot into a 3000-square foot parcel. They are going to council to ask for that approval and to allow them
transferable development rights. When you create TDR’s, you don’t have to act on them, it’s your
choice. If they receive approval for seven TDR’s, it would strip the property of all development. It will
cost them and they will lose some FAR. In order for them to split the lot, they do need some variations.
There are issues such as, setback violations and parking.
Mr. Pember asked if there is subsequent development on the split lot, will that go through HPC? Ms.
Simon said yes, it’s historic and will stay a landmark so it will come through HPC. A big issue here is if
the new lot is created, the building code requires a ten-foot separation between the new west lot and
the historic building. They will have a 15-foot-wide building envelope on the west side.
Mr. Blaich asked about what they originally approved and why can’t that building can’t be built for some
other purpose. Ms. Simon said those approvals are gone now. Each time they scaled back, the new idea
eliminated the old ones and all they have now is the interior remodel.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION: John Roland and Dana Ellis of Rowland & Broughton Architecture
Mr. Roland said in the 1880’s, there was another building that was all the way up to the front lot line,
just like the Mesa building is today. It’s been interesting, we’ve gotten accustomed to the openness. It’s
created a lot of interest in our minds as a quasi-public park, so to speak. It would still be our private
property, but people could walk through and enjoy. Ms. Ellis showed the plan which is currently in with
the building department on screen for the interior remodel. The plan is still to complete the picture.
One of the things we are looking for now is options. We’ve met with the building department and
they’ve made some more recent determinations on setbacks. The building department is requiring a 10-
ft. setback from the historic stair, which would be a recorded easement so we can’t even put a wall with
windows on this line. It does limit future development, so at this point, we are looking to go to council
and get acceptance for TDR’s as this seems to be the best option. The plan is to improve the adjacent lot
and move the parking spaces to the alley and create a nice open area to enjoy. The lot split in that
direction is for future use options. The TDR creation has a financial benefit.
Ms. Greenwood clarified that their desire is to sell off as many TDR’s as possible. Mr. Roland said it’s
one avenue. Ms. Greenwood asked if that is that what they would prefer and Mr. Roland said so much
has transpired in the past few days, that it is a hard question to answer and they are gathering a lot of
information.
Ms. Broughton said they purchased a lemon and in the end, they couldn’t afford to do the addition.
Mr. Roland said it’s been a vacant site for a long time for a reason. She said they can’t really answer Ms.
Greenwoods question because every time they turn around, they are hit with new encumbrances. They
are just trying to keep their avenues open.
P8
II.B.
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 25, 2018
9
Mr. Kendrick asked how seven TDR’s came about and asked if that was recommended by the city. Ms.
Simon said it’s based on a single-family house and square footage.
Mr. Pember asked who would retain ownership if they sold all of the TDR’s and Mr. Roland said we
would still have to maintain.
Mr. Moyer asked if this is a big tax burden for them and Mr. Roland said that’s a good question. Right
now, the value of the lot is 3 million so we would need to consult our tax accountant.
Mr. Kendrick asked if they have to do the lot split in order to get the TDR’s and Ms. Simon said yes.
Mr. Moyer asked if there would be any downside to allowing this and Ms. Simon said she doesn’t think
so.
Mr. Pember thinks a lot split with TDR’s is great.
Ms. Sanzone asked if TDR’s could re-land on this lot in the future and Ms. Simon said no, it’s theirs
forever.
MOTION: Ms. Sanzone motioned to recommend the lot split and creation of TDR’s as described by staff,
Mr. Kendrick seconded. The TDRS will support HPC ideals; assuming the TDR’s will all be sold. This fulfills
HPC’s goals. It would be HPC’s preference that they sell all TDR’s and HPC is also in favor of variations.
All in favor, motion carried.
________________________________
Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk
P9
II.B.
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer
MEETING DATE: August 8, 2018
RE: 223 E. Hallam Avenue
_____________________________________________________________________________________
SUMMARY: 223 E. Hallam received approval for on
expansion of the former Berko home in 2015. Construction of the project has just
begun.
Ownership has changed and the architect is requesting review of amendments to the
windows in the addition to the historic resource. The approved windows are multi
paned metal clad double hung windows. The applicant request
depicted in the attached plan,
operation to casement and eliminating all mullions only on the alley façade.
Roger Moyer is the project monitor and has reviewed other changes and clarifications
prior to issuance of the building permit. Staff determined that the window change was
significant enough to warrant input from the full board.
windows will have a noticeably different profile than a clad window and that the
different operation of the windows on the addition may be inconsistent with the historic
character of the primary building. On the other hand
distinguish the addition as new construction.
Relevant design gui
10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of
the primary building is maintained.
q A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character
of the primary building is inappropriate.
q An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building
also is inappropriate.
q An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's
historic style should be avoided.
q An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate.
223 E. Hallam
Project Monitoring
Page 1 of 2
Memorandum
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer
, 2018
223 E. Hallam Avenue- Project Monitoring
_____________________________________________________________________________________
223 E. Hallam received approval for on-site relocation, restoration and
expansion of the former Berko home in 2015. Construction of the project has just
Ownership has changed and the architect is requesting review of amendments to the
windows in the addition to the historic resource. The approved windows are multi
paned metal clad double hung windows. The applicant requests review of options
n the attached plan, including changing the window material to steel, the
to casement and eliminating all mullions only on the alley façade.
Roger Moyer is the project monitor and has reviewed other changes and clarifications
f the building permit. Staff determined that the window change was
significant enough to warrant input from the full board. Staff is concerned that the
windows will have a noticeably different profile than a clad window and that the
operation of the windows on the addition may be inconsistent with the historic
character of the primary building. On the other hand, these amendments
distinguish the addition as new construction. HPC direction is needed.
Relevant design guidelines
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
to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's
historic style should be avoided.
An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
site relocation, restoration and
expansion of the former Berko home in 2015. Construction of the project has just
Ownership has changed and the architect is requesting review of amendments to the
windows in the addition to the historic resource. The approved windows are multi-
review of options
including changing the window material to steel, the
to casement and eliminating all mullions only on the alley façade.
Roger Moyer is the project monitor and has reviewed other changes and clarifications
f the building permit. Staff determined that the window change was
Staff is concerned that the steel
windows will have a noticeably different profile than a clad window and that the
operation of the windows on the addition may be inconsistent with the historic
, these amendments may help to
HPC direction is needed.
Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of
A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character
An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building
to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's
An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate.
P10
II.F.
223 E. Hallam
Project Monitoring
Page 2 of 2
10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time.
q An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also
remaining visually compatible with these earlier features.
q A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in
material or a differentiation between historic, and more current styles are all
techniques that may be considered to help define a change from old to new
construction.
10.11 On a new addition, use exterior materials that are compatible with the historic
materials of the primary building.
q The new materials should be either similar or subordinate to the original materials.
P11
II.F.
223 E. HALLAM, ASPEN CO
OPTION 1-DOUBLE HUNG WINDOWS
32°
W101 *W100 *W102 *
W200 *
T.O. PLY MAIN LEVEL
ELEV. 100'-0"SITE: 7896.32'
T.O. PLY UPPER LEVEL
ELEV. 111'-0"SITE: 7907.32'
T.O. PLY HIST. UPPER LEVEL
ELEV. 111'-10 3/4"
SITE: 7908.14'
T.O. PLY HIST. MAIN LEVEL
ELEV. 101'-1 3/4"
SITE: 7897.47'
SETBACK
LINE
PROPERTY
LINE
PROPERTY
LINE
SETBACK
LINE
EXISTING RIDGE
ELEV. 127'-9"
SITE: 7924.00'
6 5 4 3 2 1
PROPOSED GRADE
D101 *
1'
PROPOSED GRADE
T.O. PLY MAIN LEVELELEV. 100'-0"
SITE: 7896.32'
T.O. PLY UPPER LEVEL
ELEV. 111'-0"
SITE: 7907.32'
NEW RIDGE (ADDITION)
ELEV. 128'-1/4"
SITE: 7924.34'
SETBACK
LINE
PROPERTY
LINE
PROPERTY
LINE
SETBACK
LINE
1 2 3 4 5 6 2'-6"3'3'PROPOSED GRADE
T.O. PLY MAIN LEVEL
ELEV. 100'-0"
SITE: 7896.32'
T.O. PLY UPPER LEVEL
ELEV. 111'-0"
SITE: 7907.32'
NEW RIDGE (ADDITION)
ELEV. 128'-1/4"
SITE: 7924.34'
SETBACK
LINE
PROPERTY
LINE
PROPERTY
LINE
SETBACK
LINE
AC UNIT (CU 3)
AC UNIT (CU 2)
AC UNIT (CU1)
A B C D E F G
3'
PROPOSED GRADE
T.O. PLY MAIN LEVEL 100'-0"
SITE: 7896.32'
T.O. PLY UPPER LEVEL111'-0"
SITE: 7907.32'
T.O. PLY HIST. UPPER LEVEL
ELEV. 111'-10 3/4"
SITE: 7908.14'
T.O. PLY HIST. MAIN LEVEL
ELEV. 101'-1 3/4"
SITE: 7897.47'
EXISTING RIDGE
ELEV. 127'-9"
SITE: 7924.00'
NEW RIDGE (ADDITION)ELEV. 128'-1/4"
SITE: 7924.34'
SETBACK
LINE
PROPERTY
LINE
PROPERTY
LINE
SETBACK
LINE
ELECT.METERTELEPHONECATVG F E D C B A
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
NORTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
SOUTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
EAST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
WEST ELEVATION
NORTH EAST VIEW SOUTH WEST VIEW
OPTION 1:
- EXISTING CONDITION
-DOUBLE HUNG WINDOWS
P12II.F.
223 E. HALLAM, ASPEN CO
OPTION 2-CASEMENT WINDOWS
6 5 4 3 2 1
T.O. PLY MAIN LEVEL
ELEV. 100'-0"SITE: 7896.32'
T.O. PLY UPPER LEVEL
ELEV. 111'-0"SITE: 7907.32'
T.O. PLY HIST. UPPER LEVEL
ELEV. 111'-10 3/4"
SITE: 7908.14'
T.O. PLY HIST. MAIN LEVEL
ELEV. 101'-1 3/4"
SITE: 7897.47'
SETBACK
LINE
PROPERTY
LINE
PROPERTY
LINE
SETBACK
LINE
EXISTING RIDGE
ELEV. 127'-9"
SITE: 7924.00'
1 2 3 4 5 6
T.O. PLY MAIN LEVEL
ELEV. 100'-0"
SITE: 7896.32'
T.O. PLY UPPER LEVEL
ELEV. 111'-0"
SITE: 7907.32'
NEW RIDGE (ADDITION)
ELEV. 128'-1/4"
SITE: 7924.34'
SETBACK
LINE
PROPERTY
LINEPROPERTYLINESETBACKLINE
A B C D E F G
T.O. PLY MAIN LEVEL
ELEV. 100'-0"
SITE: 7896.32'
T.O. PLY UPPER LEVEL
ELEV. 111'-0"
SITE: 7907.32'
NEW RIDGE (ADDITION)
ELEV. 128'-1/4"
SITE: 7924.34'
SETBACK
LINE
PROPERTY
LINE
PROPERTY
LINE
SETBACK
LINE
G F E D C B A
T.O. PLY MAIN LEVEL 100'-0"
SITE: 7896.32'
T.O. PLY UPPER LEVEL
111'-0"
SITE: 7907.32'
T.O. PLY HIST. UPPER LEVEL
ELEV. 111'-10 3/4"
SITE: 7908.14'
T.O. PLY HIST. MAIN LEVELELEV. 101'-1 3/4"
SITE: 7897.47'
EXISTING RIDGE
ELEV. 127'-9"SITE: 7924.00'
NEW RIDGE (ADDITION)
ELEV. 128'-1/4"
SITE: 7924.34'
SETBACK
LINE
PROPERTY
LINE
PROPERTY
LINE
SETBACK
LINE
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
NORTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
SOUTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
EAST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
WEST ELEVATION
NORTH EAST VIEW SOUTH WEST VIEWVIEW FROM BEDROOM
OPTION 2:
- PROPOSED CONDITION
-CASEMENT WINDOWS
P13II.F.
223 E. HALLAM, ASPEN CO
OPTION 3-CASEMENT WINDOWS (NO MULLIONS ON SOUTH ELEV.)
1 2 3 4 5 6
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
SOUTH ELEVATION
VIEW FROM BEDROOM W/0 MULLIONS SOUTH WEST VIEW
OPTION 3:
- PROPOSED CONDITION
-CASEMENT WINDOWS
-NO MULLIONS
P14II.F.
C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\68DC0535-1E9B-
4F7F-9635-503C6604FAF4\14475.doc
8/2/2018
HPC PROJECT MONITORS- projects in bold are under construction
Nora Berko 1102 Waters
602 E. Hyman
210 S. First
333 W. Bleeker
51 Meadows Road
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 1280 Ute
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 980 Gibson
232 E. Main
541 Race Alley
208 E. Main
533 E. Main
303 E. Main
517 E. Hopkins
Roger Moyer 500 W. Main
223 E. Hallam
Richard Lai 122 W. Main
Scott Kendrick 533 E. Main
303 E. Main
517 E. Hopkins
Sheri Sanzone 135 E. Cooper
Need to assign:
134 W. Hopkins
422/434 E. Cooper
529-535 E. Cooper, Stein Building
420 E. Hyman
110 W. Main, Hotel Aspen
301 Lake
P15
II.F.
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer
MEETING DATE: August 8, 2018
RE: 210 W. Main–
APPLICANT /OWNER:
King Louise, LLC
REPRESENTATIVE:
BendonAdams
LOCATION:
Street Address:
210 W. Main Street
Legal Description:
Lots P and Q, Block 51, City
and Townsite of Aspen
Parcel Identification
Number:
2735-124-40-009
CURRENT ZONING & USE
Mixed Use (MU)
6 free-market units, 1
affordable housing unit, and
1 residential/commercial
unit
PROPOSED LAND USE:
Mixed Use (MU)
8 affordable housing units
Memorandum
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer
, 2018
– Final Major Development, PUBLIC HEARING
SUMMARY: The applicant has received Conceptual
approval to demolish and replace the existing building
with 8 new affordable housing units in a two to three
story building. Final design review is requested.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval with conditions outlined in
the attached resolution.
SITE LOCATOR MAP
210 W. Main Street
Final Major Development
Page 1 of 4
PUBLIC HEARING
The applicant has received Conceptual
replace the existing building
with 8 new affordable housing units in a two to three-
story building. Final design review is requested.
with conditions outlined in
P16
IV.A.
210 W. Main Street
Final Major Development
Page 2 of 4
BACKGROUND:
210 W. Main is a 6,000 square foot parcel, zoned Mixed Use (MU) and located in the
Main Street Historic District. The site currently contains two non-historic buildings with 6
free market residential units (south structure), 1 affordable housing unit, and 1
commercial/residential unit (both in the north structure).
PROPOSAL:
The Applicant proposes to demolish the existing development and construct eight (8)
two-bedroom affordable housing units in three structures (two 2-story facing Main Street
and one 3-story along the alley). The project is proposed as all rental units, which are
considered to be voluntary units that will generate Affordable Housing Credits eligible to
be sold by the developer. A perspective and site plan are provided below.
Figure 1 - Perspective from Main Street
Figure 2 - Site Plan
P17
IV.A.
210 W. Main Street
Final Major Development
Page 3 of 4
Final Major Development Review is to be conducted according to the design
guidelines in place at the time that the land use application was first filed, in February
2017. The relevant guidelines and staff findings are attached as Exhibit A.
Staff finds that the Final development proposal is entirely consistent with the
Conceptual designl, which was reviewed by HPC over several meetings and ultimately
received approval on August 9, 2017. The applicant has addressed two conditions
which were required for Final review:
1. Green roof systems are required on all structures.
2. For Final Review, eliminate the projecting articulation on the south façade of the
east building, upper floor.
Staff has carried forward the requirement for a green roof in the attached draft
resolution of approval, to ensure that this required feature is not amended as the
project proceeds into construction. Staff also recommends HPC staff and monitor
review and approve any materials proposed to be salvaged from the existing building
and installed on the exterior of the new structure to ensure longevity and compliance
with the design guidelines.
Additional proposed conditions of approval include compliance with the Planning and
Zoning Commission Growth Management/Affordable Housing approvals granted after
HPC Conceptual, compliance with variations granted at HPC Conceptual approval,
and coordination with other City Departments regarding parameters identified during a
Development Review Committee meeting early in the project review.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends HPC grant Final Major Development review with conditions listed in
the attached resolution, finding that the applicable review criteria and design
guidelines have been met.
EXHIBITS:
Resolution #__, Series of 2018
A. Final Major Development Review, Staff Findings and Design Guidelines
B. HPC Conceptual resolution and minutes, August 9, 2017
C. Development Review Committee Comments, May 17, 2017
D. Application
P18
IV.A.
210 W. Main Street
Final Major Development
Page 4 of 4
P19
IV.A.
Historic Preservation Commission
Resolution #___, Series 2018
Page 1 of 6
RESOLUTION #___
(SERIES OF 2018)
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION GRANTING
FINAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR 210 W. MAIN STREET, LOTS P & Q,
BLOCK 51, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO.
Parcel ID: 2735-124-40-009
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an
application from King Louise, LLC (Applicant), represented by BendonAdams,
for the following land use review approvals:
· Major Development, Final. pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.415,
and,
WHEREAS, all code citation references are to the City of Aspen Land Use
Code in effect on the day of initial application for this multi-step land use review,
February 21, 2017, as applicable to this Project; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the
proposed Application and recommended approval with conditions; and,
WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission reviewed the Application
at a duly noticed public hearing on August 8, 2018, during which time the
recommendations of the Community Development Director and comments
from the public were requested and heard by the Historic Preservation
Commission; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing the Historic Preservation
Commission approved Resolution #___, Series of 2018, by a __ to __ vote,
granting approval with the conditions listed hereinafter.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT:
Section 1:
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen
Municipal Code, the Historic Preservation Commission hereby grants Final Major
Development approval for the project as presented to HPC on August 8, 2018,
with the following conditions:
1. Green roof systems are required on all structures as depicted in the
application.
P20
IV.A.
Historic Preservation Commission
Resolution #___, Series 2018
Page 2 of 6
2. HPC staff and monitor must review and approve the re-use of any existing
building materials after those materials have been refurbished to the
extent intended by the applicant, to ensure the longevity of the materials
and compliance with guideline 7.20.
Section 2:
The following variations were granted to the project at Conceptual approval,
through HPC Resolution #16, Series of 2018.
1. A variance to allow porches and balconies to extend 18” into the east
and west sideyard setbacks as depicted on the approved plans.
2. Special Review approval to reduce the front yard setback from ten (10)
feet to five (5) feet for porches and balconies only.
3. Special Review approval to increase the maximum allowable cumulative
FAR to 1.25:1.
4. Special Review approval for the reduction of one (1) parking space on-
site. Six (6) parking spaces shall be provided on-site.
5. Maximum allowable height of 29 feet, pursuant to Section 26.412,
Commercial Design Review.
Section 3;
The project received Growth Management approval and establishment of
Affordable Housing Certificates through P&Z Resolution #17, Series of 2017. The
project is required to conform to that approval, unless amendments are
approved consistent with the Municipal Code, including representations as to
affordable housing unit size.
Section 4:
The following items identified during the Development Review Committee
meeting held on May 17, 2017 must be resolved with the appropriate City
Departments prior to or during the building permit review for this project.
1. Determine if the current transformer has adequate capacity or if a new or
upgraded transformer is required.
2. The curb cut on Main St is required to be removed clear to the back of
curb.
3. The sidewalk shall meet current standards with a 6’ width and 2% cross
slope. Sidewalk construction will need Parks Department approval due to
the close proximity to the street trees. To protect tree roots there shall be
no depth excavation beyond what is existing for the current sidewalk.
4. The project must comply with the Urban Run-off Management Plan.
5. Provide detail regarding the water service upgrade. At building permit,
fire flow calculations are required to verify the requested service line size is
appropriate.
P21
IV.A.
Historic Preservation Commission
Resolution #___, Series 2018
Page 3 of 6
6. Amend the TIA plan for review and approval with regard to the TDM
measure claiming credit for end of trip facilities, a credit which is not
applicable to residential projects. In addition, installation of bike parking
already receives credit in the MMLOS section therefore another TIA option
needs to be pursued.
7. Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District service is contingent upon
compliance with the District’s rules, regulations, and specifications, which
are on file at the District office. Comply with the following requirements as
applicable:
· ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that clear water
connections (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) are not connected
to the sanitary sewer system.
· On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD.
· Oil and Grease interceptors (not traps) are required for all food processing
establishments.
· Oil and Sand separators are required for parking garages and vehicle
maintenance establishments.
· Driveway entrance drains must drain to drywells.
· Elevator shafts drains must flow thru o/s interceptor
· Old service lines must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary
sewer line according to specific ACSD requirements and prior to soil
stabilization. Soil nails are not allowed in ROW.
· Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system.
Above grade development shall flow by gravity.
· One tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements may
be required where more than one unit is served by a single service line.
· Permanent improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or right of
ways. Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and
hard landscaping may impact public ROW or easements to be
dedicated to the district.
