HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20180725SE Job #17221 - Hillstone - 304 East Hopkins Avenue March 22, 2018
3 | P a g e
Sanitary Sewer : Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD) is the supplier of sanitary sewer
service to the subject property and surrounding area. An existing sewer main is located within the
Block 80 alley and a 4-inch clay pipe (VCP) service line extends to the existing building. The service
will need to be inspected to review its condition and depending on the review, it may need to be
abandoned. A new service connection, compliant with current ACSD regulations, would be
installed to the mechanical room. The service line will maintain minimum horizontal separation
from other utilities. Final size of the service line will be coordinated with ACSD staff and will be
based on projected flows from fixtures and building programming. A new grease trap system will
be installed to handle waste flows from the proposed commercial kitchen. Basement level
sanitary sewer will be lifted to the main gravity sanitary sewer service.
Shallow Utilities: Shallow utilities serving the existing property include electric, cable, gas, and
telephone. The information provided within this section includes coordination with the utility
providers as well as utility information provided from onsite surveys.
City of Aspen Electric currently serves the property from a transformer located on the property
directly east of the existing building. The transformer is located just east of the NE corner of the
building in the alley on the north side of the property. The nearest 3-phase power source is from a
transformer located on the Wells Fargo property at 319 South Mill Street (Lot P of Block 80). The
Wells Fargo property is east of the subject property. According to the COA Electric Department,
the existing 3-phase transformer is inadequately sized to serve the proposed development. A
new, COA compliant 7-ft x 7-ft vault and 3-phase transformer will be required, replacing the
existing 5-ft x 5-ft vault and transformer. New 3-phase power will be extended from the new vault
to the building within the Block 80 alley. An easement agreement and adequate easement are
being reviewed and will be finalized prior to building permit application submittal.
Comcast Cable service is available within the Block 80 Alley and can be extended to the proposed
building from an existing pedestal directly across the alley from the proposed building.
Black Hills Energy has an existing natural gas line within the Block 80 alley. According to Black Hills
representatives, the existing line has adequate capacity to support the proposed improvements. A
new service line will be extended from the Block 80 alley, should the project demands warrant.
Century Link Telephone currently serves the property from the Block 80 alley to an interior
terminal within the existing structure. The cabinet will need to be decommissioned prior to
demolition of the existing structure. New service will be extended from the nearest service
pedestal to the lower level mechanical room associated with the new structure.
P159
III.A.
SE Job #17221 - Hillstone - 304 East Hopkins Avenue March 22, 2018
4 | P a g e
C. Drainage Analysis
Based on the proposed improvements and amount of site disturbance, this project will require a
“Major Design” review in compliance with the City of Aspen’s Urban Runoff Management Plan
(COA’s URMP) dated December, 2014. A drainage report will be provided with the building permit
application. The following section summarizes the water quality treatment requirements and the
project’s approach to providing treatment solutions and mitigation approaches that comply with
the URMP.
Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) & Detention
Detention – Because the project site is located in the urban core of the City of Aspen, onsite
detention will not be required above the WQCV provided the amount of impervious area does not
exceed what exists today. As stated in the URMP, “Given Aspen’s proximity to the Roaring Fork
River and the large undeveloped drainage area in the Roaring Fork River watershed above Aspen,
detention is not a practice that provides major flood control benefits for the City of Aspen.”
Although onsite detention will likely not be required for this project, the stormwater mitigation
design must safely pass the 100-yr storm event and not negatively impact downstream properties.
WQCV – The URMP implements the design event for WQCV as the 80th Percentile runoff event
which corresponds to roughly a 6-month to 1-year storm event. The City requires treatment of the
“first flush” of the storm event which is quantified through the WQCV calculation. Conservatively
assuming a 100% impervious site of 3,000 sq-ft, the required WQCV is 65CF. This is the required
volume of water that must be treated through the water quality storage and treatment
infrastructure (BMPs), stored, and released through a 12 hr period.
BMPs – The URMP provides guidelines/requirements for permanent stormwater Best
Management Practices (BMPs). SE has been in discussions with the project team early in the
design process as it relates to providing stormwater mitigation and it has been determined that
the use of a dry well for water quality treatment is the preferred solution given the limits of the
below grade structure and the overall interests of the client.
Drywells are a BMP that incorporate manhole structures with perforated barrel sections at the
deeper depths to allow infiltration into the soils. When sub-soils are capable of moderate to high
infiltration rates, dry wells are considered to be a viable BMP. They dramatically reduce the
increased runoff and volume of stormwater generated from surrounding impervious areas and
promote infiltration; thereby improving water quality of stormwater runoff. Dry wells are equally
as effective as alternative BMPs (ie. bioretention, grass buffers, grass swales) and can be
integrated into sites that do not allow for direct surface infiltration due to lack of available space.
The dry well will be sized to handle the runoff volumes produced from the development, it is an
approved BMP outlined within the URMP, and is a practical solution to providing stormwater
mitigation given the site constraints.
P160
III.A.
SE Job #17221 - Hillstone - 304 East Hopkins Avenue March 22, 2018
5 | P a g e
The drywell would be located below the basement of the building. The City requires a minimum
depth of 10-ft and based on preliminary calculations, a 10-14 ft deep drywell would be necessary
to provide water quality treatment and detention. Although not required, detention would be
included with the design of the drywell which will include a pump system in order to pump water
above the 5-yr and 100-yr storm event out of the drywell in emergency situations. The pump
would discharge into the Block 80 alley consistent with existing drainage patterns. It should be
noted that the design of the dry well discharge pump system will likely result in a reduction of
peak discharge rates as compared to existing conditions which will further improve and enhance
drainage conditions on the subject property and surrounding area thereby meeting the goals of
the City’s URMP.
Planter Areas – It should be noted that the improvements include planter areas at the south side
of the lot adjacent to the sidewalk. They are located in front of the entrance to the building off of
East Hopkins Avenue. These planter areas will be above the basement structure so they will not
directly infiltrate to the soils. However, they will reduce the appearance of impervious areas and
will be aesthetically pleasing to pedestrians and traffic passing, thereby enhancing the site,
community, and environment.
D. Conclusion
The information within this report presents SE’s summary of engineering analysis and findings
associated with the proposed utilities and stormwater infrastructure for the re-development of
the property. Based on SE’s review, the proposed improvements will be properly served from all
utilities and will meet the standards, requirements, and specifications of the COA and utility
providers. Proper stormwater management and water quality treatment will be implemented for
impervious areas which will improve the current site drainage conditions. In addition, the
improvements will not adversely impact the subject property or downstream properties.
P161
III.A.
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 13, 2018
1
Commissioners in attendance: Jeffrey Halferty, Bob Blaich, Roger Moyer, Willis Pember, Scott Kendrick
and Richard Lai. Absent were Nora Berko, Gretchen Greenwood and Sheri Sanzone.
Staff present:
Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk
Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney
Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Planner
Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner
Jen Phelan, Deputy Planning Director
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mr. Blaich motioned to approve the draft minutes of May 9th, 2018, Mr. Moyer
seconded. All in favor, motion carried.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Mr. Pember congratulated Mr. Blaich on his 65th wedding anniversary.
DISCLOSURES OF CONFLICT: None.
PROJECT MONITORING: Ms. Simon said she has one thing to show Mr. Blaich after the meeting.
STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon said there will be a special meeting a week from tonight on Lift 1A and
the next regular meeting is cancelled.
CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: None.
PUBLIC NOTICE: Ms. Bryan said she will look it over and if there is anything wrong, she will address it.
CALL UPS: None.
OLD BUSINESS: None.
NEW BUSINESS: 304 E. Hopkins Ave.
Amy Simon
Ms. Simon said this is a conceptual review to discuss the demolition and replacement at 304 E. Hopkins.
It was built in 1980’s and is in the commercial core district. HPC has a number of review processes to
consider. Staff’s recommendation is continuation. Ms. Simon handed out a resolution so the board has
a starting point to add and modify. It is not historic so there is no issue with removal and it does meet
the criteria for demolition. In terms of design for the replacement building, this is a 3000-sq. ft. lot.
Staff is proposing a continuation to a meeting in July. There are two sets of guidelines at play: the
commercial lodging and historic district guidelines and the historic preservation guidelines. For the
commercial core, there are standards that must be met and some are more flexible than others. There
are a numbers of standards which staff feels have not been met and some they feel deserve variations
and some they don’t. One thing that is expected is the pedestrian amenity. 25% of the site must be
open to the sky and street facing. They are proposing 435 square feet at the front of the property to be
provided and 324 feet to be provided as a cash in lieu payment. One of their concerns is that a one-
story masonry building with a porch is not typical in any part of Aspen’s historic districts. The only flat
roof with a porch like this is the Mesa Store building on Main Street. We find this to be a unique
condition and is not a good reference for the downtown area. We recommend a retractable awning
P162
III.A.