· All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. Peg
in our office can develop an estimate for this project once detailed plans
have been made available to the district.
· Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed
the planned reserve capacity of the existing system (collection system
and or treatment system) an additional proportionate fee will be assessed
to eliminate the downstream collection system or treatment capacity
constraint. Additional proportionate fees would be collected over time
from all development in the area of concern in order to fund the
improvements needed.
· Where additional development would produce flows that would
overwhelm the planned capacity of the existing collection system and or
treatment facility, the development will be assessed fees to cover the
P22
IV.A.
Historic Preservation Commission
Resolution #___, Series 2018
Page 4 of 6
costs of replacing the entire portion of the system that would be
overwhelmed. The District would fund the costs of constructing reserve
capacity in the area of concern (only for the material cost difference for
larger line).
· Glycol heating and snow melt systems must be designed to prohibit and
discharge of glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer
system. The glycol storage areas must have approved containment
facilities.
8. Finalize Special Review by the Environmental Health department for the
trash and recycling space, which has preliminarily been approved to be
an area of 112 square feet, accessed via the open space next to the ADA
accessible parking. The trash and recycling space will be fully enclosed
and impervious to wildlife which exceeds code requirements.
9. A cottonwood tree will be required in the ROW on Main Street to the east
of the existing cottonwood. Irrigation of the right-of-way will be required.
Any code sized tree removals will require a Tree Removal Permit from the
Parks Department.
Section 5:
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant
to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public
hearing or documentation presented before the Community Development
Department and the Historic Preservation Commission are hereby incorporated
in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if
fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions or an
authorized authority.
Section 6:
This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an
abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the
ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be
conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 7:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution
is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent
jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent
provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof.
Section 8: Vested Rights
The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific
development plan vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance
of a development order. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and
P23
IV.A.
Historic Preservation Commission
Resolution #___, Series 2018
Page 5 of 6
conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested
property rights. Unless otherwise exempted or extended, failure to properly record
all plats and agreements required to be recorded, as specified herein, within 180
days of the effective date of the development order shall also result in the forfeiture
of said vested property rights and shall render the development order void within
the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits). Zoning that is not part of the
approved site-specific development plan shall not result in the creation of a vested
property right.
No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews
necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City
Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the
jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public
of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested
property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following
form:
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific
development plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of
three (3) years, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24,
Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described
property: 210 W. Main Street.
Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent
reviews and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations
and ordinances or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are
not inconsistent with this approval.
The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and
judicial review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights
shall not begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of final
development approval as required under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of
referendum shall be limited as set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the Aspen
Home Rule Charter.
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 8th day of August, 2018.
Approved as to form: Approved as to content:
_________________________________ ____________________________________
Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Gretchen Greenwood, Chair
Attest:
P24
IV.A.
Historic Preservation Commission
Resolution #___, Series 2018
Page 6 of 6
_________________________________
Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk
P25
IV.A.
Exhibit A- Final Major Development Staff Findings
Page 1 of 5
EXHIBIT A
FINAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT
STAFF FINDINGS
26.415.070.D. Certificate of appropriateness for major development.
4. Final development plan review.
b) The procedures for the review of final development plans for major
development projects are as follows:
(1) The Community Development Director shall review the application
materials submitted for final development plan approval. If they
are determined to be complete, the applicant will be notified in
writing of this and a public hearing before the HPC shall be
scheduled. Notice of the hearing shall be provided pursuant to
Paragraphs 26.304.060.E.3.a, b and c.
(2) Staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a report that
analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and
other applicable Land Use Code sections. This report will be
transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed
project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove
or approve with conditions and the reasons for the
recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff
analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to
determine the project's conformance with the City Historic
Preservation Design Guidelines.
(3) The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or
continue the application to obtain additional information necessary
to make a decision to approve or deny. If the application is
approved, the HPC shall issue a certificate of appropriateness and
the Community Development Director shall issue a development
order.
(4) 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.
Staff Findings: HPC is asked to review the attached land use application, the
staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine
the project's conformance with the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines
relevant to the Main Street Historic District, and in place at the time the
P26
IV.A.
Exhibit A- Final Major Development Staff Findings
Page 2 of 5
application was originally submitted for land use review. These guidelines are
listed below.
The Final Development proposal is entirely consistent with the Conceptual
approval. Staff has no proposed revisions in response to the guidelines.
Design related conditions of approval are listed in the attached resolution and
include (1) a requirement that the roofs of the new structures be green roofs, as
required by the HPC Conceptual approval and (2) that HPC staff and monitor
must review and approve the re-use of any existing building materials after
those materials have been refurbished to the extent intended by the applicant,
to ensure the longevity of the materials and compliance with guideline 7.20.
Design Guidelines, Final Review
Site Planning and Landscape Design
1.1 All projects shall respect the historic development pattern or context of the
block, neighborhood or district.
· Building footprint and location should reinforce the traditional patterns of
the neighborhood.
· Allow for some porosity on a site. In a residential project, setback to
setback development is typically uncharacteristic of the historic context.
Do not design a project which leaves no useful open space visible from
the street.
1.3 Remove driveways or parking areas accessed directly from the street if
they were not part of the original development of the site.
· Do not introduce new curb cuts on streets.
· Non-historic driveways accessed from the street should be removed if
they can be relocated to the alley.
1.5 Maintain the historic hierarchy of spaces.
· Reflect the established progression of public to private spaces from the
public sidewalk to a semi-public walkway, to a semi private entry feature,
to private spaces.
1.6 Provide a simple walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front
entry on residential projects.
P27
IV.A.
Exhibit A- Final Major Development Staff Findings
Page 3 of 5
· Meandering walkways are not allowed, except where it is needed to
avoid a tree or is typical of the period of significance.
· Use paving materials that are similar to those used historically for the
building style and install them in the manner that they would have been
used historically. For example on an Aspen Victorian landmark set
flagstone pavers in sand, rather than in concrete. Light grey concrete,
brick or red sandstone are appropriate private walkway materials for
most landmarks.
· The width of a new entry sidewalk should generally be three feet or less
for residential properties. A wider sidewalk may be appropriate for an
AspenModern property.
1.7 Provide positive open space within a project site.
· Ensure that open space on site is meaningful and consolidated into a few
large spaces rather than many small unusable areas.
· Open space should be designed to support and complement the historic
building.
1.8 Consider stormwater quality needs early in the design process.
· When included in the initial planning for a project, stormwater quality
facilities can be better integrated into the proposal. All landscape plans
presented for HPC review must include at least a preliminary
representation of the stormwater design. A more detailed design must
be reviewed and approved by Planning and Engineering prior to building
permit submittal.
· Site designs and stormwater management should provide positive
drainage away from the historic landmark, preserve the use of natural
drainage and treatment systems of the site, reduce the generation of
additional stormwater runoff, and increase infiltration into the ground.
Stormwater faciltiies and conveyances located in front of a landmark
should have minimal visual impact when viewed from the public right of
way.
· Refer to City Engineering for additional guidance and requirements.
1.26 Preserve the historic circulation system.
· Minimize the impact of additional vehicular circulation.
· Minimize the visual impact of additional parking.
· Maintain the separation of pedestrian and vehicle which occurred
historically.
12.1 Address accessibility compliance requirements while preserving
character defining features of historic buildings and districts.
P28
IV.A.
Exhibit A- Final Major Development Staff Findings
Page 4 of 5
· All new construction must comply completely with the International
Building Code (IBC) for accessibility. Special provisions for historic
buildings exist in the law that allow some flexibility when designing
solutions which meet accessibility standards.
12.3 Exterior light fixtures should be simple in character.
· The design of a new fixture should be appropriate in form, finish, and
scale with the structure.
· New fixtures should not reflect a different period of history than that of
the affected building, or be associated with a different architectural
style.
· Lighting should be placed in a manner that is consistent with the period
of the building, and should not provide a level of illumination that is out of
character.
· One light adjacent to each entry is appropriate on an Aspen Victorian
residential structure. A recessed fixture, surface mounted light, pendant
or sconce will be considered if suited to the building type or style.
· On commercial structures and AspenModern properties, recessed lights
and concealed lights are often most appropriate.
12.4 Minimize the visual impacts of utilitarian areas, such as mechanical
equipment and trash storage.
· Place mechanical equipment on the ground where it can be screened.
· Mechanical equipment may only be mounted on a building on an alley
façade.
· Rooftop mechanical equipment or vents must be grouped together to
minimize their visual impact. Where rooftop units are visible, it may be
appropriate to provide screening with materials that are compatible with
those of the building itself. Use the smallest, low profile units available for
the purpose.
· Window air conditioning units are not allowed.
· Minimize the visual impacts of utility connections and service boxes.
Group them in a discrete location. Use pedestals when possible, rather
than mounting on a historic building.
· Paint mechanical equipment in a neutral color to minimize their
appearance by blending with their backgrounds
· In general, mechanical equipment should be vented through the roof,
rather that a wall, in a manner that has the least visual impact possible.
· Avoid surface mounted conduit on historic structures.
Main Street Historic District
P29
IV.A.
Exhibit A- Final Major Development Staff Findings
Page 5 of 5
7.16 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those of
the Victorian era residences seen traditionally on Main Street.
q T h e s e i n c l u d e w i n d o w s , d o o r s a n d porches.
q Overall, details should be modest in character.
7.17 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged.
q This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings.
q Highly complex and ornately detailed revival styles that were not a part of
Aspen’s history are especially discouraged.
7.19 Incorporate an airlock entry into the plan for all new structures.
q An airlock entry that projects forward of the primary façade at the sidewalk
edge is inappropriate.
q Adding temporary entries during the winter season detracts from the character
of the historic district.
q Using a temporary vinyl or fabric "airlock" to provide protection from winter
weather is not permitted.
7.20 Use building materials that are similar to those used historically.
q When selecting materials, reflect the simple and modest character of historic
materials and their placement.
7.21 Use roofing materials that are similar in appearance to those seen
historically.
7.22 Landscaping and paving should have the following characteristics:
q Enhance the street scene
q Integrate the development with its setting
q Reflect the quality of the architectural materials
7.23 Landscaping should create a buffer between the street and sidewalk.
P30
IV.A.
5
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
AUGUST 9, 2017
asking Mr. Moyer for his thoughts on removal and Mr. Moyer said that part of this is education because
it’s graffiti and there are techniques to removing graffiti. The last pieces were posted on Sunday and this
is not something we’ve dealt with before.
CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: None.
PUBLIC NOTICE: Ms. Bryan said she has the notice and all is fine.
CALL UP REPORTS: Ms. Simon said Main St. Bakery was sent to city council and was not called up.
OLD BUSINESS: 210 W Main
Amy Simon
She is presenting for Justin Barker and this is the third time in front of HPC so she is hoping to get it
approved tonight. This project is a redevelopment of a multi-family apartment complex. The proposal is
to demolish and replace and create affordable housing credits so everyone gains. HPC is being asked to
approve the demo, which has no historic significance with three detached buildings proposed. There is
discussion about open space on the site with a courtyard on site and not visible from the street. Another
point of discussion has been the form of the buildings and the green roofs to be energy efficient, which
HPC appreciated. Flat roofs don’t really fit in on Main St. so staff has been pressing for some type of
sloped roof and porches in a residential character. They are asking for you to allow the building to be
slightly taller and have asked for one foot over the 28-foot entitlement. There has been discussion of the
onsite parking. Only six spots can be accommodated so a variance is requested here. They will also need
variances for the porches and decks. They also project into the side yards only on the basis of a hardship
variance, which staff doesn’t support.
Applicant
Ted Guy and Sara Adams of Bendon Adams
Ms. Adams started by saying this building is located on Main St. in the historic district and is a 6000-ft.
sq. lot. We would like to get an approval tonight. This was heard on April 26th and at the time, we were
told to break up the mass and we heard from different neighbors, so Ted tried to incorporate pieces and
parts. The building is now broken up into three modules with differing heights. The interior courtyard
was shifted and HPC voted 4 to 2 to continue. Green roofs were discussed and the site plan was redone
to relate better to the historic district. We have reduced the mass and scale and there are 8 two
bedroom units. There are six parking spots and we cannot fit anymore based on the size of the lot. There
is still exterior storage at grade and in the basement and a protected communal courtyard. Mr. Guy still
believes that this is a huge amenity to have some protected outdoor space. There are outdoor porches
or balconies for all units and we are ready to move this forward. We will go through the four points from
the last meeting and we have provided an updated street rendering. We are committed to providing
green roofs and feel that it fits in well with the street scape. We have been consistent with providing a
slope in a response to a suggestion from the board, but we prefer the flat green roof option.
P31
IV.A.
6
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
AUGUST 9, 2017
Mr. Guy said that they are keeping heights down and have removed the front porch. The left building is
set back 32 inches from the setback. The interior courtyard has gotten much smaller as well. This relates
to the turn of the century development pattern and this is what you would find back then for
residential. As you’re going towards the commercial core, it’s an important transition, while still being
compatible. It is meeting the front yard setback 2 ½ more ft. and we have added front porch in the front.
We thought it would be better to have an 18-inch projection instead of cutting into the livable space.
Mr. Guy said they have reduced the grilling area and there is no firepit, but during the day Main St. is
loud, dusty and dirty so we want protection from that. We have changed the height of the building and
pushed them back and have broken them up. We have done vertical siding on the main building and
then horizontal siding on the upper two levels.
Ms. Simon pointed out the packet page 58 and said it will help HPC come to a conclusion. They’ve laid
out seven conditions of approval. We’ve suggested that if you accept flat roofs, they need to have a
green roof.
Ms. Greenwood brought up the site plan and confirmed that the only thing changed is the sloping roof
and the removal of the projecting front porch.
Ms. Simon said they had some dialogue with the applicant and that central porch comes into the front
yard setback, which could be allowed, but we were concerned it tied the buildings together and added
more bulk, but Ms. Greenwood thinks it’s successful.
Mr. Moyer reminded the applicant that if they have vertical siding in the alleyways, there is a chance for
capillary action because of snow build up and it shouldn’t be brought all the way to the ground. Mr. Guy
said he is aware.
Mr. Pember asked if they are providing a green roof and Mr. Guy answered yes, it is their preference to
have flat green roofs, but we’ve provided a design with a sloped roof and that would not be a green
roof, but the other two would be. He is happy to do it either way, whatever HPC decides. He does not
have a sample of the green roof as Tesla won’t be producing the roof material until next Spring.
Mr. Pember asked if the balconies are truly cantilevered like that and Mr. Guy said yes and they will be
concrete and maybe steel with wood frame in between.
Mr. Blaich mentioned that an aesthetic change was made and asked why and Mr. Guy said it was to
make the building seem not so massive and it now has a niche.
Mr. Pember noticed that the plan shows a gated entrance and Mr. Guy said that was part of the porch
to get three doors on Main St., so when he took the porch off, he took the door off. Ms. Greenwood
clarified that the door under the cantilever is gone and Ms. Adams said yes, but it’s up for discussion
absolutely. Ms. Adams also said there are no roof top decks.
P32
IV.A.
7
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
AUGUST 9, 2017
Mr. Halferty asked how one maintains a green roof and Mr. Guy said it takes a very low growing grass
with removable panels so it’s easy to replace and lightweight. The people living on the 3rd floor will be
able to see the green roof and it would be dwarf grass that you never have to mow.
PUBLIC COMMENT: Carolyn Bennett from Baton Rouge asked how much the units would rent for after
they are complete and Mr. Guy said around $1500.00 category 3. Ms. Adams said they are deed
restricted category 3 and go up 1 or 2 percent a year and cap at 3%.
Public comment closed.
Ms. Greenwood said she is really happy to see this in the state it’s in. She thinks it’s ready to be passed
tonight and she likes the breakup of the buildings, height and particularly likes the front entry and they
match with the balconies. She likes the 18 inches sticking out in terms of detail and said this is one of the
improvements of design on this building. She likes that the roofs are all flat, she doesn’t think it needs
the sloping roof now. Different proportions to break up the slope isn’t necessary and she thinks they
have created this successfully and wouldn’t change anything. Linking the buildings together with
cantilevered detail, it feels important for a resident walking into the building that it’s protected and it
has meaning to live there. There is really something important about a strong entry and something that
adds to the interest on Main Street. There’s some work to do on the materials and details, but she
supports variances for the front porch and overhang and feels this project is in a good place.
Mr. Lai said he feels it has come a long way since last time it was submitted. He appreciates the scale
and agrees with everything that Ms. Greenwood said except the side yard variance, which he does not
feel is necessary and would take out of that space. But other than that, it’s come a long way and very
much appreciates the scale difference.
Ms. Berko agrees with both comments and appreciates using the siding and recycling the material and
said it’s so rare. She pointed out the side yard setback for the neighbors, which puts the buildings close
together, but likes the 18-inch overhang. Everything else she is ok with and the front yard she is fine
with. She mused that the sloping roof is a little gratuitous and said she likes the green roofs on all three.
She likes the joining and the entry overhang and said the cantilevered elements tie everything together.
Ms. Greenwood said the cantilevered elements are modern and pretty.
Mr. Pember said there is some consistency developing between the flat roofs and identifying the
volumes. Having more green roofs is better instead of disrupting with the sloped roof. The side yard is
really important and started the buildings character. Breaking up with big chunks of balconies is very
powerful. Once you put a spanning element on the entrance, he has mixed feelings about having
something cantilevered there. He said he is annoyed by little bump on second floor and that it’s really
lame and asked if it’s a different material and said he is a little nervous.
P33
IV.A.
8
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
AUGUST 9, 2017
Mr. Moyer said he concurs with staff. He agreed that they should stick with the flat roofs and is ok with
the 18 inches on the side. The project has come a long way and feels they should try and complete it
tonight.
Mr. Blaich said they now have the oom and still need to get the phh and that could be done in the final
and feels they have listened to all the input. He’s with Ms. Greenwood with the proposals. He doesn’t
have a problem with siding allowance and is in favor of the flat roof.
Mr. Kendrick asked how close they would be to neighboring building. Mr. Guy said 8 ½ ft. Mr. Kendrick
finished by saying he likes the design with the flat roofs.
Mr. Halferty thinks the proposal has come a long way from first iteration and conforms to guidelines. He
thinks the green flat roofs are much better and that the one sloped roof doesn’t have the merit. He said
he is in support of balcony variance, which gives occupants a little more room. He is ok with the setback
variances and feels the FAR bonus is merited here.
The reduction of one parking space is ok and encouraged due to the bike alternatives. The allowable
height variance is applicable here. There is still a lot of the detailing that is still in question so be
conscious of that, but Mr. Halferty does feel that it meets the criteria and guidelines and is looking for a
motion to move forward.
MOTION: change from staff’s page 58, that side yard setbacks are allowed, Mr. Blaich seconded.
Mr. Pember made an amendment to the motion to remove the bump, it’s lame, Mr. Blaich seconded.
Roll call vote: Mr. Pember, yes; Ms. Berko, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Greenwood, yes; Mr. Lai, yes, Mr.
Halferty, yes, Mr. Blaich, yes. 7-0, motion carried.
Ms. Berko exited.
209 E Bleeker
Amy Simon
This project has been continued for redevelopment and is a Victorian dramatically altered from its
original design. The proposal before HPC is to restore the old miner’s cottage in the front, pick up and
put onto a new basement and add a second dwelling unit behind it. This will also function as a duplex
with the miner’s cottage being one and the new addition the other. HPC did not previously have issues
with the massing or relocation, but there was discussion of the extent of the incentives being offered.
The miner’s cottage has always been a foot away from the west property line and in this project, it will
be 2 feet away from the property line. HPC gave direction at the previous hearing to eliminate setback
variations. Staff’s perspective was to focus on floor area. Because this application is asking to be duplex,
they already get a 360-square foot bonus bump. They are viewing this as an incentive and request for
500 sq. ft. floor area bonus. The applicant has taken this to heart and have taken their request from 500
to 400 square feet. We don’t want to overwhelm the historic resource and want HPC to take this to
heart. It’s going to be very much new construction, but we’re going to have a limited amount of historic
P34
IV.A.
P35
IV.A.
P36
IV.A.
P37
IV.A.
210 W. Main Street
Exhibit C – DRC Comments
Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT C
DRC COMMENTS
Engineering
These comments are not intended to be exclusive, but an initial response to the
project packet submitted for purpose of the DRC meeting.
Information needed prior to Final Review:
1. Transformer
a. No information is provided on the current or proposed electric
source. Prior to Final review determine if the current transformer has
adequate capacity or if a new or upgraded transformer is required.
If a new transformer and associated easement is needed on the
site this will have significant impacts to the parking area and
building layout.
Information to be provided at Final Review:
Public Improvements:
2. Conceptual Review Item 1.3 requires removal of curb cuts and access to
be located off the alley. The response states this item is not applicable to
the site. However, there is a curb cut on Main St that is required to be
removed clear to the back of curb with any new development.
3. The sidewalk shall meet current standards with a 6’ width and 2% cross
slope. Sidewalk construction will need Parks Department approval due to
the close proximity to the street trees. To protect tree roots there shall be
no depth excavation beyond what is existing for the current sidewalk.
Drainage:
1. At detailed review a Conceptual Drainage Plan and report shall be
submitted as outlined in the checklist in Appendix A of the URMP.
2. The application mentions the potential use of drywells. Drywells are
viewed as the BMP of last resort. Other BMP options need to be pursued,
including green roofs, rain gardens, pervious pavers, planters etc. Drywells
should only be incorporated if no other options exist.
3. The gravel alley cannot be used for conveyance. The property should
drain to Main St or provide detention. The project will need to show runoff
makes it to the City system without impacting neighboring properties. The
system also needs to be designed to prevent runoff and icy issues from
happening on the sidewalk.
Utilities:
P38
IV.A.
210 W. Main Street
Exhibit C – DRC Comments
Page 2 of 4
4. No information is provided stating the need for a water service upgrade.
Provide this information at Final Review. At building permit, fire flow
calculations are required to verify the requested service line size is
appropriate.
TIA:
5. TDM measure for end of trip facilities is not applicable. This measure is only
applicable to non-residential projects. The placement of Bike parking
already receives credit in the MMLOS section. Another TIA option needs to
be pursued.
Sanitation District
Service is contingent upon compliance with the District’s rules, regulations, and
specifications, which are on file at the District office.
ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that clear water
connections (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) are not connected to
the sanitary sewer system.
On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD.
Oil and Grease interceptors (not traps) are required for all food processing
establishments.
Oil and Sand separators are required for parking garages and vehicle
maintenance establishments.
Driveway entrance drains must drain to drywells.
Elevator shafts drains must flow thru o/s interceptor
Old service lines must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary
sewer line according to specific ACSD requirements and prior to soil stabilization.
Soil nails are not allowed in ROW.
Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system.
Above grade development shall flow by gravity.
One tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements may be
required where more than one unit is served by a single service line.
Permanent improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or right of ways.
Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and hard
P39
IV.A.
210 W. Main Street
Exhibit C – DRC Comments
Page 3 of 4
landscaping may impact public ROW or easements to be dedicated to the
district.
All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. Peg in our
office can develop an estimate for this project once detailed plans have been
made available to the district.
Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the
planned reserve capacity of the existing system (collection system and or
treatment system) an additional proportionate fee will be assessed to eliminate
the downstream collection system or treatment capacity constraint. Additional
proportionate fees would be collected over time from all development in the
area of concern in order to fund the improvements needed.
Where additional development would produce flows that would overwhelm the
planned capacity of the existing collection system and or treatment facility, the
development will be assessed fees to cover the costs of replacing the entire
portion of the system that would be overwhelmed. The District would fund the
costs of constructing reserve capacity in the area of concern (only for the
material cost difference for larger line).
Glycol heating and snow melt systems must be designed to prohibit and
discharge of glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer
system. The glycol storage areas must have approved containment facilities.
The district will be able to respond with more specific comments and
requirements once detailed building and utility plans are available.
Zoning
1. Please provide roof top mechanical plan compliant with height, screening
and setback from street façade, see chapter 26.575 Miscellaneous
Supplemental Regulations.
2. Please provide Site Plan information; include outdoor lighting, mail box
location, electrical vault location, and other structures or equipment located
on the ground. The exceptions are also located in chapter 26.575
Miscellaneous Supplemental Regulations.
3. Courtesy note, ZCV policy (Zoning Compliance Verification policy) will be
required to verify setbacks and height for the construction of this project
Environmental Health
1. Applicant has requested Special Review by the Environmental Health
department because there is not direct alley access and the proposal is
below the space requirements (Municipal Code 12.10.080).
P40
IV.A.
210 W. Main Street
Exhibit C – DRC Comments
Page 4 of 4
a. The trash and recycling space will be accessed via the open space next
to the ADA accessible parking.
b. The proposed space is 112 square feet which is less than the required 120
square feet.
2. The trash and recycling space will be fully enclosed and impervious to wildlife
which exceeds code requirements.
3. Given the above conditions, approval through Special Review is anticipated.
Parks
1. A cottonwood tree will be required in the ROW on Main Street to the east of
the existing cottonwood.
2. Irrigation of ROW will be required.
3. Any code sized tree removals will require a Tree Removal Permit from the
Parks Department.
P41
IV.A.
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
June 8, 2018
Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer
Community Development Department
City of Aspen
130 So. Galena St.
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: 210 West Main Street – Final HP Application
Dear Amy,
Please accept this application for Final Commercial Design review at 210 West Main Street. 210 West Main
Street is located in the Main Street Historic District on a 6,000 square feet lot. Conceptual approval was
granted on August 9, 2017 by the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC), and Growth Management and
Affordable Housing Credit approvals were granted on December 5, 2017 by Planning and Zoning (P&Z).
Both resolutions are included as Exhibits 11 and 12.
HPC granted approval to demolish the existing buildings and to construct a new eight unit, 2-bedroom,
residential building. The mass, scale, height, roof forms, site plan and parking are approved. P&Z granted
approval of 8 deed restricted rental affordable housing units at Category 4 or lower, and granted approval
for the establishment of Affordable Housing Credit
Certificates.
HPC included the following condition of approval to
be resolved during Final Design Review:
3. For Final Review, eliminate the projecting
articulation on the south façade of the east
building, upper floor.
Response: This element has been removed
from the elevations and plans.
This application requests the Final Major
Development and Final Commercial Design Review of
the Historic Preservation Commission.
Figure 1: Rendering presented in August 2018 for HPC
approval. Arrow points to “projecting articulation” that has
been removed from the Final Design Review drawing set.
P42
IV.A.
210 West Main Street
Final HPC Review
We look forward to discussing this project with you and HPC - it is a great addition to the Main Street
Historic District, ensures that the property remains multi-family housing, and provides much needed
affordable housing units within walking distance to downtown. Please contact me with any questions or
concerns: 925-2855 or sara@bendonadams.com
Kind Regards,
Sara Adams, AICP
BendonAdams, LLC
Attachments:
1 – Major Development Final Review
2 – TIA
3 - Pre-Application conference summary
4 – Vicinity Map
5 – Land Use Application and Dimensional Requirements Form
6 – Authorization to represent
7 – Disclosure of ownership
8 – Agreement to pay form
9 – HOA compliance form
10 – list of owners within 300 ft.
11 – HPC Resolution 16, Series of 2017
12 – P&Z Resolution 17, Series of 2017
13 - Materials
14 - Drawings, survey
P43
IV.A.
Exhibit 1
210 West Main Street
Exhibit 1
Final Design Review
26.415.060.B.2 The City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, as amended, which are on file
with the Community Development Department, will be used in the review of requests of certificates of no
negative effect or certificates of appropriateness. Conformance with the applicable guidelines and the
common development review procedures set forth in Chapter 26.304 will be necessary for the approval
of any proposed work:
Please find an analysis of the Main Street Historic District Design Guidelines and Objectives. The project
conforms with the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines including Chapters 1 & 12.
Chapter 1 – Site Planning and Landscape Design:
1.1 All projects shall respect the historic development pattern or context of the block, neighborhood
or district.
• Building footprint and location should reinforce the traditional patterns of the neighborhood.
• Allow for some porosity on a site. In a residential project, setback to setback development is
typically uncharacteristic of the historic context. Do not design a project which leaves no useful
open space visible from the street.
The building placement is oriented parallel to Main Street and was approved during Conceptual Design
review.
1.2 Preserve the system and character of historic streets, alleys, and ditches.
When HPC input is requested, the following bullet points may be applicable.
• Retain and preserve the variety and character found in historic alleys, including retaining
historic ancillary buildings or constructing new ones.
• Retain and preserve the simple character of historic ditches. Do not plant flowers or add
landscape.
• Abandoning or re-routing a street in a historic area is generally discouraged.
• Consider the value of unpaved alleys in residential areas.
• Opening a platted right of way which was abandoned or never graded may be encouraged
on a case by case basis.
Not applicable.
1.3 Remove driveways or parking areas accessed directly from the street if they were not part of the
original development of the site.
P44
IV.A.
Exhibit 1
210 West Main Street
• Do not introduce new curb cuts on streets.
• Non-historic driveways accessed from the street should be removed if they can be relocated
to the alley.
The existing driveway on Main Street will be removed. Access is approved off the alleyway.
1.4 Design a new driveway or improve an existing driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual
impact.
• If an alley exists at the site, the new driveway must be located off it.
• Tracks, gravel, light grey concrete with minimal seams, or similar materials are appropriate for
driveways on Aspen Victorian properties.
Not applicable.
1.5 Maintain the historic hierarchy of spaces.
• Reflect the established progression of public to private spaces from the public sidewalk to a
semi-public walkway, to a semi private entry feature, to private spaces.
A walkway is provided from Main Street sidewalk to the center entrance. Walkways are also provided
from the sidewalk to the two ground level units that front Main Street.
1.6 Provide a simple walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry on residential
projects.
• Meandering walkways are not allowed, except where it is needed to avoid a tree or is typical
of the period of significance.
• Use paving materials that are similar to those used historically for the building style and install
them in the manner that they would have been used historically. For example on an Aspen
Victorian landmark set flagstone pavers in sand, rather than in concrete. Light grey concrete,
brick or red sandstone are appropriate private walkway materials for most landmarks.
• The width of a new entry sidewalk should generally be three feet or less for residential
properties. A wider sidewalk may be appropriate for an AspenModern property.
Perpendicular walkways are provided from the Main Street sidewalk to the street facing entrances.
1.7 Provide positive open space within a project site.
• Ensure that open space on site is meaningful and consolidated into a few large spaces rather
than many small unusable areas.
• Open space should be designed to support and complement the historic building.
Open space is provided within the project site where appropriate as shown on the approved site plan.
P45
IV.A.
Exhibit 1
210 West Main Street
1.8 Consider stormwater quality needs early in the design process.
• When included in the initial planning for a project, stormwater quality facilities can be better
integrated into the proposal. All landscape plans presented for HPC review must include at
least a preliminary representation of the stormwater design. A more detailed design must be
reviewed and approved by Planning and Engineering prior to building permit submittal.
• Site designs and stormwater management should provide positive drainage away from the
historic landmark, preserve the use of natural drainage and treatment systems of the site,
reduce the generation of additional stormwater runoff, and increase infiltration into the
ground. Stormwater facilities and conveyances located in front of a landmark should have
minimal visual impact when viewed from the public right of way.
• Refer to City Engineering for additional guidance and requirements.
The project shall comply with City Engineering stormwater requirements. The Conceptual HPC Resolution
requires green roof systems on all structures (condition #2).
1.9 Landscape development on AspenModern landmarks shall be addressed on a case by case basis.
Not applicable.
1.10 Built-in furnishings, such as water features, fire pits, grills, and hot tubs, that could interfere
with or block views of historic structures are inappropriate.
• Site furnishings that are added to the historic property should not be intrusive or degrade the
integrity of the neighborhood patterns, site, or existing historic landscape.
• Consolidating and screening these elements is preferred.
Not applicable.
1.11 Preserve and maintain historically significant landscaping on site, particularly landmark trees
and shrubs.
• Retaining historic planting beds and landscape features is encouraged.
• Protect historically significant vegetation during construction to avoid damage. Removal of
damaged, aged, or diseased trees must be approved by the Parks Department.
• If a significant tree must be removed, replace it with the same or similar species in coordination
with the Parks Department.
• The removal of non-historic planting schemes is encouraged.
• Consider restoring the original landscape if information is available, including original plant
materials.
Not applicable.
1.12 Provide an appropriate context for historic structures. See diagram.
• Simplicity and restraint are required. Do not overplant a site, or install a landscape which is
overtextured or overly complex in relationship to the historic resource, particularly in Zone A.
P46
IV.A.
Exhibit 1
210 West Main Street
In Zone A, new planting shall be species that were used historically or species of similar
attributes.
• In areas immediately adjacent to the landmark, Zone A and Zone B, plants up 42” in height,
sod, and low shrubs are often appropriate.
• Contemporary planting, walls and other features are not appropriate in Zone A. A more
contemporary landscape may surround new development or be located in the rear of the
property, in Zone C.
• Do not cover areas which were historically unpaved with hard surfaces, except for a limited
patio where appropriate.
• Where residential structures are being adapted to commercial use, proposals to alter the
landscape will be considered on a case-by-case basis. The residential nature of the building
must be honored.
• In the case of a historic landmark lot split, careful consideration should be given so as not to
over plant either property, or remove all evidence of the landscape characteristics from before
the property was divided.
• Contemporary landscapes that highlight an AspenModern architectural style are encouraged.
Not applicable.
1.13 Additions of plant material to the landscape that could interfere with or block views of historic
structures are inappropriate.
• Low plantings and ground covers are preferred.
• Do not place trees, shrubs, or hedgerows in locations that will obscure, damage, or block
significant architectural features or views to the building. Hedgerows are not allowed as
fences.
• Consider mature canopy size when planting new trees adjacent to historic resources. Planting
trees too close to a landmark may result in building deteriorate or blocked views and is
inappropriate.
• Climbing vines can damage historic structures and are not allowed.
Not applicable.
1.14 Minimize the visual impacts of landscape lighting.
• Landscape and pathway lighting is not permitted in Zone A (refer to diagram) on Aspen
Victorian properties unless an exception is approved by HPC based on safety considerations.
• Landscape, driveway, and pathway lighting on AspenModern properties is addressed on a
case-by-case basis.
• Landscape light fixtures should be carefully selected so that they are compatible with the
building, yet recognizable as a product of their own time.
• Driveway lighting is not permitted on Aspen Victorian properties.
• Landscape uplighting is not allowed.
Landscape lighting is not proposed.
P47
IV.A.
Exhibit 1
210 West Main Street
1.15 Preserve original fences.
• Fences which are considered part of the historic significance of a site should not be moved,
removed, or inappropriately altered.
• Replace only those portions of a historic fence that are deteriorated beyond repair.
• Replacement elements must match the existing.
Not applicable.
1.16 When possible, replicate a missing historic fence based on photographic evidence.
Not applicable.
1.17 No fence in the front yard is often the most appropriate solution.
• Reserve fences for back yards and behind street facing façades, as the best way to preserve
the character of a property.
Not applicable – no fence is proposed.
1.18 When building an entirely new fence, use materials that are appropriate to the building type
and style.
• The new fence should use materials that were used on similar properties during the period of
significance.
• A wood fence is the appropriate solution in most locations.
• Ornate fences, including wrought iron, may create a false history are not appropriate for Aspen
Victorian landmarks unless there is evidence that a decorative fence historically existed on the
site.
• A modest wire fence was common locally in the early 1900s and is appropriate for Aspen
Victorian properties. This fence type has many desirable characteristics including
transparency, a low height, and a simple design. When this material is used, posts should be
simply detailed and not oversized.
Not applicable.
1.19 A new fence should have a transparent quality, allowing views into the yard from the street.
• A fence that defines a front yard must be low in height and transparent in nature.
• For a picket fence, spacing between the pickets must be a minimum of 1/2 the width of the
picket.
• For Post-WWII properties where a more solid type of fence may be historically appropriate,
proposals will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
• Fence columns or piers should be proportional to the fence segment.
Not applicable.
P48
IV.A.
Exhibit 1
210 West Main Street
1.20 Any fence taller than 42” should be designed so that it avoids blocking public views of important
features of a designated building.
• A privacy fence should incorporate transparent elements to minimize the possible visual
impacts. Consider staggering the fence boards on either side of the fence rail. This will give
the appearance of a solid plank fence when seen head on. Also consider using lattice, or other
transparent detailing on the upper portions of the fence.
• A privacy fence should allow the building corners and any important architectural features that
are visible from the street to continue to be viewed.
• All hedgerows (trees, shrub bushes, etc.) are prohibited in Zones A and B.
Not applicable.
1.21 Preserve original retaining walls
• Replace only those portions that are deteriorated beyond repair. Any replacement materials
should match the original in color, texture, size and finish.
• Painting or covering a historic masonry retaining wall or covering is not allowed.
• Increasing the height of a retaining wall is inappropriate.
Not applicable.
1.22 When a new retaining wall is necessary, its height and visibility should be minimized.
• All wall materials, including veneer and mortar, will be reviewed on a case by case basis and
should be compatible with the palette used on the historic structure.
Not applicable.
1.23 Re-grading the site in a manner that changes historic grade is generally not allowed and will be
reviewed on a case by case basis.
Not applicable.
1.24 Preserve historically significant landscapes with few or no alterations.
• An analysis of the historic landscape and an assessment of the current condition of the
landscape should be done before the beginning of any project.
• The key features of the historic landscape and its overall design intent must be preserved.
Not applicable.
1.25 New development on these sites should respect the historic design of the landscape and its built
features.
• Do not add features that damage the integrity of the historic landscape.
• Maintain the existing pattern of setbacks and siting of structures.
• Maintain the historic relationship of the built landscape to natural features on the site.
• All additions to these landscapes must be clearly identifiable as recent work.
P49
IV.A.
Exhibit 1
210 West Main Street
• New artwork must be subordinate to the designed landscape in terms of placement, height,
material, and overall appearance. Place new art away from significant landscape features.
• Avoid installing utility trenches in cultural landscapes if possible.
Not applicable.
1.26 Preserve the historic circulation system.
• Minimize the impact of new vehicular circulation.
• Minimize the visual impact of new parking.
• Maintain the separation of pedestrian and vehicle which occurred historically.
Parking is proposed along the alley
1.27 Preserve and maintain significant landscaping on site.
• Protect established vegetation during any construction.
• If any tree or shrub needs to be removed, replace it with the same or similar species.
• New planting should be of a species used historically or a similar species.
• Maintain and preserve any gardens and/or ornamental planting on the site.
• Maintain and preserve any historic landscape elements.
Proposed landscaping includes lilacs, crabapples, spruces, perennial beds and small shrubs. All of these
species are found within the Main Street Historic District.
Chapter 12 – Accessibility, Architectural Lighting, Mechanical Equipment, Service Areas, & Signage
12.1 Address accessibility compliance requirements while preserving character defining features of
historic buildings and districts.
• All new construction must comply completely with the International Building Code (IBC) for
accessibility. Special provisions for historic buildings exist in the law that allow some flexibility
when designing solutions which meet accessibility standards.
The proposed new building intends to meet all IBC requirements for accessibility. There are two
accessible residences on the ground floor.
12.2 Original light fixtures must be maintained. When there is evidence as to the appearance of
original fixtures that are no longer present, a replication is appropriate.
The existing building is not a designated landmark and is proposed to be demolished.
12.3 Exterior light fixtures should be simple in character.
• The design of a new fixture should be appropriate in form, finish, and scale with the structure.
• New fixtures should not reflect a different period of history than that of the affected building,
or be associated with a different architectural style.
• Lighting should be placed in a manner that is consistent with the period of the building, and
should not provide a level of illumination that is out of character.
P50
IV.A.
Exhibit 1
210 West Main Street
• One light adjacent to each entry is appropriate on an Aspen Victorian residential structure. A
recessed fixture, surface mounted light, pendant or sconce will be considered if suited to the
building type or style.
• On commercial structures and AspenModern properties, recessed lights and concealed lights
are often most appropriate.
Simple recessed cans are proposed above the entrance of each front door, in the soffit, to not distract from
the Historic District and to clearly be a product of their own time.
12.4 Minimize the visual impacts of utilitarian areas, such as mechanical equipment and trash
storage.
• Place mechanical equipment on the ground where it can be screened.
• Mechanical equipment may only be mounted on a building on an alley façade.
• Rooftop mechanical equipment or vents must be grouped together to minimize their visual
impact. Where rooftop units are visible, it may be appropriate to provide screening with
materials that are compatible with those of the building itself. Use the smallest, low profile
units available for the purpose.
• Window air conditioning units are not allowed.
• Minimize the visual impacts of utility connections and service boxes. Group them in a discrete
location. Use pedestals when possible, rather than mounting on a historic building.
• Paint mechanical equipment in a neutral color to minimize their appearance by blending with
their backgrounds
• In general, mechanical equipment should be vented through the roof, rather than a wall, in a
manner that has the least visual impact possible.
• Avoid surface mounted conduit on historic structures.
Mechanical equipment is generally located in the basement.
12.5 Awnings must be functional.
• An awning must project at least 3 feet, and not more than 5 feet from the building façade.
• An awning may only be installed at a door or window and must fit within the limits of the door
or window opening.
• Awnings are inappropriate on AspenModern properties unless historic evidence shows
otherwise.
Awnings are not proposed at this time.
12.6 Signs should not obscure or damage historic building fabric.
• Where possible, install a free standing sign that is appropriate in height and width. Consolidate
signage for multiple businesses.
• Mount signs so that the attachment point can be easily repaired when the sign is replaced. Do
not mount signage directly into historic masonry.
• Blade signs or hanging signs are generally preferred to wall mounted signs because the number
of attachment points may be less.
• Signs should be constructed of wood or metal.
• Pictographic signs are encouraged because they add visual interest to the street.
P51
IV.A.
Exhibit 1
210 West Main Street
12.7 Sign lighting must be subtle and concealed.
• Pin mounted letters with halo lighting will not be approved on Aspen Victorian buildings.
• The size of a fixture used to light a sign must be minimized. The light must be directed towards
the sign. If possible, integrate the lights into the sign bracket.