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 13, 2018
2
instead of the wood porch structure that is being proposed. Please consider the planters at the front,
which are about 5 ft. 6 deep, but has been reduced by about 1 ft. 4, but they are still rather large
masonry planters that are eating into the usable space. At the front of the property, there is access to
the basement. The applicant is required to provide 2nd tier space because those elements which existed
in the old building have to be brought back in the new building. The applicant has proposed a basement
with street access to a 2nd tier commercial area. They are concerned with a gaping hole to the basement
being part of the streetscape and feel this needs restudy. The project also requires mitigation of
affordable housing. There are two affordable housing units in the existing building so they must be
replaced. The applicant has not proposed to do that, but they want to provide affordable housing
credits instead for a different location in town. It should be considered on this property because
residential use downtown is traditional and valuable. We think there should be consideration of a
building with greater stature here. There are other departments who are interested in providing
feedback to the applicant move towards a building permit. The building department has exiting
concerns and we want you to be aware that the building department has to make an exception
regarding this basement entry. Environmental health also has concerns about the onsite trash
requirements. The property is being developed by the same ownership as White House tavern next
door and there will be some shared space in between the two buildings. Both properties require 300
square feet of onsite trash storage area and neither have that amount so there has been a lot of
discussion about a shared trash space. There is a mitigation required for parking on this site and they
are not proposing any parking, but they are proposing a cash in lieu fee. Overall, they are not currently
in compliance with the design standards and guidelines so HPC needs to prioritize the issues.
Mr. Pember asked Ms. Simon to explain the 2nd tier access and issues with the basement access. She
said the applicant has to provide a specific square footage in the form of 2nd tier space at the basement
level or upper floor. It must be accessible from the street so they are doing what the code asks, but
leaving it as an open stairwell, raises some design concerns. There are also egress discussions going on
with the building department. It is important that the 2nd tier and the primary space at grade, not mix or
bleed into each other.
Mr. Halferty clarified if staff is suggesting to move the front elevation more towards Hopkins. Ms. Simon
said yes, some aspect of it and it was suggested 25 to 50 percent in the memo. Typically, downtown,
their preference is to have storefronts on the sidewalk, but on this block, there are two residential
structures. The building next door has a little notch out of it, so we think something similar here would
work, gesturing to both neighbor buildings. They would like to see the building brought forward on the
east side.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION:
Chris Bendon of Bendon Adams representing the Hillstone Restaurant Group alongside Brian Biel, VP of
Hillstone, Matthias Lenz, Sr. Project Architect with Hillstone and Hunter Fleetwood of
Fleetwood/Fernandez Architects.
Hillstone is the owner and operator of White House Tavern next door so first of all, they are trying to
lean towards a composting option. They want to not overdo things and focus on the product they are
putting forward. It’s the first project under the new code that is triggering all requirements. There are
strict view plane requirements along with pedestrian amenity. Mr. Biel said we are restaurant people
P163
III.A.
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 13, 2018
3
who love great food and great service as well as a good design. We like to do a few things really well.
He showed another project on the screen, which is located in Montecito, called the Honor Bar. It’s
similar because there are a lot of historic architectural elements in this location as well. He also showed
a property in Arizona, Denver and Newport Beach. We want to improve what is next door to us here in
Aspen. That building hasn’t been kept up with and this should now be a reflection on White House.
They want to do a complimentary restaurant to White House. It won’t upstage White House and it will
fit in the community. When looking at a two-story structure, things started to get very complicated.
The space required an elevator, which would have to be separated from the main space. The restaurant
itself was becoming consumed with lobbies, elevators, staircases, etc., so the restaurant experience was
starting to be compromised. So, we are giving up space and views, but we’re not having a lot of extra
stuff. This is more of a modest size and it harkens back to the past.
Mr. Bendon spoke about the existing conditions and said there are three levels. The basement was Over
Easy. The ground floor was most recently Over Easy and the upper floor was the Aspen Brewery. North
of the third floor are the two studio housing units. You would go through the brewery to get to them
and there is also a back entrance. They looked around for design cues they should take from the area
and showed on screen pictures of 308 and 316. He showed a historic picture of where White House is
now located and what was next to it and said they are taking cues from that as well. He showed the
Sanborn map. He showed more examples of one story buildings in the downtown area. This is a simple
plan and they are not trying to outdo anyone else. It is handsome and clean and welcoming and they we
are respecting 302 by revealing the corner. This was an important design decision to use traditional
materials in a modern way. This is a great outdoor dining space and will be well sought-after seating
while creating a more comfortable waiting area. This puts energy on the street and provides good
people watching. We keep looking at more planter designs that create a boundary from the sidewalk,
but in a way that doesn’t disrupt the views into the property. We looked at relocating the affordable
housing units due to parking and access complexities. There is just no restaurant left over when you are
done mitigating for all of these items. The affordable housing is not currently occupied and we have
worked through this with APCHA and the city because the building itself is not readily occupiable.
The trash conversation is ongoing and we are working with environmental health on a shared trash
situation with White House. We are looking to combine services and thought we were close to having
this done. 25 sq. feet is Liz Chapman’s recommendation. The city wants to reduce the trips through the
alleys and we ask HPC to please allow this conversation to go on because we may arrive at a number less
than 25.
There was a staff comment about the opportunity for a building of a greater stature and what was the
best economic use of this building. It’s not normally something we hear from the city to build bigger,
etc. We feel there should be some opportunity to build a simple one-story building. This team has
looked at everything and they are not a group of idiots and have explored use of the second floor and
decided to pull back into what they know best. They do feel this is the best use of the parcel and they
don’t want to overstuff it with too many things, which would lead to functionality issues, etc. We’d love
to be able to get to a vote tonight and we’d like to have some grounding on the four major points. Are
we on the right path with a one-story building and placement? Are we on track with the pedestrian
amenity space? We do not want to trigger a city council review. We only have a 35-ft. wide lot and we
are trying to create the boundary with the planter edge and storm water obligations. Are we on the
right track with the awning? Are we on the right path with off siting the affordable housing mitigation?
P164
III.A.
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 13, 2018
4
Mr. Halferty mentioned that Mr. Lai has joined the meeting.
Mr. Lai said he is sorry for missing the staff presentation. He asked if the operation of the new
restaurant is going to be separate from the White House and Mr. Bendon said it’s entirely separate in
theme, delivery and makeup. The only connection is in the back-kitchen area. But it has its own identity.
Mr. Lai said it does read as a separate entity.
Mr. Blaich asked if they have other Colorado restaurants. Mr. Biel said yes, two in Denver in the Cherry
Creek neighborhood. Bandero is one and Hillstone is a little bit further west.
Mr. Pember asked under which conditions they would have to go back to council. Mr. Bendon said
there is an allowance that HPC can play with for up to 50 percent of the 25-sq. foot area. If we wanted
to have less than 50 percent, we have to go to council. 740 is the 25% and we’re currently at 435. Ms.
Simon said they could decrease to 377 and still not have to go to council. They could occupy 50 square
feet more before they’d have to go to council or they could provide a different configuration of
pedestrian amenity onsite. There are so many solutions and a variety of ways to address it. Mr. Pember
asked if the planters count in that calculation and Ms. Simon said yes as well as the porch area. Mr.
Pember mentioned an elevator being required if there are units on the second floor and that
encumbering the operation of a restaurant. Ms. Simon said she doesn’t know if any unit requires an
elevator and Mr. Lenz said he’s pretty sure it does. He said they looked at a lot of options said they are
only proposing nine tables, which is extremely small, so if we add an elevator, it will only allow seven
tables. This would be a tough pill to swallow and make work financially.
Mr. Kendrick about the covered area and if it is to be intended to be enclosed in the winter. Mr. Bendon
said it will always stay open. Mr. Biel said they had proposed to have a winter vestibule and were told
not to do that, so it will be open year-round.
Mr. Halferty asked if they did a retractable awning, if they would recommend keeping the same looking
façade and Ms. Simon said they have some concerns about glazing on the windows. We aren’t prepared
to say the awning should be the reason for redesign, but a fabric awning is a better way to meld with
earlier downtown traditions.
PUBLIC COMMENT: Peter Fornell
Mr. Fornell thanked Hillstone for their service and desire to further it. He said consistently, HPC, has
supported protecting the view planes and we need to maintain this consistency. It might be the first
time he has heard about violating the view plane. The two-story building does violate it and he wouldn’t
want to see the building with employees living on top of it. He said he was the creator of the housing
certificate program and we have an easy solution for the certificate program.
Ms. Simon noted that there is no view plane violation in the current proposal and we are not suggesting
a violation. We do think there is room for a second floor and we would not pierce that height
restriction.
Mr. Fornell mentioned with regard to an elevator, you would have to have ADA accessibility to a unit on
the second floor.
P165
III.A.
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 13, 2018
5
Mr. Pember said that Peter Fornell started the housing program so he is the salesman and Mr. Pember
wants to make sure everyone knows this. Mr. Bendon confirmed he would be purchasing credits with
Mr. Fornell.
PUBLIC COMMENT: Nicholas Kuhn
Mr. Kuhn said he owned the property where Matsu is and the garbage is number one, for him. It’s
important that it’s enclosed because if the birds get in there and sit on the top of the building, which
causes droppings on his client’s cars. He doesn’t want the construction to block his tenant’s parking
either so she can get out. He wished the applicant’s luck with their project.
PUBLIC COMMENT: Bob Langley
Mr. Langley thinks denying the affordable housing is a mistake and that it should be kept onsite. It’s the
type of housing that is needed downtown and said no one will live there for more than five years. It’s a
real advantage for being here and he doesn’t think we should deny it onsite since it’s been onsite since
the program began.
Public comment closed.
Mr. Bendon said Ms. Simon is right, they aren’t proposing a view plane violation and he does agree it
could be done without violating this. There are other complexities that lead us away from that.
Mr. Halferty summarized the issues for the board.
Mr. Moyer said we have an opportunity that we’ve missed on one of the most huge issues. Giving up
housing on any unit is a bad idea. In this instance, it won’t be the most livable spot, but we can’t allow
for this to go away. He concurs with staff’s recommendations. Don’t come back to us without employee
housing. In 90’s to 2000’s it was hard to get people to say no. We said no to the White House three to
four times and finally, we said yes.
Mr. Blaich said he agrees, in principle, with Mr. Moyer. His concern is with a consideration to quality of
life and affordable housing. We didn’t go inside today, but he wished they had. We don’t know how
livable those units are. Quality of life in those units are highly questionable and should be acceptable,
not just some minimal space, but we have to try, if possible, to have affordable housing.
Mr. Kendrick is in favor of onsite affordable housing. It would have been nice to have seen some of the
exploration of the second floor and why they say it won’t work.
Mr. Lai said affordable housing is the number one concern with the community. We exclude a lot of
people who could work at this restaurant because of housing. The argument to have a second floor to
accommodate the housing and requiring an elevator, is a concern because he likes this façade. It has a
scale that we are losing in Aspen because we have so many huge buildings being built. He’s torn
between affordable housing argument and the façade. He would have to disagree with the majority of
colleagues because he likes the intimacy of scale. If it’s possible to have the housing towards the back,
he would be all for that.
Mr. Pember followed up to Mr. Lai and said we can’t build 308 anymore, as it is out of question now.
It’s a piece of history and has affordable housing in that building and Matsu as well. To Mr. Fornell’s
point, there is a community of affordable housing in that area. Historically, we’ve had problems with
P166
III.A.
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 13, 2018
6
308, so he agrees with Mr. Lai, that the scale is fine, but feels the board is pushing for affordable
housing. If it’s not possible to put all of that in the back, that’s a concern. We’re comfortable with
hybrids, but not sure this is a happy one, for him. The planters look entirely commercial and are really at
odds with the rest of the building. It doesn’t flow from the street level. He’s staying out of the ah
debate for now, but he does think a one story could work. Having exposed open air stairs is very
problematic. This would be the only time you see city staff asking for more FAR. He’s fine with parking
and trash and is fine with granting public amenity. He doesn’t want to see them end up at City Council.
Mr. Halferty echoed some of Mr. Pember’s comments concerning front elevation. He commended the
developer for doing a modest addition, but he doesn’t like the planters. He said he was on HPC when
they approved Walt’s project next door, but it was an unsuccessful attempt of us putting everything into
one bag. The applicants are obviously aware of the sensitivity of the view plane and the second-tier
space is well done. The offsite credits are still going to create spaces for employees just somewhere else.
We need to come to terms with whether we want to pursue a continuance or accept as is. Overall, he
commends this plan and said it’s a difficult site.
Mr. Blaich said he’s not totally against off site housing. If it can be worked into this project without
affecting the total function or view plane, he would like to see it approached. He does like the scale and
he doesn’t really want to see a two-story building. He does feel there is something more that could be
added regarding improvement as a visual aspect and approachable for people. White House is a success
and he’s putting a certain amount of faith in Hillstone. He enjoys the Denver restaurants as well. He
agrees the planters are a bit too much and look like a mini Berlin wall.
Mr. Lai said he respects them as restaurateurs instead of developers and likes that they are presenting
themselves that way. He also doesn’t like the planters out front.
MOTION: Mr. Moyer moved to continue with the points from staff, Mr. Blaich seconded.
Ms. Simon noted that July 25th would be continuation date.
Roll call vote: Mr. Kendrick, no; Mr. Pember, no; Mr. Moyer, yes; Mr. Halferty, no; Mr. Blaich, no; Mr.
Lai, no.
MOTION: Mr. Pember moved to continue with amendment to condition #4 with the word “analyze”
instead of “provide”, seconded by Mr. Halferty.
Roll call vote: Mr. Blaich, yes; Mr. Pember, yes; Mr. Kendrick, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Mr.
Lai, yes.
______________________________
Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk
P167
III.A.
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 13, 2018
7
P168
III.A.
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
July 25, 2018
City of Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
c/o Amy Simon
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Updated information 304 E. Hopkins
Dear Historic Preservation Commission and Ms. Simon:
In response to the Staff memo, we respectfully submit updated drawings to address HPC’s questions
raised at the June 27, 2018 hearing. Please find in the drawing packet and below background studies and
analysis performed over the past year in preparation for the project before the HPC today.
Planters
The planter boxes have been removed from the Conceptual
proposal. There are a variety of elements that can define the
street edge including a small moveable planter, transparent
fence, and different seating arrangements. We are exploring
the idea of a rotating approach to planters or a low fence
depending on the season and the use of the space for
consideration during Final Design Review.
Windows
Clerestory windows have been added to elongate the
storefront windows beneath the canopy as recommended by
HPC. The sill height aligns with the sill height of 302 E. Hopkins
and references typical kickplates found on historic buildings
throughout the Historic District. The window height and
configuration is versatile for any type of commercial use within
the space.
Figure 1: Clerestory windows beneath porch.
Figure 2: Updated elevation with larger windows.
P169
III.A.
Page 2 of 5
Front porch/awning
The metal awning has evolved throughout the design process. The
idea grew out of the strong roof on the property in the 19th
century. Different materials were explored for the awning and a
permanent front porch was decided for a few reasons. The
awning is meant to function as a front porch which typically has a
permanent covering. Canvas awnings were found on commercial
buildings downtown which appeared out of context with the rest
of the block. The proposed building intends to be a mix of
residential and commercial elements to creatively blend into the
neighborhood which boasts a mix of contemporary commercial
buildings and historic landmarks that represent
residential architecture with strong entrances, front
porches, and are one story in height. In addition, canvas
awnings are not all-weather – gutters and snow guards
are not able to be installed, which means rain and snow
shed in front of the entry.
Second Tier Access
Last fall we explored enclosing access to the second tier
commercial space, but found that it created an uninviting
wall that was out of context of typical development
patterns in the Historic District and results in the loss of
at least one table for an already small restaurant.
Further, it cut off the viability of the pedestrian amenity
space from the rest of the block, and blocks the windows
along the shared property line with 308 E. Hopkins as
shown at right.
The open stair is more inviting for the street level
pedestrian amenity space, and is more inviting for the
tenant located in the second tier commercial space.
Affordable Housing
Two different iterations showing an affordable housing unit on the second floor are included in the
updated drawing packet, neither of which operationally work for the Hillstone Group. These studies were
requested by Planning Staff to show the exploration of onsite housing, which is not supported by the
Housing Board.
Study 1 shows a housing unit and restaurant space on the second floor and Study 2 shows only a
residential unit on the second floor. In both studies, the 3,000 sf lot becomes consumed with access
requirements, hallways, and the location of mechanical equipment becomes a challenge. A parking space
Figure 3: Historic photograph of original building at 304.
Figure 4: Proposed front elevation with no planters.
Figure 5: Front elevation with enclosed stair and smaller amenity
space.
P170
III.A.
Page 3 of 5
is not provided for the housing units, as there is no room along the alleyway for parking considering trash
and utility requirements. The view plane is intersected in both studies, which may require a public vote.
And, the second tier requirement is not met in the basement with the required egress associated with the
second floor. The elevator is shown in the basement level bathroom at this point because the plan just
does not work.
Guidelines that are not met in the studies include the following:
1.10 A new building should appear similar in scale and proportion with buildings on the block.
This guideline is met in the original one story building proposal.
PA1.3 Street level Pedestrian Amenity spaces should be equal to a minimum of 1/3 of the total
Pedestrian Amenity requirement. This guideline is met in the original proposal.
PA1.6 Design meaningful street level space that is useful, versatile, and accessible. This
guideline is met in the original proposal.