12.8 Locate signs to be subordinate to the building design.
• Signs should be located on the first floor of buildings, primarily.
• Signs should not obscure historic building details.
12.9 Preserve historic signs.
As a residential building, signage is not proposed.
Main Street Historic District Guidelines - Final
7.16 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those of the Victorian era residences
seen traditionally on Main Street.
• These include windows, doors and porches.
• Overall, details should be modest in character.
Proposed windows are mostly rectangular to relate to the traditional double hung windows found in the
Historic District. Doors and Porches are simple and modest in character to not distract from surrounding
Victorian era residences. The two street facing buildings have a complimentary, but different, approach to
windows and materials to have the two building read as separate structures and to break up the perception
of mass and scale.
7.17 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged.
• This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings.
• Highly complex and ornately detailed revival styles that were not part of Aspen’s history are
especially discouraged.
The proposed architectural style is simple in character and does not imitate the surrounding 19th century
buildings.
7.18 The retail entrance should be at the sidewalk level.
• All entrances shall be ADA compliant.
• On sloping sites the retail frontage should be as close to a level entrance as possible.
Not applicable.
7.19 Incorporate an airlock entry into the plan for all new structures.
• An airlock entry that projects forwrad of the primary façade at the sidewalk edge is
inappropriate.
• Adding temporary entires dueing the winter season detracts from the character of the historic
district.
• Using a temproary vinyl or fabric “airlock” to provide protection from winter weather is not
permitted.
P52
IV.A.
Exhibit 1
210 West Main Street
Not applicable.
7.20 Use building materials that are similar to those used historically.
• When selecting materials, reflect the simple and modest character of historic materials and
their placement.
Proposed building materials are similar to those found at the 7th and Main affordable housing complex.
The majority of the building is three different applications of wood siding and the southeast wing is
hardiboard.
Figures 1- 2 (top left to right): Vertical wood siding and horizontal lap siding
examples.
Figure 3 (bottom left): Horizontal lap siding and hardiboard examples.
P53
IV.A.
Exhibit 1
210 West Main Street
Recycled board and batten from the existing building at 210 W. Main is proposed to be reused along the
alley ground floor.
Windows are proposed to be metal clad material, shown in Figure 5. A range of doors are provided below
for consideration by HPC. Railings are metal as shown in Figure 6.
Figure 4: Existing board and batten.
Figure 6: Sample metal railing.
Figure 5: Sample windows.
P54
IV.A.
Exhibit 1
210 West Main Street
Door examples for discussion by HPC are found below:
Example for main entry point to courtyard facing Main Street:
Examples for street facing residential units:
P55
IV.A.
Exhibit 1
210 West Main Street
Example for residential door that are not visible from Main Street:
7.21 Use roofing materials that are similar in appearance to those seen historically.
The flat roofs will have green roof systems (to comply with Condition #2 of the HPC Conceptual
Resolution) similar to that found at Rubey Park. Drought resistant fescue grass that will be about 6
inches high is proposed.
Figure 7: Grass roof at Rubey Park.
P56
IV.A.
Exhibit 1
210 West Main Street
7.22 Landscaping and paving should have the following characteristics:
• Enhance the street scene.
• Integrate the development with its setting.
• Reflect the quality of the architectural materials.
Proposed landscaping and paving is simple and integrates the building into the Main Street corridor.
7.23 Landscaping should create a buffer between the street and sidewalk.
Street trees create a buffer between the street and sidewalk, and bushes create a buffer between the
residences and street noise.
P57
IV.A.
DATE:
PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT ADDRESS:
APPLICANT CONTACT
INFORMATION:
NAME, COMPANY,
ADDRESS, PHONE, EMAIL
Peak Hour Max Trips Generated MMLOS TDM Total Trips Mitigated
PM 5.3 10 0.06 10.06 0.00
A driveway curbcut on Main Street is proposed to be removed. The pedestrian experience along Main Street will be greatly improved by the
removal of this curb.
Include any additional information that pertains to the MMLOS plan in the space provided below.
Enter Text Here
TDM
Explain the proposed end of trip facilities strategy below. The provision of convenient facilities for pedestrians and cyclists encourages
these types of alternative modes, thus reducing SOV trips. Non-residential projects may provide facilities such as showers, secure bicycle
lockers, personal lockers, changing spaces, etc.
Project Description
In the space below provide a description of the proposed project.
Replacement of an existing multi-family building with a new multi-family building. No increase in unit density is proposed.
MMLOS
Explain what driveways are removed and how this benefits the pedestrian experience.
Chris Bendon
BendonAdams
300 S. Spring St. #202, Aspen, CO
970-925-2855
chris@bendonadams.com
Summary and Narrative:
Narrative:
2/15/2017
King Louise
210 West Main Street
Trip Generation
SUMMARY
Trip Mitigation NET TRIPS TO BE
MITIGATED
Click on the "Generate Narrative" Button to the right.
Respond to each of the prompts in the space provided.
Each response should cover the following:
1.Explain the selected measure.
2.Call out where the measure is located.
3.Demonstrate how the selected measure is appropriate to enhance the project site
and reduce traffic impacts.
4.Explain the Enforcement and Financing Plan for the selected measure.
5.Explain the scheduling and implementation responsibility of the mitigation measure.
6. Attach any additional information and a site map to the narrative report.
Exhibit 2
P58
IV.A.
APCHA and the City may decide to audit the HOA to determine the effectiveness of the proposed measures.
Scheduling and Implementation Responsibility of Mitigation Measures
Provide an overview of the scheduling and implementation responsibility for the proposed transportation mitigation measures.
Transportation mitigation measures are the responsibility of the HOA.
Monitoring and Reporting
Provide a monitoring and reporting plan. Refer to page 17 in the Transportation Analysis Guidelines for a list of monitoring plan
requirements. Components of a Monitoring and Reporting Plan should include (1) Assessment of compliance with guidelines, (2) Results
and effectiveness of implemented measures, (3) Identification of additional strategies, and (4) Surveys and other supporting data.
Pedestrian Directness Factor (See callout number 9 on the MMLOS sheet for an example)
Bicycle Parking
Enforcement and Financing
Provide an overview of the Enforcement and Financing plan for the proposed transportation mitigation measures.
There is no enforcement required for the proposed measures.
MMLOS Site Plan Requirements
Include the following on a site plan. Clearly call out and label each measure. Attach the site plan to the TIA submittal.
Slopes Between Back of Curb and Sidewalk
Removed Driveway(s)
2% Slope at Pedestrian Driveway Crossings
Extra storage to store bicycles and other alternative modes of transportation.
Explain the proposed trip reduction marketing/incentive program in the space provided. A trip reduction marketing programs should
include a number of the following strategies: orientation to trip reduction programs and benefits; orientation to specific alternative
transportation modes such as bus service information, bike/walk route maps, etc.; publishing of web or traditional informational
materials; events and contests such as commuter fairs, new employee orientations, bike to work days, etc.; educational opportunities
such bicycle commute/repair classes; web or traditional materials aimed at guests/customers such as bike/walk maps, free transit day
passes, etc.; incentive programs such as prizes, rewards or discounts for alternative commuting.
Bus routes, bike routes, and other similar programs that relate to in town residents will be provided in the HOA packet for future tenants or
purchasers.
Include any additional information that pertains to the TDM plan in the space provided below.
P59
IV.A.
= input
= calculation
DATE:
PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT ADDRESS:
APPLICANT CONTACT
INFORMATION:
NAME, COMPANY,
ADDRESS, PHONE, EMAIL
Minor
Entering Exiting Total Entering Exiting Total
Commercial (sf)-435.0 sf -0.68 -0.31 -0.99 -0.72 -1.08 -1.80
Free-Market Housing (Units)0 Units 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Affordable Housing (Units)8 Units 2.88 3.12 6.00 3.92 3.20 7.12
Lodging (Units)0 Units 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Essential Public Facility (sf)0.0 sf 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2.20 2.81 5.01 3.20 2.12 5.32
Land Use Trip Rate %Entering %Exiting Trip Rate %Entering %Exiting
Commercial 2.27 0.69 0.31 4.14 0.4 0.6
Free-Market Housing 0.67 0.29 0.71 0.82 0.56 0.44
Affordable Housing 0.75 0.48 0.52 0.89 0.55 0.45
Lodging 0.25 0.57 0.43 0.31 0.52 0.48
Essential Public Facility 0.86 0.62 0.38 1.66 0.4 0.6
Chris Bendon
BendonAdams
300 S. Spring St. #202, Aspen, CO
970-925-2855
chris@bendonadams.com
Trip Generation
2/15/2017
AM Peak Average PM Peak Average
Trips Generated
AM Peak-Hour PM Peak-Hour
TOTAL NEW TRIPS
ASSUMPTIONS
ASPEN TRIP GENERATION
Is this a major or minor project?
210 West Main Street
King Louise
Net New
Units/Square Feet of
the Proposed ProjectProposed Land Use
*For mixed-use (at least two of the established land uses) sites, a 4% reduction for AM Peak-Hour and a 14% reduction for PM Peak-Hour is applied to
the trip generation.
Instructions:
IMPORTANT: Turn on Macros: In order for code to run correctly the security settings need to be altered. Click "File"
and then click "Excel Options." In the "Trust Center"category, click "Trust Center Settings", and then click the "Macro
Settings"category. Beneath "Macro Settings" select "Enable all Macros."
Sheet 1. Trip Generation: Enter the project's square footage and/or unit counts under Proposed Land Use. The
numbers should reflect the net change in land use between existing and proposed conditions. If a landuse is to be
reduced put a negative number of units or square feet.
Sheet 2. MMLOS: Answer Yes, No, or Not Applicable under each of the Pedestrian, Bike and Transit sections.Points
are only awarded for proposed (not existing) and confirmed aspects of the project.
Sheet 3. TDM: Choose the mitigation measures that are appropriate for your project.
Sheet 4. Summary and Narrative: Review the summary of the project's mitigated trips and provide a narrative which
explains the measures selected for the project. Click on "Generate Narrative" and individually explain each measure
that was chosen and how it enhances the site or mitigates vehicle traffic. Ensure each selected measure make sense
Minor Development -Inside the Roundabout
Major Development -Outside the Roundabout
Helpful Hints:
1. Refer to the Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines for information on the use of this tool.
2. Refer to TIA Frequently Asked Questions for a quick overview.
2. Hover over red corner tags for additional information on individual measures.
3. Proposed TDM or MMLOS measures should be new and/or an improvement of existing conditions. A project will
not receive credit for measures already in place. Proposed TDM or MMLOS measures should also make sense in the
context of project location and future use.
Transportation Impact Analysis
TIA Frequently Asked Questions
P60
IV.A.
= input
= calculation
10
Category Sub.Measure Number Question Answer Points
1
Does the project propose a detached sidewalk where an attached
sidewalk currently exists? Does the proposed sidewalk and buffer
meet standard minimum widths?
0
2 Is the proposed effective sidewalk width greater than the standard
minimum width?0
3 Does the project propose a landscape buffer greater than the
standard minimum width?0
0
4
Does the project propose a detached sidewalk on an adjacent
block? Does the proposed sidewalk and buffer meet standard
minimum widths?
0
5 Is the proposed effective sidewalk width on an adjacent block
greater than the standard minimum width?0
6 Is the proposed landscape buffer on an adjacent block greater than
the standard minimum width?0
0
7 Are slopes between back of curb and sidewalk equal to or less than
5%?Yes 0
8 Are curbs equal to (or less than) 6 inches?Yes 0
9
Is new large-scale landscaping proposed that improves the
pedestrian experience? Properties within the Core do not have ample
area to provide the level of landscaping required to receive credit in
this category.
0
10 Does the project propose an improved crosswalk? This measure must
get City approval before receiving credit. 0
0
11 Are existing driveways removed from the street?Yes 5
12 Is pedestrian and/or vehicle visibility unchanged by new structure or
column?Yes 0
13 Is the grade (where pedestrians cross) on cross-slope of driveway 2%
or less?Yes 0
14
Does the project propose enhanced pedestrian access points from
the ROW? This includes improvements to ADA ramps or creating new
access points which prevent pedestrians from crossing a street.
0
15 Does the project propose enhanced pedestrian or bicyclist
interaction with vehicles at driveway areas?0
5
16 Is the project's pedestrian directness factor less than 1.5?Yes 0
17
Does the project propose new improvements which reduce the
pedestrian directness factor to less than 1.2? A site which has an
existing pedestrian directness factor less than 1.2 cannot receive
credit in this category.
0
18 Is the project proposing an off site improvement that results in a
pedestrian directness factor below 1.2?* 0
19 Are traffic calming features proposed that are part of an approved
plan (speed humps, rapid flash)?*0
0
20
Are additional minor improvements proposed which benefit the
pedestrian experience and have been agreed upon with City of
Aspen staff?
0
21
Are additional major improvements proposed which benefit the
pedestrian experience and have been agreed upon with City of
Aspen staff?
0
0
5Pedestrian Total*
MMLOS Input Page
Subtotal
SubtotalSidewalk Condition on Adjacent BlocksSidewalk Condition on Project FrontageSubtotal
Instructions: Answer Yes, No, or Not Applicable to each measure under the Pedestrian, Bike and Transit sections.
Subtotal
Subtotal
PedestriansSubtotalAdditional Proposed ImprovementsTOTAL NUMBER OF TRIPS MITIGATED:Pedestrian RoutesTraffic Calming and Pedestrian NetworkDriveways, Parking, and Access ConsiderationsP61
IV.A.
Category Sub.Measure Number Question Answer Points
22 Is a new bicycle path being implemented with City approved design?0
23 Do new bike paths allow access without crossing a street or
driveway?0
24 Is there proposed landscaping, striping, or signage improvements to
an existing bicycle path?0
25 Does the project propose additional minor bicycle improvements
which have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff?0
26 Does the project propose additional major bicycle improvements
which have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff?0
0
Bicycle Parking27 Is the project providing bicycle parking?Yes 5
5
5
Category Sub.Measure Number Question Answer Points
28 Is seating/bench proposed?0
29 Is a trash receptacle proposed?0
30 Is transit system information (signage) proposed?0
31 Is shelter/shade proposed?0
32 Is enhanced pedestrian-scale lighting proposed?0
33 Is real-time transit information proposed?0
34 Is bicycle parking/storage proposed specifically for bus stop use?0
35 Are ADA improvements proposed?0
0
36 Is a bus pull-out proposed at an existing stop?0
37 Is relocation of a bus stop to improve transit accessibility or roadway
operations proposed?0
38 Is a new bus stop proposed (with minimum of two basic amenities)?0
0
0
Bicycles Total*
Transit Total*BicyclesModifications to Existing Bicycle PathsTransitBasic AmenitiesSubtotal
Subtotal
Enhanced AmenitiesSubtotal
Subtotal
P62
IV.A.
Category Measure
Number Sub. Question Answer Strategy VMT
Reductions
Will an onsite ammenities strategy be implemented?No
Which onsite ammenities will be implemented?
Will a shared shuttle service strategy be implemented?NA
What is the degree of implementation?
What is the company size?
What percentage of customers are eligible?
3 Nonmotorized Zones Will a nonmotorized zones strategy be implemented?0.00%
0.00%
Category Measure
Number Sub. Question Answer Strategy VMT
Reductions
Will a network expansion stragtegy be implemented?
What is the percentage increase of transit network coverage?
What is the existing transit mode share as a % of total daily trips?
Will a service frequency/speed strategy be implemented?
What is the percentage reduction in headways (increase in frequency)?
What is the existing transit mode share as a % of total daily trips?
What is the level of implementation?
Will a transit access improvement strategy be implemented?
What is the extent of access improvements?
7 Intercept Lot Will an intercept lot strategy be implemented?0.00%
0.00%
Category Measure
Number Sub. Question Answer Strategy VMT
Reductions
Will there be participation in TOP?
What percentage of employees are eligible?
Is a transit fare subsidy strategy implemented?
What percentage of employees are eligible?
What is the amount of transit subsidy per passenger (daily equivalent)?
Is an employee parking cash-out strategy being implemented?
What percentage of employees are eligible?
Is a workplace parking pricing strategy implemented?
What is the daily parking charge?
What percentage of employees are subject to priced parking?
Is a compressed work weeks strategy implemented?
What percentage of employees are participating?
What is the workweek schedule?
Is an employer sponsered shuttle program implemented?
What is the employer size?
What percentage of employees are eligible?
Is a carpool matching strategy implemented?
What percentage of employees are eligble?
Is carshare participation being implemented?
How many employee memberships have been purchased?
What percentage of employees are eligble?
Is participation in the bikeshare program WE-cycle being implemented?
How many memberships have been purchased?
What percentage of employees/guests are eligble?
Is an end of trip facilities strategy being implemented?Yes
What is the degree of implementation? Low
What is the employer size? Small
Is a self-funded emergency ride home strategy being implemented?
What percentage of employees are eligible?
Is a carpool/vanpool priority parking strategy being implemented?
What is the employer size?
What number of parking spots are available for the program?
Is a private employer shuttle strategy being implemented?
What is the employer size?
What percentage of employees are eligible?
Is a trip reduction marketing/incentive program implemented?Yes
What percentage of employees/guests are eligible?100%
1.08%
0.00%
1.08%
1. 22% work trips represents a mixed-used site (SF Bay Area Travel Survey). See Assumptions Tab for more detail.
Maximum Reduction Allowed in CategoryTransit System Improvements Strategies1
2
4
5
6
8
9
10
4.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Maximum Reduction Allowed in Category
Maximum Reduction Allowed in Category
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Bikeshare Program
0.00%
TDM Input Page
0.00%
1.00%
0.00%Commute Trip Reduction Programs StrategiesOnsite Servicing
Shared Shuttle Service
Neighborhood/Site Enhancements Strategies0.00%
0.00%
Network Expansion
Service Frequency/Speed
Transit Access Improvement
Participation in TOP
Transit Fare Subsidy
Employee Parking Cash-Out
Workplace Parking Pricing
Compressed Work Weeks
Employer Sponsored Vanpool
Carpool Matching
Carshare Program
Self-funded Emergency Ride Home
Carpool/Vanpool Priority Parking
Private Employer Shuttle
Trip Reduction Marketing/Incentive
Program
End of Trip Facilities
Cross Category Maximum Reduction, Neighborhood and Transit
Global Maximum VMT Reductions
11
12
13
14
15
21
16
17
18
19
20
Instructions TDM: Choose the mitigation measures that are appropriate for your project. Proposed TDM or
MMLOS measures should be new and/or an improvement of existing conditions. A project will not receive credit
for measures already in place. Proposed TDM or MMLOS measures should also make sense in the context of
project location and future use.
P63
IV.A.
XX
Bike Rack
1
2
3
4567891011
SITEPLAN
970.927.3167 | tkga@tkga.net
TKGA
KALH/TKG
Theodore K Guy Associates PC
REMARKS
JOB #:
SHEET TITLE:
COPYRIGHT
THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC
DRAWN:
PRINTED:
CHECKED:
DATE
originalKING LOUISE210 W MAIN STASPEN, COLORADOTKG
16103
16103 KL Final HPC 061118.vwx
6/11/18
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
common sense solutions
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
Box 1640, Basalt, CO 81621
DESIGN REVIEW03/24/2016
08/24/2017 GROWTH MANAGEMENT
11/19/2017Crow Flies Distance: 36 ftWalking Distance: 50 ft
Directness Factor: 1.39
Walking Distance: 50 ft
Crow Flies Distance: 36 ft
Bicycle Parking
6'
< 5%
Driveway curb cut
removedP64 IV.A.
AHPC
Final Major Development
210 W. Main Street
PID #273512440009
1
CITY OF ASPEN
PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PLANNER: Justin Barker, 970.429.2797 DATE: 1.9.18
PROJECT: 210 W. Main Street
REPRESENTATIVE: Sara Adams, BendonAdams
REQUEST: HPC Final Major Development
DESCRIPTION:
210 W. Main Street is a 6,000 Sq. ft. lot in the Mixed Use (MU) zone district. Although the property is not designated, it is
located within the Main Street Historic District. The Applicant received Conceptual approval for an affordable housing project
on August 9, 2017 via HPC Resolution No. 16, Series of 2017 as well as Growth Management and Housing Credits approval
from P&Z on December 5, 2017 via P&Z Resolution No. 17, Series of 2017.
The last review step is HPC Final design (landscape, lighting, fenestration and materials). This project will be reviewed
under the Main Street Historic District Guidelines that were in effect on the date of initial submission (February 21, 2017).
HPC Resolution No. 16 included conditions of approval that will need to be addressed in the application for Final Review.
While the TIA was reviewed at Conceptual, remaining details must be confirmed and approved by Engineering at Final.
Below are links for your convenience:
Land Use App:
https://www.cityofaspen.com/DocumentCenter/Home/View/1837
Land Use Code (Title 26):
https://www.cityofaspen.com/191/Municipal-Code
Commercial Design Guidelines:
Attached
Land Use Code Section(s)
26.304 Common Development Review Procedures
26.415.070(D) Historic Preservation – Major Development Review
26.575.020 Calculations and Measurements
26.630 Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines
26.710.180 Mixed Use zone district
Review by: Staff for complete application
Historic Preservation Commission for decisions
Public Hearing: Yes, at HPC
Planning Fees: $1,950 for 6 hours of staff time (additional planning hours over deposit amount are billed at a
rate of $325/hour)
Exhibit 3
P65
IV.A.