PA1.7 Design amenity space that enhances the pedestrian experience and faces the street. This
guideline is met in the original proposal.
2.4 Respect adjacent historic structures. This guideline is met in the original one story building
proposal.
2.5 The massing and proportions of a new building or addition should respond to the historic
context. This guideline is met in the original one story building proposal.
Study 1 – Restaurant and Residential on second floor.
Both the elevator and mechanical equipment
infringe on the view plane, which most likely
requires a public vote. The residential studio unit is
465 sf in size, faces the mechanical and ventilations
units at the rear of the building, shares a wall with
the second floor restaurant and has only one
window. There are no amenities onsite for the
housing unit because there simply is no room on
the 3,000 sf lot. Conflict between restaurant
operations and the residential unit are to be
expected with the shared circulation, shared walls,
and mechanical equipment.
The massing is driven by required egress and overwhelms the adjacent one story landmark at 302. The
street level amenity space is significantly reduced and no longer contributes to the street scene and
does not add vitality to the neighborhood. The amenity space is so small that a variance from City
Council will be required to meet the 25% amenity requirement. The restaurant space is limited to 33
seats on the ground level and a few tables and bar seats are added to the second floor but the de
minimus size and removal from the core restaurant space downstairs renders it practically unusable.
Figure 6: Massing schematic of Study 1 – restaurant and residential.
P171
III.A.
Page 4 of 5
In addition, the second tier no longer meets the required size and the elevator terminates in the lower
level bathroom which is not allowed. This option is not viable for the Hillstone Group and does not meet
City Code.
Study 2 – Residential on second floor only.
A two bedroom unit is proposed on the second floor.
Both the elevator and mechanical equipment infringe
on the view plane, which most likely requires a public
vote. This unit is 817 in size and backs up to the
restaurant mechanical equipment. Similar to Study 1
above, there are no amenities onsite for the housing
unit because there simply is no room on the 3,000 sf
lot. Conflict between restaurant operations and the
residential unit are to be expected with the shared
circulation, shared walls, and mechanical equipment.
The massing is driven by required egress and
overwhelms the adjacent one story landmark at 302.
The street level amenity space is significantly reduced and no longer contributes to the street scene and
does not add vitality to the neighborhood. The amenity space is so small (374 sf )that a variance from City
Council will be required to meet the 25% amenity requirement. The restaurant space is limited to 33 seats
on the ground level. This option is not viable for the Hillstone Group and does not meet City Code.
Using Affordable Housing Credits to fully mitigate for the existing units is unanimously supported by
APCHA. Conflicts between residents and commercial uses, especially a restaurant, are notorious in Aspen.
These conflicts can easily be avoided through the use of Affordable Housing Credits to mitigate the onsite
studio units. Not only just this support the Credit program, but it provides a much more livable situation
for residents that includes amenities, a quieter living environment, and typically storage and parking
onsite.
Thank you for the opportunity to show the studies we explored over the past year while developing the
most appropriate and compatible project for this small site. We will provide an update on the trash area
conversation with Environmental Health prior to the HPC hearing. We are happy to answer any
questions or to provide more information as needed for your review.
Sincerely,
Sara Adams, AICP
BendonAdams LLC
sara@bendonadams.com
970.925.2855
Figure 7: Massing schematic of Study 2 – residential only on second
floor.
P172
III.A.
Page 5 of 5
Exhibits:
A – Commercial Design Review (Conceptual) + Demolition of Property within Historic District
B – Growth Management
C – Transportation and Parking Management
D – TIA
E – Viewplane Exemption and Rendering
F – Environmental Health Special Review for trash dimensions
G – Determination of Affordable Housing Mitigation
H – Determination of Second Tier
I – Land Use Application Form + Dimensional Requirements Form
J – Agreement to Pay
K – Pre- application summary
L – Proof of Ownership
M – Authorization to Represent
N – HOA form
O – Mailing list within 300 ft.
P – Vicinity Map
Q – Supplemental materials of context
R – Drawings (including site plan, existing conditions and stamped improvement survey)
S – Renderings
T – Materials Board
U – Survey
V – Engineering Report
W- Updated Drawings dated May 25, 2018
X – Updated Pedestrian Amenity and renderings dated June 11, 2018
Y – Updated submittal July 11, 2018
P173
III.A.
RES. UNIT MASSING STUDY DIAGRAMJULY 9, 2018
HILLSTONE: ASPEN
FLEETWOOD FERNANDEZ
ARCHITECTS
STUDY 1 :
RES. AND RESTAURANT
STUDY 2 :
RESIDENCE ONLY
P174III.A.
RES. UNIT MASSING STUDY RENDERJULY 9, 2018
HILLSTONE: ASPEN
FLEETWOOD FERNANDEZ
ARCHITECTS
STUDY 1 :
RES. AND RESTAURANT
STUDY 2 :
RESIDENCE ONLYP175
III.A.
TENANT/RESIDENCE
VERT. CIRCULATION
RESTROOM
UTILITY/ TRASH
DINING
KITCHEN
TERRACE
ACCESS TO WHITE
HOUSE TAVERN
PUBLIC AMENITY :
374 SQFT
RESTAURANT
AREA : 1146 SQFT
33 SEATS
STUDY 1 - GROUND FLOORJULY 9, 2018
HILLSTONE: ASPEN
FLEETWOOD FERNANDEZ
ARCHITECTSSCALE : 1/8” = 1’P176III.A.
TENANT/RESIDENCE
VERT. CIRCULATION
RESTROOM
UTILITY/ TRASH
DINING
KITCHEN
TERRACE
RESTAURANT
AREA : 839 SQFT
25 SEATS
AFFORDABLE UNIT
AREA : 465 SQFT
STUDY 1 - UPPER FLOORJULY 9, 2018
HILLSTONE: ASPEN
FLEETWOOD FERNANDEZ
ARCHITECTSSCALE : 1/8” = 1’P177III.A.
STUDY 1 - LOWER FLOORJULY 9, 2018
HILLSTONE: ASPEN
FLEETWOOD FERNANDEZ
ARCHITECTSSCALE : 1/8” = 1’
TENANT/RESIDENCE
VERT. CIRCULATION
RESTROOM
UTILITY/ TRASH
DINING
KITCHEN
TERRACE
TENANT AREA : 1673 SQFT (1774 REQ.)P178III.A.
STUDY 1 - SECTIONJULY 9, 2018
HILLSTONE: ASPEN
FLEETWOOD FERNANDEZ
ARCHITECTSSCALE : 1/8” = 1’
TENANT/RESIDENCE
VERT. CIRCULATION
RESTROOM
UTILITY/ TRASH
DINING
KITCHEN
TERRACEP179
III.A.
TENANT/RESIDENCE
VERT. CIRCULATION
RESTROOM
UTILITY/ TRASH
DINING
KITCHEN
TERRACE
ACCESS TO WHITE
HOUSE TAVERN
PUBLIC AMENITY :
374 SQFT
RESTAURANT
AREA : 1146 SQFT
33 SEATS
STUDY 2 - GROUND FLOORJULY 9, 2018
HILLSTONE: ASPEN
FLEETWOOD FERNANDEZ
ARCHITECTSSCALE : 1/8” = 1’P180III.A.
STUDY 2 - UPPER FLOORJULY 9, 2018
HILLSTONE: ASPEN
FLEETWOOD FERNANDEZ
ARCHITECTSSCALE : 1/8” = 1’
TENANT/RESIDENCE
VERT. CIRCULATION
RESTROOM
UTILITY/ TRASH
DINING
KITCHEN
TERRACE
AFFORDABLE UNIT
AREA : 817 SQFT
P181III.A.
STUDY 2 - LOWER FLOORJULY 9, 2018
HILLSTONE: ASPEN
FLEETWOOD FERNANDEZ
ARCHITECTSSCALE : 1/8” = 1’
TENANT/RESIDENCE
VERT. CIRCULATION
RESTROOM
UTILITY/ TRASH
DINING
KITCHEN
TERRACE
TENANT AREA : 1673 SQFT (1774 REQ.)P182III.A.
TENANT/RESIDENCE
VERT. CIRCULATION
RESTROOM
UTILITY/ TRASH
DINING
KITCHEN
TERRACE
STUDY 2 - SECTIONJULY 9, 2018
HILLSTONE: ASPEN
FLEETWOOD FERNANDEZ
ARCHITECTSSCALE : 1/8” = 1’P183III.A.
STUDY ENCLOSED STAIR - GROUND FLOORJULY 9, 2018
HILLSTONE: ASPEN
SCALE : 1/8” = 1’
TENANT/RESIDENCE
VERT. CIRCULATION
RESTROOM
UTILITY/ TRASH
DINING
KITCHEN
TERRACE
RESTAURANT
AREA : 1292 SQFT
56 SEATS
PUBLIC AMENITY :
408 SQFT
P184III.A.
STUDY ENCLOSED STAIR - LOWER FLOORJULY 9, 2018
HILLSTONE: ASPEN
SCALE : 1/8” = 1’
TENANT/RESIDENCE
VERT. CIRCULATION
RESTROOM
UTILITY/ TRASH
DINING
KITCHEN
TERRACE
TENANT AREA : 1716 SQFT (1774 REQ.)
(STORAGE AND UTI. WOULD NEED TO
SHRINK TO REACH COMPLIANCE)P185III.A.
CURRENT PLAN - GROUND FLOORJULY 9, 2018
HILLSTONE: ASPEN
FLEETWOOD FERNANDEZ
ARCHITECTSSCALE : 1/8” = 1’
TENANT/RESIDENCE
VERT. CIRCULATION
RESTROOM
UTILITY/ TRASH
DINING
KITCHEN
TERRACE
PUBLIC AMENITY :
400 SQFT
RESTAURANT
AREA : 1181 SQFT
56 SEATSP186 III.A.
TENANT/RESIDENCE
VERT. CIRCULATION
RESTROOM
UTILITY/ TRASH
DINING
KITCHEN
TERRACE
TENANT AREA :
1807 SQFT
JULY 9, 2018
HILLSTONE: ASPEN
FLEETWOOD FERNANDEZ
ARCHITECTSSCALE : 1/8” = 1’
CURRENT PLAN - LOWER FLOORP187 III.A.
JULY 9, 2018 FLEETWOOD FERNANDEZ
ARCHITECTS
Study: Enclosed StairHILLSTONE: ASPENHILLSTONE: ASPENP188 III.A.
JULY 9, 2018 FLEETWOOD FERNANDEZ
ARCHITECTS
Current Exterior ElevationHILLSTONE: ASPEN
FLEETWOOD FERNANDEZ
ARCHITECTSP189 III.A.
JULY 9, 2018 FLEETWOOD FERNANDEZ
ARCHITECTS
CURRENT PLAN FACADE SECTIONHILLSTONE: ASPEN
FLEETWOOD FERNANDEZ
ARCHITECTS
WHITE HOUSE TAVERN BEYOND
NEW FIXED CLERESTORY WINDOW
STRUCTURAL ROOF FRAMING
OPERABLE WINDOWS
DECORATIVE WOOD BEAMS
10’-11”P190III.A.
JULY 9, 2018 FLEETWOOD FERNANDEZ
ARCHITECTS
Current Plan View 1HILLSTONE: ASPENP191 III.A.
JULY 9, 2018 FLEETWOOD FERNANDEZ
ARCHITECTS
Current Plan View 2HILLSTONE: ASPEN
FLEETWOOD FERNANDEZ
ARCHITECTSP192 III.A.
JULY 9, 2018 FLEETWOOD FERNANDEZ
ARCHITECTS
Current Plan View 3HILLSTONE: ASPENP193 III.A.
CANOPY REFERENCE IMAGEJULY 9, 2018
HILLSTONE: ASPEN
FLEETWOOD FERNANDEZ
ARCHITECTSP194 III.A.
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Amy Simon,
MEETING DATE: July 25, 2018
RE: 135 E. Cooper Avenue
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICANT /OWNER:
Chris Pat Aspen LLC
REPRESENTATIVE:
Eigelberger Architecture and
Design
LOCATION:
Street Address:
135 E. Cooper Avenue
Legal Description:
Lot H and I and the easterly 5
feet of Lot G, Block 70, City
and Townsite of Aspen, CO
Parcel Identification Number:
PID# 2735-131-04-003
CURRENT ZONING & USE
RMF, Two detached free
market residential units in a
Victorian era home and barn
PROPOSED LAND USE:
Two detached free market
residential units in a Victorian
era home and barn
Memorandum
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
, Historic Preservation Officer
, 2018
135 E. Cooper Avenue – Minor Development Review and Variations,
PUBLIC HEARING
SUMMARY:
The applicant proposes to expand the existing addition
on the west side of the historic home at 135 E. Cooper
Avenue. The proposed expansion is approximately 145
square feet. There is no floor area available,
applicant plans an interior remodel to remove the third
floor of the Victorian (an attic level bedroom) and re
allocate the space to the addition. The proposal
requires HPC design review, and since the addition
encroaches into setbacks it requires variation review.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends restudy for compliance with the
design guidelines and setback variatio
Site Locator Map 135 E. Cooper Avenue
Minor Development Review and Variations,
The applicant proposes to expand the existing addition
on the west side of the historic home at 135 E. Cooper
Avenue. The proposed expansion is approximately 145
area available, so the
to remove the third
floor of the Victorian (an attic level bedroom) and re-
allocate the space to the addition. The proposal
requires HPC design review, and since the addition
setbacks it requires variation review.
Staff recommends restudy for compliance with the
design guidelines and setback variation criteria.
Site Locator Map 135 E. Cooper Avenue
P195
IV.A.
BACKGROUND:
135 E. Cooper Avenue contains
the 1888 Dixon-Markle house
and outbuilding. The property is
landmarked and listed on the
National Register of Historic
Places. The home is an unusual
example of the Queen Anne
style in Aspen, featuring a two-
story bay window at the front
corner. The outbuilding is a
former barn which was
remodeled into a dwelling unit
in the 1960s.
In 2003, HPC approved a Major Development application that entailed moving the
house slightly to the north and east of the original location, constructing an addition
along the west side of the house, and constructing a new garage along the alley. The
project included a 500 square foot floor area bonus and setback variations to
accommodate existing and newly created conditions. The project won a Preservation
Honor award upon completion in 2005.
In March of 2018, HPC granted approval for a modification to the connector between
the historic resource and addition. The functionality of the connector has been a long-
standing concern of the property owner. A building permit review for that project is
underway. Another goal of the owner has been expanding the addition, extending it
towards Cooper Avenue. This request was required to be processed separate from the
connector modification because the connector was eligible for review under the old
HPC design guidelines and the expansion of the addition is not.
REQUEST OF HPC:
The Applicant is requesting the following approvals:
· Minor Development (Section 26.415.070.C) allowing an addition of less than 250
square feet on a landmark parcel.
· Setback Variation (Section 26.415.110.C) allowing a reduction of the west
sideyard setback and a reduction of the combined yard setback.
HPC is the final decision making authority on the reviews. The scope of the proposal is
not subject to Call-up Notice to City Council.
P196
IV.A.
PROJECT SUMMARY: 135 E. Cooper Avenue is a 6,500 square foot lot containing two
completely detached residences and a one car garage. This application only affects
the historic home, with no other changes proposed to the alley structures or site.
The applicant proposes an expansion of the existing addition, extending it
approximately 5’10” northward, towards Cooper Avenue. The addition is two stories
and approximately 145 square feet of floor area.
As stated above, the applicant proposes to build this addition by remodeling the
interior, removing an attic bedroom with an undesirably low ceiling height and freeing
up square footage for an expansion of the building envelope. Initially, staff determined
that a relocation of square footage would require application of the floor area bonus
standards because the approval awarded to the property in 2003 was for a specific
design and it cannot be assumed that bonus floor area can later be utilized for a new
project that increases the mass on the site. The application before HPC includes a
request for a floor area bonus at staff’s direction.
In preparing this memo, staff determined that the allowable floor area for the property
was calculated incorrectly in 2003. Two detached homes on a 6,500 square foot lot are
allowed the same floor area as a single family home. Instead, during the land use and
permit review in 2003 the project proceeded using the floor area allowed for a duplex
so that, with the 500 square foot bonus, the property was allowed up to 4,180 square
feet of floor area instead of 3,810 square feet. This misperception continued through
the recent approval of the connector modification. Community Development has
determined that the floor area on the property must be considered to be legally
established floor area that the owner has a right to. The recently approved connector
has been submitted for building permit review. The permit represents the total floor
area, including the modified connector, to be 4,139 square feet. This will be the legally
established floor area. The applicant still must remove interior floor area in order to
pursue the proposed addition, but a floor area bonus discussion will not be necessary.
The application proposes the total removal of the third floor inside the Victorian. This
eliminates 280 square feet of floor area. The proposed addition only requires a little
more than half that area. The applicant should be aware that non-conforming floor
area that is demolished must be reconstructed within one year or the right to re-use the
demolished floor area is lost, per Municipal Code Section 26.312.030.
Attached in Exhibits A and B are review criteria and staff findings regarding the two land
use reviews before HPC; Minor Development/Historic Preservation Guidelines and
Setback Variations. A summary of the staff findings is provided below.
P197
IV.A.
STAFF FINDINGS:
Minor Development Review
The applicant proposes an extension on the north face of the existing addition to the
historic resource, projecting 5’10” out from the current façade. No basement
expansion is planned and the new addition is limited to one story where it is directly
adjacent to a large existing tree.