2
Referral Fees: Engineering $325 deposit (additional engineering hours over deposit are billed at a rate of
$325/hour)
Total Deposit: $2,275
To apply, submit one 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)
A written description of the proposal and an explanation of how the proposed development complies with the
review standards relevant to the development application and relevant land use approvals associated with the
property.
Written responses to all review criteria.
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.
Scaled drawings of all 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.
Documentation showing the proposal meets all Transportation Mitigation Requirements as outlined in the City’s
Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines and Mitigation Tool, available online at:
http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-Development/Planning-and-Zoning/Current-Planning/. A
copy of the tool showing trips generated and the chosen mitigation measures should be included with the
application.
Final selection of all exterior materials, and samples or clearly illustrated photographs. Samples are preferred for
the presentation to HPC.
A lighting plan and landscape plan.
If the copy is deemed complete by staff, the following items will then need to be submitted:
P66
IV.A.
3
1 digital PDF copy of the complete application packet.
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.
P67
IV.A.
Exhibit 4
210 West Main Street – Vicinity Map
P68
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): ______________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
210 W Main Street
King Louise, LLC
210 W Main Street, Aspen CO
Mixed Use
6,000 sf
6,000 sf
435 0
7-8 8
100
3,282 sf
23.75’28’30’
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a
none
Special review requested for 1:25:1 FAR
n/a n/a
5’ (E)5’5’
5’ (W)5’5’
10’10’10’
5’5’5’
6 6 6
about 7361 sf7500 sf
special
review
Exhibit 5
P69
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
King Louise Affordable Housing
210 West Main Street, Block 51, Lots P and Q City and Townsite of Aspen
King Louise, LLC
Chris Bendon, BendonAdams
300 So Spring Street, Suite 202, Aspen CO 81611
925-2855 chris@bendonadams.com
X
X
X Conceptual Residential Design
X Special Review
EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.)
_________Eight resident____ i________al apartments wi________th smal____l hai____r sal____on__________________________________________________________________
PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.)
_______Eight resi_____denti______al apartments______________________________________________________________________________________
27 351 244 0009
PO Box 1467, Basalt, Colorado 81621
970 927 3167 tkga@tkga.net
P70
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
X
X
X
X
P71
IV.A.
Exhibit 6P72IV.A.
From:Justin Barker
To:Sara Adams
Subject:RE: 210 again
Date:Monday, May 07, 2018 10:28:02 AM
I’m fine with not
Justin Barker
AICP | LEED Green Assoc | CNU-a
Senior Planner | City of Aspen
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
T 970.429.2797
F 970.920.5439
www.cityofaspen.com (Please note, the city’s website has changed and any saved links should be
updated)
www.aspencommunityvoice.com
Notice and Disclaimer:
This message is intended only for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential and exempt from
disclosure pursuant to applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error and
then delete it. Further, the information or opinions contained in this email are advisory in nature only and are not binding on the City of Aspen. If
applicable, the information and opinions contain in the email are based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual
representations that may or may not be accurate. The opinions and information contained herein do not create a legal or vested right or any claim of
detrimental reliance.
From: Sara Adams <sara@bendonadams.com>
Sent: Monday, May 7, 2018 10:10 AM
To: Justin Barker <Justin.Barker@cityofaspen.com>
Subject: 210 again
Hey Justin,
Do we really need to update the title for Final Design application? Just checking..
Thanks, S
Sara Adams, AICP
970-925-2855
www.BendonAdams.com
300 S. Spring St., #202
Aspen, CO 81611
Exhibit 7
P73
IV.A.
Form 5011000 (6-22-10) Page 1 of 2 ALTA Plain Language Commitment (6-17-06)
Title Insurance Commitment
ISSUED BY
First American Title Insurance Company
Commitment
INFORMATION
The Title Insurance Commitment is a legal contract between you and the
Company. It is issued to show the basis on which we will issue a Title
Insurance Policy to you. The Policy will insure you against certain risks to the
land title, subject to the limitations shown in the Policy.
The Company will give you a sample of the Policy form, if you ask.
The Policy contains an arbitration clause. All arbitrable matters when the
Amount of Insurance is $2,000,000 or less shall be arbitrated at the option of
either the Company or you as the exclusive remedy of the parties. You may
review a copy of the arbitration rules at http://www.alta.org/.
The Commitment is based on the land title as of the Commitment Date. Any
changes in the land title or the transaction may affect the Commitment and
the Policy.
The Commitment is subject to its Requirements, Exceptions and Conditions.
THIS INFORMATION IS NOT PART OF THE TITLE INSURANCE
COMMITMENT. YOU SHOULD READ THE COMMITMENT VERY
CAREFULLY.
If you have any questions about the Commitment, contact:
FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
1 First American Way, Santa Ana, California 92707
TABLE OF CONTENTS
AGREEMENT TO ISSUE POLICY 1
CONDITIONS 2
SCHEDULE A Insert
1. Commitment Date
2. Policies to be Issued, Amounts
and Proposed Insureds
3. Interest in the Land and Owner
4. Description of the Land
SCHEDULE B-I - REQUIREMENTS Insert
SCHEDULE B-II - EXCEPTIONS Insert
AGREEMENT TO ISSUE POLICY
We agree to issue policy to you according to the terms of the Commitment. When we show the policy amount and your name as the proposed insured in Schedule A,
this Commitment becomes effective as of the Commitment Date shown in Schedule A.
If the Requirements shown in this Commitment have not been met within six months after the Commitment Date, our obligation under this Commitment will end. Also,
our obligation under this Commitment will end when the Policy is issued and then our obligation to you will be under the Policy.
Our obligation under this Commitment is limited by the following:
The Provisions in Schedule A.
The Requirements in Schedule B-I.
The Exceptions in Schedule B-II.
The Conditions on Page 2.
This Commitment is not valid without SCHEDULE A and Sections I and II of SCHEDULE B.
(This Commitment is valid only when Schedules A and B are attached) This jacket was created electronically and constitutes an original document
Copyright 2006-2009 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date
of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association.
[[
P74
IV.A.
Form 5011000 (6-22-10) Page 2 of 2 ALTA Plain Language Commitment (6-17-06)
CONDITIONS
1.DEFINITIONS
(a) "Mortgage" means mortgage, deed of trust or other security instrument. (b) "Public Records" means title records
that give constructive notice of matters affecting your title according to the state statutes where your land is
located.
2.LATER DEFECTS
The Exceptions in Schedule B - Section II may be amended to show any defects, liens or encumbrances that appear
for the first time in the public records or are created or attached between the Commitment Date and the date on which
all of the Requirements (a) and (c) of Schedule B - Section I are met. We shall have no liability to you because of this
amendment.
3.EXISTING DEFECTS
If any defects, liens or encumbrances existing at Commitment Date are not shown in Schedule B, we may amend
Schedule B to show them. If we do amend Schedule B to show these defects, liens or encumbrances, we shall be
liable to you according to Paragraph 4 below unless you knew of this information and did not tell us about it in writing.
4.LIMITATION OF OUR LIABILITY
Our only obligation is to issue to you the Policy referred to in this Commitment, when you have met its Requirements.
If we have any liability to you for any loss you incur because of an error in this Commitment, our liability will be limited
to your actual loss caused by your relying on this Commitment when you acted in good faith to:
Comply with the Requirements shown in Schedule B - Section I
or
Eliminate with our written consent any Exceptions shown in Schedule B - Section II.
We shall not be liable for more than the Policy Amount shown in Schedule A of this Commitment and our liability is
subject to the terms of the Policy form to be issued to you.
5.CLAIMS MUST BE BASED ON THIS COMMITMENT
Any claim, whether or not based on negligence, which you may have against us concerning the title to the land must
be based on this Commitment and is subject to its terms.
P75
IV.A.
Copyright 2006-2009 American Land Title Association. All right reserved.
The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use.
All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association.
16003520 - B
American Land Title Association ALTA Commitment Form
Adopted 6-17-06
First American Title Insurance Co.
Commitment No.: 16003520
SCHEDULE A
1. Effective Date: February 7, 2017 at 07:45 AM
2. Policy or Policies to be issued: Amount Premium
A.ALTA Owners Policy (06/17/06)TBD $0.00
Proposed Insured:TBD
Certificate of Taxes Due $0.00
Endorsements:
Additional Charges:$0
Total $0.00
3. The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment is Fee simple.
4. Title to the Fee simple or interest in the land is at the Effective Date vested in:
KING LOUISE LLC, a Colorado limited liability company
5. The land referred to in the Commitment is described as follows:
SEE EXHIBIT A ATTACHED HERETO
For informational purposes only, the property address is: 210 West Main Street, Aspen, CO 81611.
Attorneys Title Insurance Agency of Aspen, LLC
By:
Winter VanAlstine
Authorized Officer or Agent
FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES OR SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH THIS COMMITMENT, CONTACT:
Attorneys Title Insurance Agency of Aspen, LLC,715 West Main Street, Suite 202, Aspen, CO 81611, Phone: 970
925-7328, Fax: 970 925-7348.
P76
IV.A.
Copyright 2006-2009 American Land Title Association. All right reserved.
The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members
in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited.
Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association.
16003520 - B
American Land Title Association ALTA Commitment Form
Adopted 6-17-06
First American Title Insurance Co.
Commitment No.: 16003520
SCHEDULE B
1. Requirements:
1.Pay the agreed amounts for the interest in the land and/or the mortgage to be insured.
2.Pay us the premiums, fees and charges for the policy.
3.Documents satisfactory to us creating the interest in the land and/or the mortgage to be insured must be signed,
delivered and recorded.
4.You must tell us in writing the name of anyone not referred to in this Commitment who will get an interest in the
land or who will make a loan on the land. We may then make additional requirements or exceptions.
5.Payment of all taxes, charges and assessments, levied and assessed against the subject premises which are due
and payable.
6.A Certification of Taxes due listing each taxing jurisdiction shall be obtained from the County Treasurer or an
authorized agent (pursuant to Senate Bill 92-143, CRS 10-11-122).
7.Receipt by the Company of the appropriate affidavit as to new construction and indemnifying the Company against
any unfiled materialmen's or mechanic's liens.
8.Warranty Deed must be sufficient to convey the fee simple estate or interest in the land described or referred to
herein, from King Louise, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, to TBD, the proposed insured, Schedule A,
item 2A. NOTE: C.R.S. Section 38-35-109(2) required that a notation of the purchaser's legal address, (not
necessarily the same as the property address) be included on the face of the Deed to be recorded.
9.Record a Statement of Authority to provide prima facie evidence of existence of KING LOUISE LLC, a Colorado
limited liability company, an entity capable of holding property, and the name of the person authorized to execute
instruments affecting title to real property as authorized by C.R.S. Section 38-30-172.
10.Certificate of Good Standing from the Colorado Secretary of State for KING LOUISE LLC, a Colorado limited
liability company.
11.A copy of the properly signed and executed Operating Agreement if written, for KING LOUISE LLC, a Colorado
limited liability company, to be submitted to the Company for review.
12.Additional Requirements may be included once the name of the Buyer is provided.
13.Improvement Survey Plat sufficient in form, content and certification acceptable to the Company. Exception will be
taken to adverse matters disclosed thereby. (REQUIREMENT SATISFIED).
14.This Title Commitment is subject to underwriter approval.
P77
IV.A.
American Land Title Association ALTA Commitment Form
Adopted 6-17-06
First American Title Insurance Co.
Commitment No.: 16003520
SCHEDULE B
(Continued)
Copyright 2006-2009 American Land Title Association. All right reserved.
The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use.
All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association.
16003520 - B
2. Schedule B of the policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following matters unless the same are
disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company:
1.Any facts, rights, interests or claims which are not shown by the Public Records, but which could be ascertained
by an inspection of the Land or by making inquiry of persons in possession thereof.
2.Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the Public Records.
3.Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, and any facts which a correct survey
and inspection of the Land would disclose, and which are not shown by the Public Records.
4.Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material theretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not
shown in the Public Records.
5.Any and all unpaid taxes, assessments and unredeemed tax sales.
6.(a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof;
(c) water rights, claims or title to water, whether or not the matters excepted under (a), (b), or (c) are shown by the
Public Records.
7.Taxes and assessments for the year 2016 and 2017, and subsequent years, a lien not yet due or payable.
8.Reservations and exceptions as set forth in the Deed from the City of Aspen providing as follows: "That no title
shall be hereby acquired to any mine of gold, silver, cinnabar or copper or to any valid mining claim or possession
held under existing laws", dated October 7, 1887, and recorded October 7, 1887, in Book 59 at Page 12, as
Reception No. 020679.
9.Terms, conditions, provisions, agreements and obligations specified under the Patent, dated January 29, 1897,
and recorded March 1, 1897, in Book 139 at Page 216, as Reception No. 060156.
10.Terms, conditions, provisions, agreements and obligations specified under An Ordinance Designating As An
Historic District all of those Properties Abutting (on the North and South) Main Street Between Monarch and
Seventh Streets, andall of Paepcke Park, Within the City of Aspen: Which Area is More Particularly Described as
Lots K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R and S of Block 18, 24, 30, 37, 44, 51, 58, 66, 73; Lots A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H and J of
Blocks 19, 25, 31, 38, 45, 52, 59, 71; and all of Block 67 of the Original Aspen Townsite (Ordinance No. 60, Series
of 1976), dated October 25, 1976, and recorded December 9, 1976, in Book 321 at Page 51, as Reception No.
189906.
11.Terms, conditions, provisions, agreements and obligations specified under the Occupancy Deed Restriction and
Agreement for an Employee Dwelling Unit Approved Pursuant to Section 3-1510 of the Pitkin County Land Use
Code, dated September 5, 1995, and recorded October 18, 1995, in Book 797 at Page 119, as Reception No.
386545.
P78
IV.A.
American Land Title Association ALTA Commitment Form
Adopted 6-17-06
First American Title Insurance Co.
Commitment No.: 16003520
SCHEDULE B
(Continued)
Copyright 2006-2009 American Land Title Association. All right reserved.
The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use.
All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association.
16003520 - B
12.Any existing leases or tenancies, and any and all parties claiming by, through or under said lessees.
13.Any and all notes, easements and recitals as disclosed on the Improvement Survey Plat, provided by Sopris
Engineering - LLC, dated May 2007.
14.Deed of Trust from King Louise LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County for
the benefit of Alpine Bank, a Colorado Banking Corporation, to secure an indebtedness in the principal sum of
$250,000.00, and any other amounts and/obligations secured thereby, dated May 20, 2016, and recorded June 7,
2016, as Reception No. 629837.
P79
IV.A.
ALTA Commitment 16003520 - B
Exhibit A
First American Title Insurance Co.
Commitment No.: 16003520
EXHIBIT A
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
The land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows:
Lots P&Q, Block 51, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, Pitkin County, Colorado.
P80
IV.A.
First American Title Insurance Company
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Pursuant to C.R.S. 30-10-406(3)(a) all documents received for recording or filing in the Clerk and Recorder’s office shall
contain a top margin of at least one inch and a left, right and bottom margin of at least one-half of an inch. The Clerk and
Recorder will refuse to record or file any document that does not conform to the requirements of this section.
NOTE: If this transaction includes a sale of the property and the price exceeds $100,000.00, the seller must comply with
the disclosure/withholding provisions of C.R.S. 39-22-604.5 (Nonresident withholding).
NOTE: Colorado Division of Insurance Regulations 8-1-2 requires that “Every title insurance company shall be responsible
to the proposed insured(s) subject to the terms and conditions of the title commitment, other than the effective date of the
title commitment, for all matters which appear of record prior to the time of recording whenever the title insurance
company, or its agent, conducts the closing and settlement service that is in conjunction with its issuance of an owner’s
policy of title insurance and is responsible for the recording and filing of legal documents resulting from the transaction
which was closed.
Pursuant to C.R.S. 10-11-122, the company will not issue its owner’s policy or owner’s policies of title insurance
contemplated by this commitment until it has been provided a Certificate of Taxes due or other equivalent documentation
from the County Treasurer or the County Treasurer’s authorized agent; or until the Proposed Insured has notified or
instructed the company in writing to the contrary.
The subject property may be located in a special taxing district. A Certificate of Taxes due listing each taxing jurisdiction
shall be obtained from the County Treasurer or the County Treasurer’s authorized agent. Information regarding special
districts and the boundaries of such districts may be obtained from the Board of County Commissioners, the County Clerk
and Recorder, or the County Assessor.
NOTE: Pursuant to CRS 10-11-123, notice is hereby given:
This notice applies to owner’s policy commitments containing a mineral severance instrument exception, or
exceptions, in Schedule B, Section 2.
A. That there is recorded evidence that a mineral estate has been severed, leased, or otherwise conveyed
from the surface estate and that there is a substantial likelihood that a third party holds some or all
interest in oil, gas, other minerals, or geothermal energy in the property; and
B. That such mineral estate may include the right to enter and use the property without the surface owner’s
permission. NOTE: Pursuant to Colorado Division of Insurance Regulations 8-1-2, Affirmative mechanic’s
lien protection for the Owner may be available (typically by deletion of Exception no. 4 of Schedule B,
Section 2 of the Commitment from the Owner’s Policy to be issued) upon compliance with the following
conditions:
NOTE: Pursuant to Colorado Division of Insurance Regulations 8-1-2, Affirmative mechanic’s lien protection for
the Owner may be available (typically by deletion of Exception no. 4 of Schedule B, Section 2 of the Commitment
from the Owner’s Policy to be issued) upon compliance with the following conditions:
A. The land described in Schedule A of this commitment must be a single family residence which includes a
condominium or townhouse unit.
B. No labor or materials have been furnished by mechanics or material-men for purposes of construction on
the land described in Schedule A of this Commitment within the past 6 months.
C. The Company must receive an appropriate affidavit indemnifying the Company against un-filed
mechanic’s and material-men’s liens.
D. The Company must receive payment of the appropriate premium.
E. If there has been construction, improvements or major repairs undertaken on the property to be
purchased within six months prior to the Date of the Commitment, the requirements to obtain coverage
for unrecorded liens will include: disclosure of certain construction information; financial information as
to the seller, the builder and or the contractor; payment of the appropriate premium, fully executed
Indemnity Agreements satisfactory to the company, and, any additional requirements as may be
necessary after an examination of the aforesaid information by the Company.
No coverage will be given under any circumstances for labor or material for which the insured has contracted for
or agreed to pay.
P81
IV.A.
First American Title Insurance Company
NOTE: Pursuant to C.R.S. 38-35-125(2) no person or entity that provides closing and settlement services for a real estate
transaction shall disburse funds as a part of such services until those funds have been received and are available for
immediate withdrawal as a matter of right.
NOTE: C.R.S. 39-14-102 requires that a real property transfer declaration accompany any conveyance document
presented for recordation in the State of Colorado. Said declaration shall be completed and signed by either the grantor or
grantee.
NOTE: Pursuant to CRS 10-1-128(6)(a), It is unlawful to knowingly provide false, incomplete, or misleading facts
or information to an insurance company for the purpose of defrauding or attempting to defraud the company.
Penalties may include imprisonment, fines, denial of insurance and civil damages. Any insurance company or
agent of an insurance company who knowingly provides false, incomplete, or misleading facts or information to a
policyholder or claimant for the purpose of defrauding or attempting to defraud the policyholder or claimant with
regard to a settlement or award payable from insurance proceeds shall be reported to the Colorado division of
insurance within the department of regulatory agencies.
NOTE: Pursuant to Colorado Division of Insurance Regulations 8-1-3, notice is hereby given of the availability of an ALTA
Closing Protection Letter which may, upon request, be provided to certain parties to the transaction identified in the
commitment.
Nothing herein contained will be deemed to obligate the company to provide any of the coverages referred to herein unless
the above conditions are fully satisfied.
P82
IV.A.
ATTORNEYS TITLE INSURANCE AGENCY OF ASPEN, LLC
715 West Main Street, Suite 202
Aspen, CO 81611
Attorneys Title Insurance Agency of Aspen, LLC
Privacy Policy Notice
PURPOSE OF THIS NOTICE
Title V. of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) generally prohibits any financial institution, directly or through it affiliates,
from sharing non-public personal information about you with a nonaffiliated third party unless the institution provides you
with a notice of its privacy policies and practices, such as the type of information that it collects about you and the
categories of persons or entities to whom it may be disclosed. In compliance with the GLBA, we are providing you with
this document, which notifies you of the privacy policies and practices of Attorneys Title Insurance Agency of Aspen,
LLC.
We may collect nonpublic personal information about you from the following sources:
Information we receive from you, such as on application or other forms.
Information about your transactions we secure from out files, or from our affiliates or others.
Information we receive from a consumer reporting agency.
Information that we receive from others involved in your transaction, such as the real estate agent or lender.
Unless it is specifically stated otherwise in an amended Privacy Policy Notice, no additional nonpublic personal information
will be collected about you.
We may disclose any of the above information that we collect about our customers or former customer to our affiliates or
to nonaffiliated third parties as permitted by law.