There are no other viable areas for the new square footage to be built due to proximity
to the west property line, the location of a detached historic outbuilding to the rear of
the addition, and the historic preservation goal to maximize separation between the
east side of the addition and the west side of the historic resource.
Extending the addition northward conflicts with the design guidelines because it brings
the addition close to alignment with the front of the Victorian. While this might be
permitted for a detached new home on the site, additions can have a significant
impact on the integrity of a historic resource, affecting the perception of scale of the
original structure and changing setting by placing development in areas that have
traditionally been open yard. One of the main purposes of the design guidelines is to
shape alterations to a historic resource in a manner that avoids damage to integrity.
Staff finds that the project as designed does not adequately achieve the following:
· From guideline 10.3: An addition must be subordinate, deferential, modest, and
secondary in comparison to the architectural character of the primary building.
· From guideline 10.4: The total above grade floor area of an addition may be no
more than 100% of the above grade floor area of the original historic resource. All
other above grade development must be completely detached.
· From guideline 10.6: A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building,
a subtle change in material, or a modern interpretation of a historic style are all
techniques that may be considered to help define a change from historic
construction to new construction.
· Guideline 10.10: Place an addition at the rear of a primary building or set it back
substantially from the front to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure
and to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent.
o Locating an addition at the front of a primary building is inappropriate.
o Additions to the side of a primary building are handled on a case-by-case basis
and are approved based on site specific constraints that restrict rear additions.
o Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement
which will not alter the exterior mass of a building.
P198
IV.A.
When the side addition was approved for this property in 2003, the location was found
to be appropriate because it preserved highly visible open yard behind the historic
resource. The view of the property from the corner of Cooper and Aspen was prioritized
as was preserving an unaltered rear façade and open yard as seen from Aspen Street.
Placing the addition on the west side of the resource was intentional and preferred by
HPC. According to the September 10, 2003 HPC minutes, the board perceived the
addition to be adequately subordinate to the historic resource.
At the time, the design guidelines called for an addition to be set back a minimum of
10’ from the front façade of the historic resource. The setback from the leading edge
of the front porch was allowed to be approximately 17’ and the setback from the front
wall of the Victorian was allowed to be approximately 8.’
Modification or expansion of the side addition in some manner may be acceptable,
but today’s guidelines more strongly emphasize the need to set an addition back
substantially so that the resource is predominant.
Staff recommends restudy. Perhaps expansion in this location, should it proceed, should
be limited to one story. Perhaps additional lightwells could be created at the rear of
the house to maximize the livability of below grade space.
Staff is uncertain as to whether the proposal complies with Guideline 10.4, which says
that an addition can be no larger than the historic resource. This is a new guideline and
staff’s intention was that the addition can be no larger than the historic resource to
which it is attached. The applicant argues that in this case the historic house and barn
should be added together to determine the historic resource, in which case the
proposed addition is smaller than those two structures. It appears that the addition is in
fact larger than the historic house alone. HPC interpretation of this guideline is needed.
Finally, the form, fenestration and detailing of the remodeled addition remain perhaps
too closely related to the Victorian, a topic discussed in Guideline 10.6. The nearer the
two elements are to each other physically the less appropriate a strong distinction
between them may become.
Staff finds the Minor Development review criteria are not met and recommends restudy
of the application to better comply with guidelines 10.3, 10.4, 10.6 and 10.10.
Setback Variations
The existing addition to the Victorian house on this property sits 2’8” from the west
property line, where 5’ is required. A setback reduction of 2’4 was granted in 2003.
Extending the north face of the addition towards Cooper Avenue as proposed would
require the granting of a west sideyard setback reduction of 2’4” for the new
P199
IV.A.
encroachment. The Building Department has indicated that the proposed west
sideyard
reduction will also require the entire west wall of the addition to be brought up to
current code in the form of a 1 hour fire rated wall. This will need to be accomplished
from the interior of the house. The house is also expected to be retrofitted with a
sprinkler system if the square footage of the structure is increased.
The proposed addition also represents a new encroachment into the combined
sideyard setback. 17’6” is required between the east and west sideyards combined.
The east sideyard, which is unchanged by this application, is 5’8” from the Victorian to
the east property line. 5’8” plus the 2’8” provided on the west totals 8’4” where 17’6” is
required, so the proposed extension would require a combined sideyard setback
reduction of 9’2”.
Generally new construction on a historic site is expected to meet setback requirements,
or any variation should be for the purpose of moving new construction away from the
historic resource. This variation would allow development in close alignment with the
historic resource. To the extent that this placement is in conflict with design guidelines,
staff cannot find that the variations would enhance or mitigate adverse impacts to the
historic resource. Staff also does not find that the sideyard encroachments are similar to
the pattern, features or character of the historic property. Open yards around the
perimeter of the structure are an important characteristic of the property.
Staff finds the setback variation criteria are not met, and recommends restudy to
reduce or eliminate at least the west sideyard setback variation so as to retain some
open yard and reduce impacts on the neighboring property. Some reduction of the
combined sideyard could be appropriate.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends restudy for compliance with the design guidelines and setback
variation criteria. A draft resolution is provided, should HPC prefer to take action on the
application at this hearing.
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution #___, Series of 2018
Exhibit A– HPC Minor Development Review Criteria/Staff Findings
Exhibit B – Setback Variation Review Criteria/Staff Findings
Exhibit C – Land Use Application
P200
IV.A.
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
APPROVING MINOR DEVELOPMENT AND SETBACK VARIATIONS FOR 135 E.
COOPER AVENUE, LOTS H AND I, AND THE EASTERLY 5 FEET OF LOT G,
BLOCK 70, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO
RESOLUTION #__, SERIES OF 2018
PARCEL ID: 2735-131-04-003.
WHEREAS, the applicant, Chris Pat Aspen LLC, represented by Eigelberger Architecture and
Design, requested Minor Development and Setback Variation approval for 135 E. Cooper
Avenue, Lots H and I, and the easterly 5 feet of Lot G, Block 70, City and Townsite of Aspen. The
property is a designated landmark; and
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that “no building or structure
shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a
designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted
to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures
established for their review;” and
WHEREAS, for Minor Development, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis
report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project’s conformance with the
design guidelines per Section 26.415.070.C.3.b of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code
Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the
application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and
WHEREAS, the HPC may approve setback variations according to Section 26.415.110.C,
Variances; and
WHEREAS, Amy Simon, in her staff report dated July 25, 2018, performed an analysis of the
application and recommended restudy; and
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on July 25, 2018, the Historic Preservation
Commission considered the application, found the application was consistent with the applicable
review standards and guidelines and approved the application with conditions by a vote of __ to
__.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That HPC approves Minor Development and Setback Variations for the property located at 135
E. Cooper Avenue, Lots H and I, and the easterly 5 feet of Lot G, Block 70, City and Townsite
with the following conditions:
1. HPC grants the following setback variations:
2. 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, the Historic
Preservation Commission, or the Aspen City Council are hereby incorporated in such plan
P201
IV.A.
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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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 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: 135 E. Cooper Avenue.
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.
P202
IV.A.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 25th day of July, 2018.
Approved as to form: Approved as to content:
_________________________________ ____________________________________
Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Gretchen Greenwood, Chair
Attest:
_________________________________
Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk
P203
IV.A.
Page 1 of 6
Exhibit A
Minor Development
Staff Findings
P204
IV.A.
Page 2 of 6
Minor Development Review
26.415.070.C Certificate of appropriateness for a minor development
3. The procedures for the review of minor development projects are as follows:
a) The Community Development Director will review the application materials and if
they are determined to be complete, schedule a public hearing before the HPC. The
subject property shall be posted pursuant to Paragraph 26.304.060.E.3.b.
b) 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 approve, disapprove or approve with
conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the
application, the report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the
project's conformance with the City Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. (NOTE: THE
RELEVANT DESIGN GUIDELINES ARE LISTED IN THEIR ENTIRETY BELOW.)
c) The HPC shall 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.
d) The HPC decision shall be final unless appealed by the applicant or a landowner
within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property in accordance with the
procedures set forth in Chapter 26.316.
Relevant Historic Preservation Design Guidelines
10.3 Design a new addition such that one’s ability to interpret the historic character of
the primary building is maintained.
· A new addition must be compatible with the historic character of the primary
building.
· An addition must be subordinate, deferential, modest, and secondary in
comparison to the architectural character of the primary building.
· An addition that imitates the primary building’s historic style is not allowed. For
example, a new faux Victorian detailed addition is inappropriate on an Aspen
Victorian home.
P205
IV.A.
Page 3 of 6
· An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate.
· Proposals on corner lots require particular attention to creating compatibility.
10.4 The historic resource is to be the focus of the property, the entry point, and the
predominant structure as viewed from the street.
· The historic resource must be visually dominant on the site and must be
distinguishable against the addition.