We also may disclose this information about our customers or former customers to the following types of nonaffiliated
companies that perform marketing services on our behalf or with whom we have joint marketing agreements:
Financial service providers such as companies engaged in banking, consumer finance, securities and insurance.
Non-financial companies such as envelope stuffers and other fulfillment service providers.
WE DO NOT DISCLOSE ANY NONPUBLIC PERSONAL INFORMATION ABOUT YOU WITH ANYONE FOR ANY
PURPOSE THAT IS NOT SPECIFICALLY PERMITTED BY LAW.
We restrict access to nonpublic personal information about you to those employees who need to know that information in
order to provide products or services to you. We maintain physical, electronic, and procedural safeguards that comply with
federal regulations to guard your nonpublic personal information.
TELEPHONE 970 925-7328 FACSIMILE 970 925-7348
P83
IV.A.
P84IV.A.
Exhibit 9
P85
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: 273512440009 on 06/15/2018
Instructions:
Disclaimer:
http://www.pitkinmapsandmore.com
Exhibit 10
P86
IV.A.
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
110 W MAIN ST
JACOBY FAMILY LP
VERO BEACH, FL 32960
700 20TH ST
RICKEL DAVID
LANDSDALE, PA 19446
275 GOLDENROD DR
GLICKMAN ADAM
SAN JUAN PUERTO RICO 00907-3122,
644 FERNANDEZ JUNCOS AVE #301
DISTRICT VIEW PLAZA MIRAMAR
PRICE DOUGLAS
CABIN JOHN, MD 20818
PO BOX 220
HITE ANGELA R FAMILY TRUST
WOODY CREEK, CO 81656
PO BOX 155
PESIKOFF DAVID
HOUSTON, TX 77098
1811 NORTH BLVD
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
110 W MAIN ST
WEST MAIN VENTURES
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 11977
INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
233 W MAIN ST
220 WEST MAIN PARTNERS LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
730 E COOPER AVE
CHISHOLM HEATHER M
ASPEN, CO 81611
205 W MAIN ST
TACO 2 LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
220 W MAIN ST #202
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
110 W MAIN ST
PRICE DOUGLAS
CABIN JOHN, MD 20818
PO BOX 220
SPERAW ENDEAVORS LLC
SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615
PO BOX 6575
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
110 W MAIN ST
233 WEST BLEEKER LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
400 E MAIN ST #2
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
110 W MAIN ST
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
110 W MAIN ST
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
110 W MAIN ST
HOTEL ASPEN CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
COMMON AREA
110 W MAIN ST
211 WEST MAIN LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
323 W MAIN ST
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
110 W MAIN ST
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
110 W MAIN ST
INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
233 W MAIN ST
BROWDE KRISTEN PRATA
CHAPPAQUA, NY 10514
604 QUAKER RD
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
110 W MAIN ST
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
110 W MAIN ST
STEVENS BRUCE
ASPEN, CO 81611
214 W BLEEKER ST
P87
IV.A.
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
110 W MAIN ST
2401 BLAKE LLC
DENVER, CO 80202
1615 CALIFORNIA ST # 707
TYROL APARTMENTS LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
200 W MAIN ST
INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
233 W MAIN ST
MOUNTAIN LODGE HOLDINGS LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
220 WMAC LLC
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 8346
132 W MAIN LLC
DENVER, CO 80202
1615 CALIFORNIA ST # 707
TACO 2 LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
220 W MAIN ST #202
132 W MAIN LLC
DENVER, CO 80202
1615 CALIFORNIA ST # 707
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
110 W MAIN ST
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
110 W MAIN ST
SHEEHAN WILLIAM J & NANCY E
FRANKFORT, IL 60423
10 GOLF VIEW LN
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
110 W MAIN ST
GREENASPEN LLC
KEY BISCAYNE, FL 33149
30 ISLAND DR
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
110 W MAIN ST
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
110 W MAIN ST
GUNNING JANINE L
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 11705
TACO 2 LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
220 W MAIN ST #202
ELKINS LESLIE KEITH TRUST
HOUSTON, TX 77002
1001 FANNIN #700
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
110 W MAIN ST
INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
233 W MAIN ST
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
110 W MAIN ST
KARP MICHAEL
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103
1630 LOCUST ST #200
WEST MAIN VENTURES
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 11977
FCB LLC
SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615-6622
PO BOX 6622
SPERAW ENDEAVORS LLC
SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615
PO BOX 6575
220 WEST MAIN PARTNERS LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
730 E COOPER AVE
GUENTHER TODD
NEW YORK , NY 10023
150 COLUMBUS AVE APT 16C
HOTEL ASPEN CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
COMMON AREA
110 W MAIN ST
CITY OF ASPEN
ASPEN, CO 81611
130 S GALENA ST
P88
IV.A.
PRICE DOUGLAS
CABIN JOHN, MD 20818
PO BOX 220
MOUNTAIN LODGE HOLDINGS LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
110 W MAIN ST
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
110 W MAIN ST
ASPEN MEDICAL CENTER CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
COMMON AREA
W MAIN ST
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
110 W MAIN ST
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
110 W MAIN ST
132 W MAIN LLC
DENVER, CO 80202
1615 CALIFORNIA ST # 707
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
110 W MAIN ST
LADA COMMUNITY PROPERTY TRUST
LAS VEGAS, NV 89109
2860 AUGUSTA DR
BLUEGREEN VACATIONS UNLIMITED INC
BOCA RATON, FL 33431
4960 CONFERENCE WY N #100
220 WEST MAIN PARTNERS LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
730 E COOPER AVE
NIMMO GUENTHER KELLY
ASPEN, CO 81611
121 W BLEEKER ST
SNYDER GARY
ELKINS PARK, PA 19027
8324 BROODSIDE RD
KETTELKAMP TRUST
PUEBLO, CO 81008
3408 MORRIS AVE
TACO 2 LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
220 W MAIN ST #202
ASPEN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
ASPEN, CO 81611
311 W MAIN ST
SPERAW ENDEAVORS LLC
SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615
PO BOX 6575
BOOKBINDER FISHDANCE & DELANEY LLC
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81503
164 LITTLE PARK RD
MOUNTAIN LODGE HOLDINGS LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
DIMITRIUS RALLI TRUST
PASADENA, CA 91103
535 FREMONT DR
INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
233 W MAIN ST
TWIN COASTS LTD
BOCA RATON, FL 33432
433 PLAZA REAL #275
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
110 W MAIN ST
GROSVENOR DENIS
TAOS, NM 875716922
209 CAMINO DE LA MERCED # C
2401 BLAKE LLC
DENVER, CO 80202
1615 CALIFORNIA ST # 707
132 W MAIN LLC
DENVER, CO 80202
1615 CALIFORNIA ST # 707
ASPEN MAIN OFFICE CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
220 W MAIN ST
ASPEN CONDOS ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
COMMON AREA
311 W MAIN ST
TACO 2 LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
220 W MAIN ST #202
P89
IV.A.
GASTON JOHN & KATHERINE
GREENWICH, CT 06831
16 BRYNWOOD LN
PRICE DOUGLAS
CABIN JOHN, MD 20818
PO BOX 220
BLUEGREEN VACATIONS UNLIMITED INC
BOCA RATON, FL 33431
4960 CONFERENCE WY N #100
TACO 2 LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
220 W MAIN ST #202
CHOOKASZIAN DENNIS
WILMETTE, IL 60091
1100 MICHIGAN AVE
BLUEGREEN VACATIONS UNLIMITED INC
BOCA RATON, FL 33431
4960 CONFERENCE WY N #100
BLUEGREEN VACATIONS UNLIMITED INC
BOCA RATON, FL 33431
4960 CONFERENCE WY N #100
220 WEST MAIN PARTNERS LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
730 E COOPER AVE
HEINEMAN S MARLENE
DALLAS, TX 753810323
PO BOX 810323
CRETE ASSOCIATES LP
BRYN MAWR, PA 19010
1062 E LANCASTER AVE #30B
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
110 W MAIN ST
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
110 W MAIN ST
CRETE ASSOCIATES LP
BRYN MAWR, PA 19010
1062 E LANCASTER AVE #30B
SAND KATHERINE M
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 51
212 WEST HOPKINS LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
212 W HOPKINS AVE
TIMBERLINE BANK
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81505
633 24 RD
STEVENSON KAREN H
ASPEN, CO 81611
205 W MAIN ST
TEMPKINS HARRY & VIVIAN
MIAMI BEACH, FL 33139
605 LINCOLN RD #301
CHAMBERS PETE
CABIN JOHN, MD 20818
PO BOX 220
GROVER FREDRICK W & PAULA J
WEXFORD, PA 15090
399 MARSHALL HEIGHTS DR
132 W MAIN LLC
DENVER, CO 80202
1615 CALIFORNIA ST # 707
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
110 W MAIN ST
STEVENS LESLEY
ASPEN, CO 81611
214 W BLEEKER ST
MOUNTAIN LODGE HOLDINGS LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
SEVEN SEAS INVESTMENT LLC
WILMETTE, IL 60091
1120 MICHIGAN AVE
MOUNTAIN LODGE HOLDINGS LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
233 W MAIN ST
TACO 2 LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
220 W MAIN ST #202
CRETE ASSOCIATES LP
BRYN MAWR, PA 19010
1062 E LANCASTER AVE #30B
132 W MAIN LLC
DENVER, CO 80202
1615 CALIFORNIA ST # 707
P90
IV.A.
BLUEGREEN VACATIONS UNLIMITED INC
BOCA RATON, FL 33431
4960 CONFERENCE WY N #100
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
110 W MAIN ST
TACO 2 LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
220 W MAIN ST #202
SKILOFT LLC
HOUSTON, TX 77046
11 GREENWAY PLAZA #2000
HITE HENRY HARRIS REVOC TRUST
WOODY CREEK, CO 81656
PO BOX 155
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
110 W MAIN ST
2401 BLAKE LLC
DENVER, CO 80202
1615 CALIFORNIA ST # 707
WEST HOPKINS LLC
POTOMAC, MD 20859
PO BOX 61510
220 WMAC LLC
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 8346
212 N SECOND ST LLC
TAMPA, FL 33613
509 GUISANDO DE AVILA #201
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
110 W MAIN ST
MAYER KEVIN
ASPEN, CO 81611
222 W HOPKINS AVE #2
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
110 W MAIN ST
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
110 W MAIN ST
MOUNTAIN LODGE HOLDINGS LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
2401 BLAKE LLC
DENVER, CO 80202
1615 CALIFORNIA ST # 707
BERGHOFF MICHAEL R TRUST
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46236
9112 WALNUT GROVE DR
INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
233 W MAIN ST
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
110 W MAIN ST
HAYMAX LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
SPERAW ENDEAVORS LLC
SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615
PO BOX 6575
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
110 W MAIN ST
2401 BLAKE LLC
DENVER, CO 80202
1615 CALIFORNIA ST # 707
RILEY AMY CLARK
ASPEN, CO 81611
129 W BLEEKER ST
TWIN COASTS LTD
BOCA RATON, FL 33432
433 PLAZA REAL #275
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
110 W MAIN ST
INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
233 W MAIN ST
MOUNTAIN LODGE HOLDINGS LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
110 W MAIN ST
NORTHSTAR OFFICE BUILDING CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
COMMON AREA
122 W MAIN ST
P91
IV.A.
MARTIN SCOTT M
ASPEN, CO 81611
PO BOX 51
INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
233 W MAIN ST
BLUEGREEN VACATIONS UNLIMITED INC
BOCA RATON, FL 33431
4960 CONFERENCE WY N #100
MOUNTAIN LODGE HOLDINGS LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
TACO 2 LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
220 W MAIN ST #202
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
110 W MAIN ST
TIMBERLINE BANK
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81505
633 24 RD
2401 BLAKE LLC
DENVER, CO 80202
1615 CALIFORNIA ST # 707
MOUNTAIN LODGE HOLDINGS LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
TIMBERLINE BANK
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81505
633 24 RD
SPERAW ENDEAVORS LLC
SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615
PO BOX 6575
220 WEST MAIN PARTNERS LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
730 E COOPER AVE
PRICE DOUGLAS
CABIN JOHN, MD 20818
PO BOX 220
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
110 W MAIN ST
TACO 2 LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
220 W MAIN ST #202
INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
233 W MAIN ST
BERGHOFF KRISTIN TRUST
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46236
9112 WALNUT GROVE DR
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
110 W MAIN ST
AJAX VIEW COMMERCIAL/NORTH STAR OFFICE
ASPEN, CO 81611
132 W MAIN ST
BLUEGREEN VACATIONS UNLIMITED INC
BOCA RATON, FL 33431
4960 CONFERENCE WY N #100
CRETE ASSOCIATES LP
BRYN MAWR, PA 19010
1062 E LANCASTER AVE #30B
SPERAW ENDEAVORS LLC
SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615
PO BOX 6575
132 W MAIN LLC
DENVER, CO 80202
1615 CALIFORNIA ST # 707
WEST MAIN VENTURES
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 11977
PRICE DOUGLAS
CABIN JOHN, MD 20818
PO BOX 220
SHIELD JULIET E
ASPEN, CO 81611
221 N STARWOOD DR
118 NORTH FIRST LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
623 E HOPKINS AVE
132 W MAIN LLC
DENVER, CO 80202
1615 CALIFORNIA ST # 707
MOUNTAIN LODGE HOLDINGS LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
132 W MAIN LLC
DENVER, CO 80202
1615 CALIFORNIA ST # 707
P92
IV.A.
TYROLEAN LODGE LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
200 W MAIN ST
INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
233 W MAIN ST
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
110 W MAIN ST
ASPEN HOUSE LLC
IRVINE, CA 92614
17595 HARVARD AVE # C511
2401 BLAKE LLC
DENVER, CO 80202
1615 CALIFORNIA ST # 707
GUNN ROBERT W FAMILY TRST
MARBLEHEAD, MA 01945
409 OCEAN AVE
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
110 W MAIN ST
GUNNING RALPH
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 11912
MARTIN SCOTT M
ASPEN, CO 81611
PO BOX 51
132 W MAIN LLC
DENVER, CO 80202
1615 CALIFORNIA ST # 707
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
110 W MAIN ST
DH ASE LLC
WILMINGTON, DE 19808
2711 CENTERVILLE RD # 400
2401 BLAKE LLC
DENVER, CO 80202
1615 CALIFORNIA ST # 707
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
110 W MAIN ST
MOUNTAIN LODGE HOLDINGS LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
WEST SIDE CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
234 W HOPKINS AVE
233 WEST BLEEKER LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
400 E MAIN ST #2
JACOBY FAMILY LP
VERO BEACH, FL 32960
700 20TH ST
CRETE ASSOCIATES LP
BRYN MAWR, PA 19010
1062 E LANCASTER AVE #30B
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
110 W MAIN ST
PRICE DOUGLAS
CABIN JOHN, MD 20818
PO BOX 220
2401 BLAKE LLC
DENVER, CO 80202
1615 CALIFORNIA ST # 707
JES 2002 GRANTOR TRUST
ASPEN, CO 81611
221 N STARWOOD DR
GARET CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
400 E MAIN ST #2
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
110 W MAIN ST
SILVERSTEIN PHILIP & ROSALYN
BRONX, NY 10463
25 KNOLLS CRESCENT APT 81
2401 BLAKE LLC
DENVER, CO 80202
1615 CALIFORNIA ST # 707
INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
233 W MAIN ST
SAND KATHERINE M
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 51
MELTON DAVID
ASPEN, CO 81611
135 W MAIN ST
P93
IV.A.
Exhibit 11
P94
IV.A.
P95
IV.A.
P96
IV.A.
RECEPTION#: 644364, R: $23.00, D: $0.00
DOC CODE: RESOLUTION
Pg 1 of 3, 01/11/2018 at 01:54:27 PM
Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO
RESOLUTION NO. 17
SERIES OF 2017)
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
APPROVING GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF
CERTIFICATES OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING CREDIT FOR 210 W. MAIN STREET,
LOTS P & Q, BLOCK 51, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY,
COLORADO.
Parcel ID: 2735-124-40-009
WHEREAS,the Community Development Department received an application from King
Louise, LLC ( Applicant), represented by BendonAdams, for the following land use review
approvals:
Growth Management, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.470, Growth
Management Quota System,
Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter
26. 540, Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit; and,
WHEREAS,all code citation references are to the City of Aspen Land Use Code in effect
on the day of initial application, February 21, 2017, as applicable to this Project; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.304.060(B)(1), Combined Reviews,
the Community Development Director may combine reviews where more than one (1)
development approval is being sought simultaneously; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the proposed
Application and recommended approval; and,
WHEREAS,the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Board of Directors reviewed the
Application on November 1, 2017, and recommended approval with conditions; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the Application at a duty
noticed public hearing on December 5, 2017, during which time the recommendations of the
Community Development Director, Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority and comments from
the public were considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission; and,
WHEREAS,the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 17, Series of
2017, by a four to zero (4 - 0) vote, granting approval with the conditions listed hereinafter.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT:
Section 1: Affordable Housing
The Planning and Zoning Commission hereby grants approval of eight (8) affordable housing
units. The unit types shall be as follows:
1. Eight (8) 2-bedroom units (18 FTEs)
Planning and Zoning Commission
Resolution No. 17, Series 2017
Page I of 3
Exhibit 12
P97
IV.A.
As represented in the application, the approved units are granted a reduction in the Minimum Net
Livable Square Footage, pursuant to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA)
Employee Housing Guidelines ("Guidelines") as follows:
Unit Approved Net Livable =Minimum NetLivable %Reduction
101 835 900 7
102 846 900 6
103 758.8 900 16
201 846.5 900 6
202 845.6 900 6
203 758.2 900 16
301 845.9 900 1 6
302 845.4 900 1 6
Any further reduction in Net Livable Square Footage for any of the units shall require approval
from APCHA. All units shall meet the requirements of the Guidelines regarding closets, kitchen
appliances, etc. in place at the time of building permit. Each affordable housing unit shall be
individually metered for utilities.
This project is approved as 100% rental units. The following conditions shall apply:
100% Rental Project:
1. Minimum occupancy in accordance with the Guidelines is required for all units.
2. All new tenants shall be approved by APCHA in accordance with the Guidelines prior to
signing a lease and occupying the unit.
3. All leases shall be provided to APCHA and state the length of the lease, the amount of rent,
and signed by both the tenant and the landlord.
Prior to a Certificate of Occupancy being issued for the completed project, deed restrictions for
the units that reflect the requirements of this Resolution shall be approved by the City Attorney
and APCHA and recorded. Final Category designations for all units shall be limited to Category 4
or lower.
Section 2: Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit
The project is approved for the establishment of Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits for 18
FTEs. Final Category designation for the Certificates shall be established as part of the final approved
deed restrictions,in accordance with Section 1 above.The Certificates shall be issued in accordance
with Land Use Code Chapter 26.540, Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit. Prior to issuance
of any Certificates,all eight(8)units shall have a recorded deed restriction and receive a Certificate
of Occupancy.
Section 3:
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development
proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented
before the Community Development Department and the Planning and Zoning Commission are
Planning and Zoning Commission
Resolution No. 17, Series 2017
Page 2 of 3
P98
IV.A.
hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as
if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions or an authorized authority.
Section 4•
This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any
action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as
herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 5:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed
a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions thereof.
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 5th day of December, 2017.
Approved as to form: Approved as to content:
James R True,City Attorney S 'p
Attest:
Cindy Clob, Records Manager
Planning and Zoning Commission
Resolution No. 17, Series 2017
Page 3 of 3
P99
IV.A.
Siding Materials
Southeast wing – Hardiboard in 19.2” x 48 panels similar in type but not in color to 7th and Main
Here are the proposed railings. Found at Truscott by TKGA AND 7TH and Main.
Exhibit 13
P100
IV.A.
Here are the three wood sidinging proposed.
P101
IV.A.
P102
IV.A.
And above is the recycled board and batten siding for the back wing along the alley ground floor.
Siding at entry and balcony indents will be 1x6 T & G vertical siding.
P103
IV.A.
The roof will be a grass roof using drought resistant fescue grass that will be about 6 inches high.
16103 Siding Materials.docx
P104
IV.A.
KING LOUISE AHASPEN, COLORADOARCHITECTS ANDSTRUCTURAL ENGINEERSP.O. BOX 164023280 TWO RIVERS ROADBASALT, COLORADO 81621PHONE (970) 927-3167FAX (970) 927-4813THEODORE K GUYASSOCIATES PCISSUE- HISTORIC PRESERVATION FINAL, 06/11/18TKGAP105IV.A.
XX
Bike Rack
1
2
3
4567891011
SITEPLAN
970.927.3167 | tkga@tkga.net
TKGA
KALH/TKG
Theodore K Guy Associates PC
REMARKS
JOB #:
SHEET TITLE:
COPYRIGHT
THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC
DRAWN:
PRINTED:
CHECKED:
DATE
originalKING LOUISE210 W MAIN STASPEN, COLORADOTKG
16103
16103 KL Final HPC 061118.vwx
6/11/18
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
common sense solutions
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
Box 1640, Basalt, CO 81621
DESIGN REVIEW03/24/2016
08/24/2017 GROWTH MANAGEMENT
11/19/2017P106 IV.A.