· The total above grade floor area of an addition may be no more than 100% of the
above grade floor area of the original historic resource. All other above grade
development must be completely detached. HPC may consider exceptions to this
policy if two or more of the following are met:
· The proposed addition is all one story
· The footprint of the new addition is closely related to the footprint of the historic
resource and the proposed design is particularly sensitive to the scale and
proportions of the historic resource
· The project involves the demolition and replacement of an older addition that is
considered to have been particularly detrimental to the historic resource
· The interior of the resource is fully utilized, containing the same number of usable
floors as existed historically
· The project is on a large lot, allowing the addition to have a significant setback
from the street
· There are no variance requests in the application other than those related to
historic conditions that aren’t being changed
· The project is proposed as part of a voluntary AspenModern designation, or
· The property is affected by non-preservation related site specific constraints
such as trees that must be preserved, Environmentally Sensitive Areas review,
etc.
10.6 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time.
· An addition shall be distinguishable from the historic building and still be visually
compatible with historic features.
· A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in
material, or a modern interpretation of a historic style are all techniques that may
be considered to help define a change from historic construction to new
construction.
· Do not reference historic styles that have no basis in Aspen.
P206
IV.A.
Page 4 of 6
· Consider these three aspects of an addition; form, materials, and fenestration. An
addition must relate strongly to the historic resource in at least two of these
elements. Departing from the historic resource in one of these categories allows for
creativity and a contemporary design response.
· Note that on a corner lot, departing from the form of the historic resource may not
be allowed.
· There is a spectrum of appropriate solutions to distinguishing new from old portions
of a development. Some resources of particularly high significance or integrity
may not be the right instance for a contrasting addition.
10.8 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building.
· An addition that is lower than, or similar to the height of the primary building, is
preferred.
10.10 Place an addition at the rear of a primary building or set it back substantially
from the front to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the
original proportions and character to remain prominent.
· Locating an addition at the front of a primary building is inappropriate.
· Additions to the side of a primary building are handled on a case-by-case basis
and are approved based on site specific constraints that restrict rear additions.
· Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which
will not alter the exterior mass of a building.
10.11 Roof forms shall be compatible with the historic building.
· A simple roof form that does not compete with the historic building is appropriate.
· On Aspen Victorian properties, a flat roof may only be used on an addition to a
gable roofed structure if the addition is entirely one story in height, or if the flat
roofed areas are limited, but the addition is primarily a pitched roof.
Staff Findings: The applicant proposes an extension on the north face of the existing
addition to the historic resource, projecting 5’10” out from the current façade. No
basement expansion is planned and the new addition is limited to one story where it is
directly adjacent to a large existing tree.
There are no other viable areas for the new square footage to be built due to proximity
to the west property line, the location of a detached historic outbuilding to the rear of
P207
IV.A.
Page 5 of 6
the addition, and the historic preservation goal to maximize separation between the
east side of the addition and the west side of the historic resource.
Extending the addition northward conflicts with the design guidelines because it brings
the addition close to alignment with the front of the Victorian. While this might be
permitted for a detached new home on the site, additions can have a significant
impact on the integrity of a historic resource, affecting the perception of scale of the
original structure and changing setting by placing development in areas that have
traditionally been open yard. One of the main purposes of the design guidelines is to
shape alterations to a historic resource in a manner that avoids damage to integrity.
Staff finds that the project as designed does not adequately achieve the following:
· From guideline 10.3: An addition must be subordinate, deferential, modest, and
secondary in comparison to the architectural character of the primary building.
· From guideline 10.4: The total above grade floor area of an addition may be no
more than 100% of the above grade floor area of the original historic resource. All other
above grade development must be completely detached.
· From guideline 10.6: A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building,
a subtle change in material, or a modern interpretation of a historic style are all
techniques that may be considered to help define a change from historic construction
to new construction.
· Guideline 10.10: Place an addition at the rear of a primary building or set it back
substantially from the front to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and
to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent.
o Locating an addition at the front of a primary building is inappropriate.
o Additions to the side of a primary building are handled on a case-by-case basis
and are approved based on site specific constraints that restrict rear additions.
o Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement
which will not alter the exterior mass of a building.
When the side addition was approved for this property in 2003, the location was found
to be appropriate because it preserved highly visible open yard behind the historic
resource. The view of the property from the corner of Cooper and Aspen was prioritized
as was preserving an unaltered rear façade and open yard as seen from Aspen Street.
Placing the addition on the west side of the resource was intentional and preferred by
HPC. According to the September 10, 2003 HPC minutes, the board perceived the
addition to be adequately subordinate to the historic resource.
P208
IV.A.
Page 6 of 6
At the time, the design guidelines called for an addition to be set back a minimum of
10’ from the front façade of the historic resource. The setback from the leading edge
of the front porch was allowed to be approximately 17’ and the setback from the front
wall of the Victorian was allowed to be approximately 8.’
Modification or expansion of the side addition in some manner may be acceptable,
but today’s guidelines more strongly emphasize the need to set an addition back
substantially so that the resource is predominant.
Staff recommends restudy. Perhaps expansion in this location, should it proceed, should
be limited to one story. Perhaps additional lightwells could be created at the rear of
the house to maximize the livability of below grade space.
Staff is uncertain as to whether the proposal complies with Guideline 10.4, which says
that an addition can be no larger than the historic resource. This is a new guideline and
staff’s intention was that the addition can be no larger than the historic resource to
which it is attached. The applicant argues that in this case the historic house and barn
should be added together to determine the historic resource, in which case the
proposed addition is smaller than those two structures. It appears that the addition is in
fact larger than the historic house alone. HPC interpretation of this guideline is needed.
Finally, the form, fenestration and detailing of the remodeled addition remain perhaps
too closely related to the Victorian, a topic discussed in Guideline 10.6. The nearer the
two elements are to each other physically though the less appropriate a strong
distinction between them may become.
Staff finds the Minor Development review criteria are not met and recommends restudy
of the application to better comply with guidelines 10.3, 10.4, 10.6 and 10.10.
P209
IV.A.
Page 1 of 3
Exhibit B
Setback Variations
Staff Findings
SETBACK VARIATIONS
26.415.110.C Setback Variations. Dimensional variations are allowed for projects
involving designated properties to create development that is more consistent with the
character of the historic property or district than what would be required by the
underlying zoning's dimensional standards.
1. The HPC may grant variances of the Land Use Code for designated properties to
allow:
a) Development in the side, rear and front setbacks;
P210
IV.A.
Page 2 of 3
2. In granting a variance, the HPC must make a finding that such a variance:
a) Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or
district; and/or
b) Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or
architectural character of the historic property, an adjoining designated
historic property or historic district.
Staff Findings: The existing addition to the Victorian house on this property sits 2’8” from
the west property line, where 5’ is required. A setback reduction of 2’4 was granted in
2003. Extending the north face of the addition towards Cooper Avenue as proposed
would require the granting of a west sideyard setback reduction of 2’4” for the new
encroachment. The Building Department has indicated that the proposed west
sideyard reduction will also require the entire west wall of the addition to be brought up
to current code in the form of a 1 hour fire rated wall. This will need to be
accomplished from the interior of the house. The house is also expected to be
retrofitted with a sprinkler system if the square footage of the structure is increased.
The proposed addition also represents a new encroachment into the combined
sideyard setback. 17’6” is required between the east and west sideyards combined.
The east sideyard, which is unchanged by this application, is 5’8” from the Victorian to
the east property line. 5’8” plus the 2’8” provided on the west totals 8’4” where 17’6” is
required, so the proposed extension would require a combined sideyard setback
reduction of 9’2”.
Generally new construction on a historic site is expected to meet setback requirements,
or any variation should be for the purpose of moving new construction away from the
historic resource. This variation would allow development in close alignment with the
historic resource. To the extent that this placement is in conflict with design guidelines,
staff cannot find that the variations would enhance or mitigate adverse impacts to the
historic resource. Staff also does not find that the sideyard encroachments are similar to
the pattern, features or character of the historic property. Open yards around the
perimeter of the structure are an important characteristic of the property.
Staff finds the setback variation criteria are not met, and recommends restudy to
reduce or eliminate at least the west sideyard setback variation so as to retain some
open yard and reduce impacts on the neighboring property. Some reduction of the
combined sideyard could be appropriate.
P211
IV.A.
Page 3 of 3
P212
IV.A.
May 21, 2018
Ms. Amy Simon
City of Aspen Historic Preservation Officer
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Minor Development HPC Application for 135 E. Cooper Avenue, Lots H
and I, and the easterly 5 feet of Lot G, Block 70, City and Townsite of
Aspen. (a/k/a, the Dixon-Markle House) (Parcel ID # 2735-131-04-003)
Dear Amy:
Please consider this letter and the accompanying plans to constitute a formal
request for Minor Development Approval to allow for a remodel to the north
façade of the addition to the historic Victorian home at 135 E. Cooper Ave,
Aspen. The addition to the home was approved by the HPC in 2003
(Resolution No. 20, Series of 2003) along with the remodel of an outbuilding
for use as an Accessory Dwelling Unit, and included a 500 square foot floor
area bonus, as well as setback variances to accommodate the existing and new
construction. Upon completion in 2005, the project won a Preservation Honor
award.