970.927.3167 | tkga@tkga.net
TKGA
KALH/TKG
Theodore K Guy Associates PC
REMARKS
JOB #:
SHEET TITLE:
COPYRIGHT
THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC
DRAWN:
PRINTED:
CHECKED:
DATE
originalKING LOUISE210 W MAIN STASPEN, COLORADOTKG
16103
16103 KL Final HPC 061118.vwx
6/11/18
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
common sense solutions
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
Box 1640, Basalt, CO 81621
DESIGN REVIEW03/24/2016
BASEMENT
LEVEL PLAN
08/24/2017 GROWTH MANAGEMENT
11/19/2017P107
IV.A.
FIRST LEVEL
PLAN
970.927.3167 | tkga@tkga.net
TKGA
KALH/TKG
Theodore K Guy Associates PC
REMARKS
JOB #:
SHEET TITLE:
COPYRIGHT
THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC
DRAWN:
PRINTED:
CHECKED:
DATE
originalKING LOUISE210 W MAIN STASPEN, COLORADOTKG
16103
16103 KL Final HPC 061118.vwx
6/11/18
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
common sense solutions
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
Box 1640, Basalt, CO 81621
DESIGN REVIEW03/24/2016
08/24/2017 GROWTH MANAGEMENT
11/19/2017
X
Bike Rack
1
2
3
4567891011
P108IV.A.
SECOND LEVEL PLAN
970.927.3167 | tkga@tkga.net
TKGA
KALH/TKG
Theodore K Guy Associates PC
REMARKS
JOB #:
SHEET TITLE:
COPYRIGHT
THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC
DRAWN:
PRINTED:
CHECKED:
DATE
originalKING LOUISE210 W MAIN STASPEN, COLORADOTKG
16103
16103 KL Final HPC 061118.vwx
6/11/18
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
common sense solutions
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
Box 1640, Basalt, CO 81621
DESIGN REVIEW03/24/2016
08/24/2017 GROWTH MANAGEMENT
11/19/2017P109
IV.A.
UPPER LEVEL PLAN
970.927.3167 | tkga@tkga.net
TKGA
KALH/TKG
Theodore K Guy Associates PC
REMARKS
JOB #:
SHEET TITLE:
COPYRIGHT
THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC
DRAWN:
PRINTED:
CHECKED:
DATE
originalKING LOUISE210 W MAIN STASPEN, COLORADOTKG
16103
16103 KL Final HPC 061118.vwx
6/11/18
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
common sense solutions
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
Box 1640, Basalt, CO 81621
DESIGN REVIEW03/24/2016
08/24/2017 GROWTH MANAGEMENT
11/19/2017P110 IV.A.
THIRD LEVEL
PLAN
970.927.3167 | tkga@tkga.net
TKGA
KALH/TKG
Theodore K Guy Associates PC
REMARKS
JOB #:
SHEET TITLE:
COPYRIGHT
THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC
DRAWN:
PRINTED:
CHECKED:
DATE
originalKING LOUISE210 W MAIN STASPEN, COLORADOTKG
16103
16103 KL Final HPC 061118.vwx
6/11/18
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
common sense solutions
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
Box 1640, Basalt, CO 81621
DESIGN REVIEW03/24/2016
08/24/2017 GROWTH MANAGEMENT
11/19/2017P111
IV.A.
EXTERIOR
ELEVATIONS
970.927.3167 | tkga@tkga.net
TKGA
KALH/TKG
Theodore K Guy Associates PC
REMARKS
JOB #:
SHEET TITLE:
COPYRIGHT
THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC
DRAWN:
PRINTED:
CHECKED:
DATE
originalKING LOUISE210 W MAIN STASPEN, COLORADOTKG
16103
16103 KL Final HPC 061118.vwx
6/11/18
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
common sense solutions
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
Box 1640, Basalt, CO 81621
DESIGN REVIEW03/24/2016
08/24/2017 GROWTH MANAGEMENT
11/19/2017P112 IV.A.
EXTERIOR
ELEVATIONS
970.927.3167 | tkga@tkga.net
TKGA
KALH/TKG
Theodore K Guy Associates PC
REMARKS
JOB #:
SHEET TITLE:
COPYRIGHT
THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC
DRAWN:
PRINTED:
CHECKED:
DATE
originalKING LOUISE210 W MAIN STASPEN, COLORADOTKG
16103
16103 KL Final HPC 061118.vwx
6/11/18
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
common sense solutions
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
Box 1640, Basalt, CO 81621
DESIGN REVIEW03/24/2016
08/24/2017 GROWTH MANAGEMENT
11/19/2017P113
IV.A.
XSA
XSA
XSA
XSA
XSA
XSA
XSA
XSA
XSA
XSA
XSA
XSA
XSA
XSA
XSA
XSA
XSA
XSA
XSA
XSA
XSA
XSA
XSA
XSA
XSA
XSA
XSA
XSA
XSA
XSA
XSA
XSA
XSA
XTV
XTV
XTV
XTV
XTV
XTV
XTV
XTV
XTV XTV
XUT
XUT
XUT
XUT
XUT
XUT
XUT
XUT
XUT
XSAXGASXGASXUTXUTXTVXSAXTV
XTV
XTV
XTV
XTV
XTV
XTV
XTV
XTV
XUT
XUT
XUT
XUT
XUT
XUT
XUT
XUTXGASXGAS
XSAXGASXGASXGASXUT
XUT
XUT
XUT
XGASXUTXUTXTVXTVXUT
XUT
XUT
XUT
XUT
XUT
XUT
XUT
XUT
XTV
XTV
XTV
XTV
XTV
XTV
XTV
XTV
XTVXSA
XGASXEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XELXELXEL
XEL
XEL
XGAS
XGAS
XGAS
XGAS
XGAS
XGAS
XGAS
XGAS
XGAS
XGAS
XGAS
XGAS
XGAS
XGAS
XGAS
XGAS
XGAS
XGAS
XGAS
XGAS
XGAS
XGAS
XGAS
XGAS
XGAS
XGAS
XGAS
XGAS
XGAS
XGAS
XGAS
XGAS
40.8'23.5'41.2'21.3'29.1'6.3'11.4'
NOTICE: ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGAL
ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY WITHIN THREE YEARS
AFTER YOU FIRST DISCOVER SUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVENT MAY ANY ACTION
BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY BE COMMENCED MORE THAN TEN
YEARS FROM THE DATE OF CERTIFICATION SHOWN HEREON.
SOPRIS ENGINEERING - LLC
CIVIL CONSULTANTS
502 MAIN STREET, SUITE A3
CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623
(970) 704-0311 SOPRISENG@SOPRISENG.COM 4/25/2018 - 18054-RJ - G:\2018\18054\SURVEY\Survey DWGs\18054-ISP-TOPO-2018-CITY BEARINGS.dwg
APPROX SCALE: 1" = 300'
GENERAL UTILITY NOTES:
The locations of underground utilities have been plotted based on utility maps,
construction/design plans, other information provided by utility companies and actual field
locations in some instances. These utilities, as shown, may not represent actual field
conditions. It is the responsibility of the contractor to contact all utility companies for field
location of utilities prior to construction.
SOURCE DOCUMENTS:
x PLAT-CITY OF ASPEN TOWNSITE MAP AS SURVEYED BY G.E. BUCHANAN-1959-REC. No. 109023.
x PLAT-ASPEN MAIN OFFICE CONDOMINIUMS-REC. No. 510762.
x PLAT-CHRISTMAS INN-PUD-REC. No. 472760.
x DEED-SUBJECT PROPERTY LOTS P & Q-KING LOUISE, LLC-REC. No. 366621
x DEED-TYROLEAN INN-REC. No. 420056.
ALL OF THE PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO RECORDS.
IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT WITH TOPOGRAPHY
210 WEST MAIN STREET
SHEET 1 OF 1
SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE
I hereby state that this Improvement Survey Plat was prepared by Sopris Engineering, LLC (SE)
for:
King Louise LLC.
Attorneys Title Insurance Agency of Aspen, LLC
I furthermore state that the improvements on the above described parcel on this date, April 13,
2018, except utility connections are entirely within the boundaries of the parcel except as
shown, that there are no encroachments upon the described premises by improvements on any
adjoining premises, except as indicated, and that there is no apparent evidence or sign of any
easement crossing or burdening any part of said parcel, except as noted. I furthermore state that
this property is subject to reservations, restrictions, covenants and easements of record or in
place.
I furthermore state, that the relative positional accuracy of this survey does not exceed 1:15,000.
Mark S. Beckler Colorado PLS No. 28643
LOTS P AND Q,
BLOCK 51,
CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN
COUNTY OF PITKIN
STATE OF COLORADO
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
NOTES
1) Date of Survey: May 2007, January 2011, February 3, 2017, March-April, 2018.
2) Date of Preparation: February 8, 2017, April 19-24, 2108.
ϯͿĂƐŝƐŽĨĞĂƌŝŶŐ͗ďĞĂƌŝŶŐŽĨ^ϭϰΣϱϬΖϰϵΗtďĞƚǁĞĞŶƚŚĞĨŽƵŶĚƌĞďĂƌĐĂƉ>͘^͘Ϯϱϰϳ
(believe to be mis-marked and should be LS 25947) monumenting the Northeast
boundary corner of Lot Q, and the set brass disc marked L.S. 28643, being a 2.00'
witness corner monumenting the Southeast boundary corner of Lot Q, as shown .
4) Basis of Survey: Basis of Survey: The Plat of The City of Aspen, Pitkin
County Colorado by G.E. Buchanan dated December 15, 1959, various documents of
record and the found monuments, as shown.
5) This survey does not constitute a title search by Sopris Engineering, LLC (SE) to
determine ownership or easements of record. For all information regarding easements,
rights of way and/or title of record, SE relied upon the above said plats described in
note 4. And the title commitment prepared by Attorneys Title Insurance Agency of
Aspen, LLC., Effective date: February 7, 2017 Commitment
No. 16003520.
6) The utility locations as shown in the alleyway are based on a survey performed by
Sopris Engineering, LLC for Aspen Consolidate Sanitation District in October, 2015. The
location of the sewer wye is approximate as it is not known the actual point of
installation after upgrades/replacement of the existing line. The invert elevation as
shown on this plat is per Sopris Engineering layout of the new pipe as designed by 68
West Engineering. The elevation is believed to be accurate but no asbuilt was
performed after the new pipe installation and only excavation would prove the actual
location and elevation and the location of the sewer wye.
7) Address: 210 West Main Street.
8) Pitkin County Parcel No.--2735-124-40-009.
9) Slopes: Per the Aspen/Pitkin County GIS Slope Analysis mapping utilizing 2008
MetroArea data and dated June 1, 2009. the slopes on the subject parcel are in the
0%-10% range.
10) Hazard Analysis: Per the City of Aspen Surface Drainage Master Plan, dated Nov.
2001 there are no Geologic Hazards on the property.
11) Zoning and Setbacks: According to the Aspen/Pitkin County GIS mapping the parcel
is zoned MU-Mixed Use. The Setbacks being:
Front Yard-10.0'
Side Yard-5.0'
Rear Yard-5.0'
12) Per the FEMA-Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), Map No. 08097CO203C, effective
date June 4, 1987, this property/site is situated in Zone X-being an area determined to be
outside of the 500 year flood plain.
GAS METER
ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER
ELECTRIC METER
TELEPHONE PEDESTAL
CATV PEDESTAL
EXISTING CONDITIONS LEGEND
EXISTING 8" SANITARY SEWER MAIN
EXISTING TELEPHONE
EXISTING UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC
XUT XUT
XEL XEL
XSA XSA
EXISTING GASXGASXGAS
EXISTING CABLE TV LINE
ELECTRIC PEDESTAL
XTV XTV
EXISTING EDGE OF ASPHALT
CLERK AND RECORDER'S CERTIFICATE FOR INFORMATIONAL LAND SURVEY PLATS
Deposited this _____ Day of _______________, 2018, at________M., in the Pitkin County
Index for Informational Purposes Only
Land Survey Plats Under Reception Number ____________________.
Date:____________________________________
&ŝůŝŶŐ/ŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶ͗^ĞĐƚŝŽŶϭϮ;^tЬͿdŽǁŶƐŚŝƉϭϬ^ŽƵƚŚ͕ZĂŶŐĞϴϱtĞƐƚ͕ƚŚĞϲƚŚW͘D͘
WATER SERVICE-CURB STOP
WOODEN FENCEP114 IV.A.
STAIR
UPDN
2'-0"UPNorth Wing
East Wing
West WingParking Space #6
Handicapped
Parking Space #5
Parking Space #3
Parking Space #4
Parking Space #2
Parking Space #1
Bike Rack
Patio
Patio
Patio
Open Above
P.O. Box
Plant List Planting Notes:
1. All discrepancies should be reported to the landscape architect.
2. Locate all utilities before digging.
3. All areas shown are approximate only. verification of areas to be revegetated shall occur on site between the
contractor and landscape architect.
4. Grades are to be checked and approved by the lanscape architect before installation of plant material.
5. Location of plant material is to be approved by the landscape architect before installation.
6. Quality of plant material is to be approved by the landscape architect before installation.
8. All trees, shrubs, and groundcover areas to be covered with a bark mulch to a minimum depth of 3".
9. All deciduous trees are to be stakx
10. Provide "pre-mixed" planting mixture for use around the balls and roots of the trees and shrubs consisting
of 4 parts topsoil to 1 part peat moss .
11. Planting beds are to contain "pre-mixed" plant mixture to a minimum depth of 8"
12. All planting beds are to be contained by 4" metal edging.
13. Slopes of 2 to 1 or greater are to be covered with an erosion control blanket. (North american green sc150 or
equal)
14. All newly planted areas to be irrigated with an automatic irrigation system.
15. All trees planted not within a planting bed are to have bark mulch on top of root ball only.
The site must be mulched with weed-free mulch after planting. Mulch should be applied
at the rate of 2 tons per acre.
Hay with tackifier must be applied at the rate of 150 lbs. per acre to prevent wind from
blowing hay off the revegetated areas.
Seed Mix
Common Name Latin Name Percentage
Slender Wheat ‘san Luis’ Elymus Trachycaulus 30%
Mountain Brome ‘garnet’ Bromus Marginatus 30%
Western Wheatgrass ‘arriba’ Or ‘manchar’ Pascopyrum (or Agropyron) Smithii 15%
Arizona Or Idaho Fescue Festuca Arizonica Or F. Idahoensis 15%
Green Needlegrass ‘lodorm’ Nassella (or Stipa) Viridula 10%
Seeding rate to be 8-12 pls/acre
Seed Notes
Qty.Common Name Scientific Name Size Container
Deciduous Trees
Evergreen Trees
Narrowleaf Cottonwood
Colorado Blue Spruce
Populus trichocarpa
Picea pungens
Picea pungens
Symbol
1
0
0
3"
12' ft.
14 ft.
B & B
B & B
B & B
Deciduous Shrubs
Evergreen Shrubs
Assorted Groundcovers and Perennials
Groundcovers
Cornus sericea coloradensis
Medium Shrub:
ie. Froebel Spirea Spirea bumalda
Potentilla fruticosa'Kathryn'
Small Shrub:
ie. Kathryn Dykes Potentilla
15
45
26
3-5 ft.
5 Gal.
5 Gal.
Sod
B & B
Cont.
Cont.
Cont.
ie. Columbine, Lupine, Daisy, Vinca, Hosta.......1 Gal.Cont.
700 sqft.
Colorado Blue Spruce
B & B
1,300 sqft.
Colorado Blue Spruce Picea pungens0 10' ft.B & B
Remarks
Large Shrub:
ie. Redtwig Dogwood
Plant List
Street Tree
Proposed Lilac Shrub
Proposed Medium Deciduous Shrub
Proposed Small Deciduous Shrub
Proposed Groundcovers & Perennials Bed
Proposed Lawn Areas
Existing Cottonwood
Proposed Cottonwood GREG MOZIAN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.Landscape Architecture • Environmental Planning117 South Spring Street, Suite 2B • Aspen, Colorado 81611Ph: (970) 925-8963 • Fax: (970) 925-1217 • Email: ben@gregmozian.comSheet:
North
Date:
Scale:
Drawn By:
Revised:
Schematic Design
Design Development
Construction Documents
King Louise
Site Plan
BM
3/16" = 1'-0"
1/25/2018
L.101
5/25/2018P115
IV.A.
EXHIBIT
D
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E),ASPEN LAND USE CODE
ADDRESS OF PRQ�P)ERTY:
2.10 VJ• V-A QUA^ S� ,Aspen, CO
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE:
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
County of Pitkin )
I, (name, please print)
being or repre enting an Applicant to the Ci of Aspen, Colorado, hereby-personally
certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060
(E) of the spen 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
on 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.
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, SPAs or PUDs that
create more than one lot, new Planned Unit Developments, and. new Specially
Planned Areas, are subject to this notice requirement.
Rezoning or tett 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 for going"Affidavit of Notice"was acknowledged before me this I ( day
of
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
RE:210 W.Main Street WITNESS W HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
Public Hearing:Wednesday,August 8,2018,
4 30 PM
Meeting Location:City Hall.City Council
Chambers 130 S.Galena St.,Aspen,CO 81611 My commission expires:
Project Location:210 W.Main Street
Legal Description: PID#2735-124-40-009 Lots
P & O. Block 51, City and Townsite of Aspen,
Colorado
Description:The applicant has received Conceptual
approval to demolish and replace the existing build-
ing with 8 new affordable housing units in a two to Notary Public
three-Story building. Final design review is request.
ad.
Land Use Reviews Req: Final Major Development
Review
Decision Making Body: Historic Preservation PA
Commission Ka�EN REED TTERSON
Applicant:King Louise LLC NOTARY PUBLIC
PO Box 1467,Basalt,CO 81621
More Information: For yfurtherSimon
information ttheCrelated TATE
to the project.contact Amy Simon at the City of kTTACMWENTS AS APPLIC COLORADO
Aspen Community Development Department,130 S. TARP 1p#19964(102767
Galena St.,Aspen,CO,(970)429.2797,
amy.simon®cityofaspen.com. t UBLICATION �'�qv Commission Expires February 15,M20
00000274978
Published in the Alpe"Timet on July 19,2018, OF THE POSTED NOTICE(SIGN)
WNERSAND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED
BY MAIL
• APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE
AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3
CITY OF • ' DEPARTMENT
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E),ASPEN LAND USE CODE
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY:
210 West Main Street ,Aspen, CO
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE:
August 8 , 20 18
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
County of Pitkin )
Sara Adams (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 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.
V 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 on the
23 day of July ' 2018 ,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 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 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)
2016 City of Apen 1130 • 1 . 1 5050
CITY OF • MMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
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
tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum,Subdivision,Spas or PUDs that create more
than one lot, new Planned Unit Development,and new Specially Planned Areas, are
subject to this notices requirement.
Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in anyway to be
changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title,to whenever
the text of this Title is to be amended,whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title
and enactment of new land use regulation,or otherwise,the requirement of an accurate
survey map or other significant legal description of,and the notice to and listing of names
and addresses of owners of real estate property in the ears of the proposed change shall be
waived. However,the proposed zoning during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior
to the public hearing on such amendments.
S nature
The foregoing"Affidavit Notice"was acknowledged before me this 31 day AiAM<
of 2010, by
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
ANGELA-JUNE SCGREY My commission expires: )2-512-0 (1:1
NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE OF COLORADO
NOTARY ID#20154011826 Notary 4blic
My Cornmission Expires March 23,2019
ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE:
• COPY OF THE PUBLICATION
• PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICES (SIGN)
• LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED
BY MAIL
• APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTATE OWNERS NOTICED
AS REQIURES BY C.R.S§24-65.5-103.3
March, 2016 City of Apen 1130 S. Galena St. 0) 920 505Q
1•� -"'��- �_�a,F. -..�,s=. 'mow _ 1
4 ' •!,�,�-..:may + "r-' __ � -- --v,_
1 ,
1s
,1
PUBLIC NOTICE g -=
ry ` ' Date: Wed., August 8, 2018
Time: 4:30 PM
t.
Place: Council Chambers, City
Hall, 130 S. Galena Street
Purpose :
'. +k",_'T The propertyowner, Kin Louise, ,
LLC, PO Box 1467, Basalt CO
—
81621) has received Conceptual
approval to demolish and replace the
existing building with 8 new
affordable housing units in a two to
three-story building. Final design
review by the Historic Preservation
°W Commission is requested due to
location in historic district. For info,
call Aspen Planning, 970-429-2758.
1 I�—
' I
• ' xis--_
F' iM
L-P
I �
U UC NOTICE
77
Time /P.R.iso s it
Purpose:
:Xh W0wr4gh wd raplt- �"f.i ._ •..
!gpw
ryhumrg FwldevF: Y�. ._._\
` )�N'lorc Freurva:
1
G. r
rp'Iwltl. �'1QJL�.i�lvt 1✓�i7(]I�t+�✓ 1�'. - A`: ��' .. r. e
I►��i NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING:
�\ 4��► 210 West Main Street
Project Location: 210 West Main Street, Aspen
Land Use Reviews: Final Major Development Review
CITY Of I►SPEN Decision Making Body: HPC
130 S. Galena Street, Hearing Date: August 8, 2018, 4:30 p.m.
Aspen, CO 81611 Tearing Location: City Hall, Council Chambers; 130 S.
p: (970) 920.5000 Galena St; Aspen, CO 81611
f: (970) 920.5197
www.aspenpiticin.com
Project Description:
The applicant has received Conceptual approval to demolish and replace the existing
building with 8 new affordable housing units in a two to three-story building.Final design
review is requested from the Historic Preservation Commission.The property is located in
the Main Street Historic District.
Legal Description: Lots P & Q, Block 51, City and Townsite of Aspen,Colorado
Parcel ID: 2735-124-40-009
Applicant: King Louise, LLC, PO Box 1467, Basalt, CO 81621.Represented by
BendonAdams.
More Information: For further information related to the project, contact Amy Simon at
the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO,
(970) 429.2758, amy.simon@cityofaspen.com
Pitkin County Mailing List of 300 Feet Radius
From Parcel: 273512440009 on 06/15/2018
tIrKIN
OUNT'
c,�D*CNS
Instructions:
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.
Disclaimer:
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.
http://www.pitkinmapsandmore.com
GARMISCH LODGING LLC JACOBY FAMILY LP RICKEL DAVID
110 W MAIN ST 700 20TH ST 275 GOLDENROD DR
ASPEN,CO 81611 VERO BEACH,FL 32960 LANDSDALE,PA 19446
GLICKMAN ADAM PRICE DOUGLAS HITE ANGELA R FAMILY TRUST
644 FERNANDEZ JUNCOS AVE#301 PO BOX 220 PO BOX 155
DISTRICT VIEW PLAZA MIRAMAR CABIN JOHN,MD 20818 WOODY CREEK,CO 81656
SAN JUAN PUERTO RICO 00907-3122,
PESIKOFF DAVID GARMISCH LODGING LLC WEST MAIN VENTURES
1811 NORTH BLVD 110 W MAIN ST PO BOX 11977
HOUSTON,TX 77098 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81612
INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC 220 WEST MAIN PARTNERS LLC CHISHOLM HEATHER M
233 W MAIN ST 730 E COOPER AVE 205 W MAIN ST
ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611
TACO 2 LLC GARMISCH LODGING LLC PRICE DOUGLAS
220 W MAIN ST#202 110 W MAIN ST PO BOX 220
ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 CABIN JOHN,MD 20818
SPERAW ENDEAVORS LLC GARMISCH LODGING LLC 233 WEST BLEEKER LLC
PO BOX 6575 110 W MAIN ST 400 E MAIN ST#2
SNOWMASS VILLAGE,CO 81615 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611
GARMISCH LODGING LLC GARMISCH LODGING LLC GARMISCH LODGING LLC
110 W MAIN ST 110 W MAIN ST 110 W MAIN ST
ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611
HOTEL ASPEN CONDO ASSOC 211 WEST MAIN LLC GARMISCH LODGING LLC
COMMON AREA 323 W MAIN ST 110 W MAIN ST
110 W MAIN ST ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611
ASPEN,CO 81611
GARMISCH LODGING LLC INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC BROWDE KRISTEN PRATA
110 W MAIN ST 233 W MAIN ST 604 QUAKER RD
ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 CHAPPAQUA,NY 10514
GARMISCH LODGING LLC GARMISCH LODGING LLC STEVENS BRUCE
110 W MAIN ST 110 W MAIN ST 214 W BLEEKER ST
ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611
GARMISCH LODGING LLC 2401 BLAKE LLC TYROL APARTMENTS LLC
110 W MAIN ST 1615 CALIFORNIA ST#707 200 W MAIN ST
ASPEN,CO 81611 DENVER,CO 80202 ASPEN,CO 81611
INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC MOUNTAIN LODGE HOLDINGS LLC 220 WMAC LLC
233 W MAIN ST 605 W MAIN ST#2 PO BOX 8346
ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81612
132 W MAIN LLC TACO 2 LLC 132 W MAIN LLC
1615 CALIFORNIA ST#707 220 W MAIN ST#202 1615 CALIFORNIA ST#707
DENVER,CO 80202 ASPEN,CO 81611 DENVER,CO 80202
GARMISCH LODGING LLC GARMISCH LODGING LLC SHEEHAN WILLIAM J&NANCY E
110 W MAIN ST 110 W MAIN ST 10 GOLF VIEW LN
ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 FRANKFORT,IL 60423
GARMISCH LODGING LLC GREENASPEN LLC GARMISCH LODGING LLC
110 W MAIN ST 30 ISLAND DR 110 W MAIN ST
ASPEN,CO 81611 KEY BISCAYNE,FL 33149 ASPEN,CO 81611
GARMISCH LODGING LLC GUNNING JANINE L TACO 2 LLC
110 W MAIN ST PO BOX 11705 220 W MAIN ST#202
ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81611
ELKINS LESLIE KEITH TRUST GARMISCH LODGING LLC INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC
1001 FANNIN#700 110 W MAIN ST 233 W MAIN ST
HOUSTON,TX 77002 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611
GARMISCH LODGING LLC KARP MICHAEL WEST MAIN VENTURES
110 W MAIN ST 1630 LOCUST ST#200 PO BOX 11977
ASPEN,CO 81611 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 ASPEN,CO 81612
FCB LLC SPERAW ENDEAVORS LLC 220 WEST MAIN PARTNERS LLC
PO BOX 6622 PO BOX 6575 730 E COOPER AVE
SNOWMASS VILLAGE,CO 81615-6622 SNOWMASS VILLAGE,CO 81615 ASPEN,CO 81611
GUENTHER TODD HOTEL ASPEN CONDO ASSOC CITY OF ASPEN
150 COLUMBUS AVE APT 16C COMMON AREA 130 S GALENA ST
NEW YORK,NY 10023 110 W MAIN ST ASPEN,CO 81611
ASPEN,CO 81611
PRICE DOUGLAS MOUNTAIN LODGE HOLDINGS LLC GARMISCH LODGING LLC
PO BOX 220 605 W MAIN ST#2 110 W MAIN ST
CABIN JOHN,MD 20818 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611
GARMISCH LODGING LLC ASPEN MEDICAL CENTER CONDO ASSOC GARMISCH LODGING LLC
110 W MAIN ST COMMON AREA 110 W MAIN ST
ASPEN,CO 81611 W MAIN ST ASPEN,CO 81611
ASPEN,CO 81611
GARMISCH LODGING LLC 132 W MAIN LLC GARMISCH LODGING LLC
110 W MAIN ST 1615 CALIFORNIA ST#707 110 W MAIN ST
ASPEN,CO 81611 DENVER,CO 80202 ASPEN,CO 81611
LADA COMMUNITY PROPERTY TRUST BLUEGREEN VACATIONS UNLIMITED INC 220 WEST MAIN PARTNERS LLC
2860 AUGUSTA DR 4960 CONFERENCE WY N#100 730 E COOPER AVE
LAS VEGAS,NV 89109 BOCA RATON,FL 33431 ASPEN,CO 81611
NIMMO GUENTHER KELLY SNYDER GARY KETTELKAMP TRUST
121 W BLEEKER ST 8324 BROODSIDE RD 3408 MORRIS AVE
ASPEN,CO 81611 ELKINS PARK,PA 19027 PUEBLO,CO 81008
TACO 2 LLC ASPEN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION SPERAW ENDEAVORS LLC
220 W MAIN ST#202 311 W MAIN ST PO BOX 6575
ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 SNOWMASS VILLAGE,CO 81615
BOOKBINDER FISHDANCE&DELANEY LLC MOUNTAIN LODGE HOLDINGS LLC DIMITRIUS RALLI TRUST
164 LITTLE PARK RD 605 W MAIN ST#2 535 FREMONT DR
GRAND JUNCTION,CO 81503 ASPEN,CO 81611 PASADENA,CA 91103
INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC TWIN COASTS LTD GARMISCH LODGING LLC
233 W MAIN ST 433 PLAZA REAL#275 110 W MAIN ST
ASPEN,CO 81611 BOCA RATON,FL 33432 ASPEN,CO 81611
GROSVENOR DENIS 2401 BLAKE LLC 132 W MAIN LLC
209 CAMINO DE LA MERCED#C 1615 CALIFORNIA ST#707 1615 CALIFORNIA ST#707
TAOS,NM 875716922 DENVER,CO 80202 DENVER,CO 80202
ASPEN MAIN OFFICE CONDO ASSOC ASPEN CONDOS ASSOC TACO 2 LLC
220 W MAIN ST COMMON AREA 220 W MAIN ST#202
ASPEN,CO 81611 311 W MAIN ST ASPEN,CO 81611
ASPEN,CO 81611
GASTON JOHN&KATHERINE PRICE DOUGLAS BLUEGREEN VACATIONS UNLIMITED INC
16 BRYNWOOD LN PO BOX 220 4960 CONFERENCE WY N#100
GREENWICH,CT 06831 CABIN JOHN,MD 20818 BOCA RATON,FL 33431
TACO 2 LLC CHOOKASZIAN DENNIS BLUEGREEN VACATIONS UNLIMITED INC
220 W MAIN ST#202 1100 MICHIGAN AVE 4960 CONFERENCE WY N#100
ASPEN,CO 81611 WILMETTE, IL 60091 BOCA RATON,FL 33431
BLUEGREEN VACATIONS UNLIMITED INC 220 WEST MAIN PARTNERS LLC HEINEMAN S MARLENE
4960 CONFERENCE WY N#100 730 E COOPER AVE PO BOX 810323
BOCA RATON,FL 33431 ASPEN,CO 81611 DALLAS,TX 753810323
CRETE ASSOCIATES LP GARMISCH LODGING LLC GARMISCH LODGING LLC
1062 E LANCASTER AVE#30B 110 W MAIN ST 110 W MAIN ST
BRYN MAWR,PA 19010 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611
CRETE ASSOCIATES LP SAND KATHERINE M 212 WEST HOPKINS LLC
1062 E LANCASTER AVE#30B PO BOX 51 212 W HOPKINS AVE
BRYN MAWR,PA 19010 ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81611
TIMBERLINE BANK STEVENSON KAREN H TEMPKINS HARRY&VIVIAN
633 24 RD 205 W MAIN ST 605 LINCOLN RD#301
GRAND JUNCTION,CO 81505 ASPEN,CO 81611 MIAMI BEACH,FL 33139
CHAMBERS PETE GROVER FREDRICK W&PAULA J 132 W MAIN LLC
PO BOX 220 399 MARSHALL HEIGHTS DR 1615 CALIFORNIA ST#707
CABIN JOHN,MD 20818 WEXFORD,PA 15090 DENVER,CO 80202
GARMISCH LODGING LLC STEVENS LESLEY MOUNTAIN LODGE HOLDINGS LLC
110 W MAIN ST 214 W BLEEKER ST 605 W MAIN ST#2
ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611
SEVEN SEAS INVESTMENT LLC MOUNTAIN LODGE HOLDINGS LLC INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC
1120 MICHIGAN AVE 605 W MAIN ST#2 233 W MAIN ST
WILMETTE,IL 60091 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611
TACO 2 LLC CRETE ASSOCIATES LP 132 W MAIN LLC
220 W MAIN ST#202 1062 E LANCASTER AVE#30B 1615 CALIFORNIA ST#707
ASPEN,CO 81611 BRYN MAWR,PA 19010 DENVER,CO 80202
BLUEGREEN VACATIONS UNLIMITED INC GARMISCH LODGING LLC TACO 2 LLC
4960 CONFERENCE WY N#100 110 W MAIN ST 220 W MAIN ST#202
BOCA RATON,FL 33431 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611
SKILOFT LLC HITE HENRY HARRIS REVOC TRUST GARMISCH LODGING LLC
11 GREENWAY PLAZA#2000 PO BOX 155 110 W MAIN ST
HOUSTON,TX 77046 WOODY CREEK,CO 81656 ASPEN,CO 81611
2401 BLAKE LLC WEST HOPKINS LLC 220 WMAC LLC
1615 CALIFORNIA ST#707 PO BOX 61510 PO BOX 8346
DENVER,CO 80202 POTOMAC,MD 20859 ASPEN,CO 81612
212 N SECOND ST LLC GARMISCH LODGING LLC MAYER KEVIN
509 GUISANDO DE AVILA#201 110 W MAIN ST 222 W HOPKINS AVE#2
TAMPA,FL 33613 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611
GARMISCH LODGING LLC GARMISCH LODGING LLC MOUNTAIN LODGE HOLDINGS LLC
110 W MAIN ST 110 W MAIN ST 605 W MAIN ST#2
ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611
2401 BLAKE LLC BERGHOFF MICHAEL R TRUST INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC
1615 CALIFORNIA ST#707 9112 WALNUT GROVE DR 233 W MAIN ST
DENVER,CO 80202 INDIANAPOLIS,IN 46236 ASPEN,CO 81611
GARMISCH LODGING LLC HAYMAX LODGING LLC SPERAW ENDEAVORS LLC
110 W MAIN ST 605 W MAIN ST#2 PO BOX 6575
ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 SNOWMASS VILLAGE,CO 81615
GARMISCH LODGING LLC 2401 BLAKE LLC RILEY AMY CLARK
110 W MAIN ST 1615 CALIFORNIA ST#707 129 W BLEEKER ST
ASPEN,CO 81611 DENVER,CO 80202 ASPEN,CO 81611
TWIN COASTS LTD GARMISCH LODGING LLC INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC
433 PLAZA REAL#275 110 W MAIN ST 233 W MAIN ST
BOCA RATON,FL 33432 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611
MOUNTAIN LODGE HOLDINGS LLC GARMISCH LODGING LLC NORTHSTAR OFFICE BUILDING CONDO ASS
605 W MAIN ST#2 110 W MAIN ST COMMON AREA
ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 122 W MAIN ST
ASPEN,CO 81611
MARTIN SCOTT M INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC BLUEGREEN VACATIONS UNLIMITED INC
PO BOX 51 233 W MAIN ST 4960 CONFERENCE WY N#100
ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 BOCA RATON,FL 33431
MOUNTAIN LODGE HOLDINGS LLC TACO 2 LLC GARMISCH LODGING LLC
605 W MAIN ST#2 220 W MAIN ST#202 110 W MAIN ST
ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611
TIMBERLINE BANK 2401 BLAKE LLC MOUNTAIN LODGE HOLDINGS LLC
633 24 RD 1615 CALIFORNIA ST#707 605 W MAIN ST#2
GRAND JUNCTION,CO 81505 DENVER,CO 80202 ASPEN,CO 81611
TIMBERLINE BANK SPERAW ENDEAVORS LLC 220 WEST MAIN PARTNERS LLC
633 24 RD PO BOX 6575 730 E COOPER AVE
GRAND JUNCTION,CO 81505 SNOWMASS VILLAGE,CO 81615 ASPEN,CO 81611
PRICE DOUGLAS GARMISCH LODGING LLC TACO 2 LLC
PO BOX 220 110 W MAIN ST 220 W MAIN ST#202
CABIN JOHN,MD 20818 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611
INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC BERGHOFF KRISTIN TRUST GARMISCH LODGING LLC
233 W MAIN ST 9112 WALNUT GROVE DR 110 W MAIN ST
ASPEN,CO 81611 INDIANAPOLIS,IN 46236 ASPEN,CO 81611
AJAX VIEW COMMERCIAL/NORTH STAR OFF BLUEGREEN VACATIONS UNLIMITED INC CRETE ASSOCIATES LP
132 W MAIN ST 4960 CONFERENCE WY N#100 1062 E LANCASTER AVE#30B
ASPEN,CO 81611 BOCA RATON,FL 33431 BRYN MAWR,PA 19010
SPERAW ENDEAVORS LLC 132 W MAIN LLC WEST MAIN VENTURES
PO BOX 6575 1615 CALIFORNIA ST#707 PO BOX 11977
SNOWMASS VILLAGE,CO 81615 DENVER,CO 80202 ASPEN,CO 81612
PRICE DOUGLAS SHIELD JULIET E 118 NORTH FIRST LLC
PO BOX 220 221 N STARWOOD DR 623 E HOPKINS AVE
CABIN JOHN,MD 20818 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611
132 W MAIN LLC MOUNTAIN LODGE HOLDINGS LLC 132 W MAIN LLC
1615 CALIFORNIA ST#707 605 W MAIN ST#2 1615 CALIFORNIA ST#707
DENVER,CO 80202 ASPEN,CO 81611 DENVER,CO 80202
TYROLEAN LODGE LLC INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC GARMISCH LODGING LLC
200 W MAIN ST 233 W MAIN ST 110 W MAIN ST
ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611
ASPEN HOUSE LLC 2401 BLAKE LLC GUNN ROBERT W FAMILY TRST
17595 HARVARD AVE#C511 1615 CALIFORNIA ST#707 409 OCEAN AVE
IRVINE,CA 92614 DENVER,CO 80202 MARBLEHEAD,MA 01945
GARMISCH LODGING LLC GUNNING RALPH MARTIN SCOTT M
110 W MAIN ST PO BOX 11912 PO BOX 51
ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81611
132 W MAIN LLC GARMISCH LODGING LLC DH ASE LLC
1615 CALIFORNIA ST#707 110 W MAIN ST 2711 CENTERVILLE RD#400
DENVER,CO 80202 ASPEN,CO 81611 WILMINGTON,DE 19808
2401 BLAKE LLC GARMISCH LODGING LLC MOUNTAIN LODGE HOLDINGS LLC
1615 CALIFORNIA ST#707 110 W MAIN ST 605 W MAIN ST#2
DENVER,CO 80202 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611
WEST SIDE CONDO ASSOC 233 WEST BLEEKER LLC JACOBY FAMILY LP
234 W HOPKINS AVE 400 E MAIN ST#2 700 20TH ST
ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 VERO BEACH,FL 32960
CRETE ASSOCIATES LP GARMISCH LODGING LLC PRICE DOUGLAS
1062 E LANCASTER AVE#30B 110 W MAIN ST PO BOX 220
BRYN MAWR,PA 19010 ASPEN,CO 81611 CABIN JOHN,MD 20818
2401 BLAKE LLC JES 2002 GRANTOR TRUST GARET CONDO ASSOC
1615 CALIFORNIA ST#707 221 N STARWOOD DR 400 E MAIN ST#2
DENVER,CO 80202 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611
GARMISCH LODGING LLC SILVERSTEIN PHILIP&ROSALYN 2401 BLAKE LLC
110 W MAIN ST 25 KNOLLS CRESCENT APT 81 1615 CALIFORNIA ST#707
ASPEN,CO 81611 BRONX,NY 10463 DENVER,CO 80202
INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC SAND KATHERINE M MELTON DAVID
233 W MAIN ST PO BOX 51 135 W MAIN ST
ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81611
August 7, 2018
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
130 S. Galena Street
City Hall—City Council Chambers
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Historic Preservation Commission,
My name is John Brozovich, and my wife and I are the owners of 223 East Hallam.
First, I would like to thank the members of the Historic Preservation Commission for your service to the
Aspen community and beyond. My wife and I are highly aware that our ability to own this special home
is the result of the efforts of you and those in the Aspen community who have worked hard to preserve
these beautiful Victorian homes.
For the past three years, my wife and I have rented the home at 202 N. Monarch (at the northeast
corner of Monarch and Bleeker)for the summer. We were quickly taken by its balance of Victorian
charm and modern amenities. From the first time we walked around the corner and saw this 1893
home with Bayer Blue accents at 223 East Hallam,we immediately fell in love with it and saw the
potential for that home to be similarly preserved. This home will always be our family's home in Aspen.
Although our children are still very young, my wife and I have planned the house such that that we can
enjoy it with them now and well into their adult lives. I can only imagine all the special memories that
await us in this home.
We also recognize that we are also stewards of this home for generations to come. It is with that view
that we come before you today to request certain amendments, particularly related to the windows for
our home.
The first two requests,to (1) change the window material on the modern addition to steel and (2)allow
for casement as opposed to double hung windows go hand in hand, as steel window companies only
make casement windows. These steel windows will match the previously approved window wall on the
north wall of the addition.
Given that there are double hung windows on the historic portions of the house,we believe that this
change to casement windows on the modern addition,with similar proportions as the double hung,
would allow for individuals to more easily distinguish the historic character of the primary home. That
being said,we have discussed with Kim Raymond and are willing to design steel casement windows that
would have a thick horizontal mullion at the center of the window so as to appear double hung from the
street. We believe this option would help to both distinguish the modern addition with the steel
windows while also appearing consistent and visually compatible with the historic home with the double
hung windows. For us,this request is very significant. We would ideally like for the modern addition to
have all steel windows—not a mix of metal clad and steel—so that the windows on the modern addition
all appear consistent when viewed from inside or outside the house.
We similarly believe that our third request, to eliminate all mullions on the alley-facing facade of the
home,will not interfere with the ability to interpret the historic character of the original home as these
windows face the alley. The change would actually be consistent with the historic home as the historic
windows do not have mullions. This change is also of great personal significance as it would greatly
enhance our family's enjoyment in the home and allow for completely unobstructed views of Aspen
mountain from our kitchen and master bedroom.
We greatly appreciate your time and consideration of these requests. We look forward to our team
continuing to work with the HPC during the building process and moving into our home in the summer
of 2020.
Best regards,
John Brozovich