Despite having received a floor area bonus and a Preservation Award from the
HPC, since the project’s completion, the approval has proven problematic on
many fronts, with the primary issues having been: 1) a lack of functionality
with the one-story connecting element between the two-story historic and
two-story addition on the finished home, and 2) a continued feeling, as stated
in the remarks of several HPC members during previous hearings, that the
new and old portions of the finished home are too similar in appearance
causing many to incorrectly perceive the addition as being original or having
historic significance. Once constructed, an approval just granted by the HPC in
March of this year will serve to resolve the functionality issue; however, the
problems of poor/lack of adequate differentiation between new and old
remain unresolved.
HAAS LAND PLANNING, HAAS LAND PLANNING, LLCLLC
• 420 E. MAIN STREET, SUITE 220 • ASPEN, COLORADO • 81611 •
• PHONE: (970) 925-7819 • MITCH@HLPASPEN.COM •
P213
IV.A.
135 E. Cooper Avenue (PID# 2735-031-04-003) Page 2
The currently proposed changes to the addition will bump-out a portion of the
two-story front façade by some 5’-10” and come to approximately 175 square
feet of total floor area. More specifically, the proposed bump-out will include a
single-story portion with a shed roof at the location closest to the historic
resource and its wrap-around first floor porch; this element steps down in
height and scale to allow the resource to remain the dominant and preeminent
structure while lending subservience to the addition. This one-story element
includes an additional foot of front setback as compared with the rest of the
proposed bump-out addition, further enhancing its perceived subservience
and adding to the sympathetic nature of the design.
The proposed second-floor bump-out is limited to the portion of the addition
furthest from the historic resource where there is an existing two-story dormer
element with excessive glazing that accentuates its height and scale; it is felt
that the redesigned bump-out will read as smaller in scale by virtue of having
removed this vertical element and its excessive glazing pattern that draws
one’s eyes upward. While the existing conditions read such that the addition
is perceived as being just as wide as the historic asset, the proposed bump-out
design, with its recessed one-story element and its lack of vertical orientation,
will reverse this such that the addition will now read as being significantly
narrower than the Victorian (see existing versus proposed North Elevation
drawings).
As mentioned in the Pre-Application Conference Summary attached as Exhibit
2, because the addition is less than 250 square feet of floor area, it qualifies for
HPC review as a Minor Development. As also mentioned in the pre-
application conference summary, the property has about 45 square feet of
unused floor area available (after the recently approved second floor
connector gets built) to accommodate the proposed 185 or so square foot
addition. As such, it is necessary to remove of 140 square feet of floor area
from the property in order to accommodate the proposed addition. The total
above grade floor area of the addition, including the currently proposed
remodel, will be 1,738 square feet, or 88% of that in the historic resource even
after removal of the 280 square foot attic space from within the resource.
Staff has directed the applicant to request that the HPC re-grant the square
footage for the addition as a new/replacement floor area bonus. The total
allowed floor area does not change; instead, it is being reallocated from a
useless attic space (that will be removed) to the proposed addition. The
applicant feels this is unreasonable and does not feel that the FAR bonus needs
to be re-granted but is making the request because staff was not willing to
reconsider their position. The fact is, the floor area being reallocated and used
P214
IV.A.
135 E. Cooper Avenue (PID# 2735-031-04-003) Page 3
in the proposed bump-out (as well as the already approved addition to the
connector element) comes from the proposed removal of 280 square feet of
preexisting and legally established attic space. This attic space was never part
of or in any manner whatsoever connected to a previous floor area bonus and
the attic removal and reallocation of its floor area has no bearing on the
previous bonus approval. One should not require a floor area bonus to
eliminate and replace legally created space that existing prior to any previous
reviews or approvals.
This application is submitted pursuant to the following sections of the Aspen
Land Use Code (hereinafter the Code): 26.304, Common Development Review
Procedures; 26.415.070.C, Certificate of Appropriateness for Minor
Development; 26.415.110.F, Floor Area Bonus, 26.575.020, Calculations and
Measurements, and 26.710.090, RMF Zone District, by ChrisPat Aspen LLC
(the “applicant”), owner of the subject property.
For the reviewer’s convenience all pertinent supporting documents relating to
the project are provided in the various exhibits to the application, as follows:
• Exhibit 1: Proof of the Applicant’s Ownership;
• Exhibit 2: Pre-Application Conference Summary prepared by Amy Simon;
• Exhibit 3: Authorization for Haas Land Planning, LLC (HLP) and Christof
Eigelberger to represent the applicant;
• Exhibit 4: Land Use Application and HOA Compliance Policy forms;
• Exhibit 5: An executed application fee agreement; and
• Exhibit 6: Mailing addresses of record for all property owners located
within 300 feet of the subject property
In addition, architectural plans prepared by Eigelberger Architecture and
Design accompany this application.
While the applicant has attempted to address all relevant provisions of the
Code and to provide sufficient information to enable a thorough evaluation of
the application, questions may arise which require further information and/or
clarification. Upon request, Haas Land Planning, LLC will gladly provide
such additional information as may be required in the course of the review.
P215
IV.A.
135 E. Cooper Avenue (PID# 2735-031-04-003) Page 4
Existing Conditions
The property is located on the southwest corner of South Aspen Street and
East Cooper Avenue, immediately across the street from the Limelight Lodge.
The 2004 renovation resulted in a home that has proven very challenging for
family use due to the limiting ground floor connector element between the
two-story resource and the two-story addition.
The applicant has appeared before the HPC several times in an effort to find
an acceptable design solution that will allow for the direct passage from one
second floor area to the other. In July of 2015, HPC approved a Minor
Development application to alter the link to include a two-story glass enclosed
stair tower, pursuant to Resolution #21, Series of 2015.
Earlier this year, the applicant went back to the HPC with a new solution for
the connector that was approved in 2015. Instead of trying to accommodate a
stair in the connector, it was proposed that a new second floor hallway on top
of the existing one-story connector be constructed. Despite the clear and
obvious benefits of eliminating the bulky stair tower enclosure, this revision
was reviewed as a Substantial Amendment. The height, size and placement of
the connector had been an important issue to the HPC for many years, and
staff believed that the revised connector complied with the guidelines much
more than what had been approved in 2015. HPC agreed, and approved the
new design with the following conditions:
1. A historic window on the west elevation of the house is approved to
be removed. It is not approved to be relocated and no new window
opening may be added on this façade.
2. The new patio and walkways between the back of the Victorian and
the outbuildings are to be red brick/pavers or sandstone, with the
possible use of other paving as a minor element. The applicant is to
provide a design for review and approval by staff and monitor.
3. The requirement to submit for building permit by July 16, 2018, in
compliance with the 2015 Development Order, remains in effect.
4. This approval supersedes and replaces the approval for the two story
stair connector represented in Exhibit C. The Municipal Code does
not allow multiple versions of a land use approval to be valid at one
time.
5. The applicant is asked to commit to the removal of the two spruce
trees on the east side of the Victorian as part of this Amendment.
P216
IV.A.
135 E. Cooper Avenue (PID# 2735-031-04-003) Page 5
The Proposal
During previous HPC hearings involving various proposals from the
applicant to remodel the existing connecting element into a two-story link,
several commissioners remarked that they would be more inclined to allow
the two-story link if the applicant would simultaneously commit to
remodeling the entire exterior of the addition to better differentiate it from the
historic resource and eliminate confusion between what is old and what is
new. The applicant was merely trying to resolve the functionality issues of the
single-story link at that time and was not prepared to undertake a project of
the level suggested and even implored by the HPC until now.
The applicant is proposing to remodel the north façade of the existing
addition, which faces Cooper Avenue. The currently proposed changes to the
addition will create a one-story element while also bumping out a portion of
the two-story front façade by some 5’-10”.
More specifically, the proposed bump-out will include a single-story portion
with a shed roof at the location closest to the historic resource and its wrap-
around first floor porch. This new single-story element steps down in height
and scale to allow the resource to remain the dominant and preeminent
structure while lending subservience to and narrowing the perceived mass of
the addition. This one-story element includes an additional foot of front
setback as compared with the rest of the proposed bump-out addition, further
enhancing its perceived subservience and adding to the sympathetic nature of
the design. In effect, while the square footage of the total addition is modestly
increasing, the result will be an addition that reads as more subordinate and
subservient to the historic asset.
The one-story area of the proposed bump-out measures approximately 4’-10”
deep by 5’-4” wide and will be engineered so as not to require excavation or
footings. That is, the one-story element bumps-out one (1) foot less toward
Cooper Avenue than does the remaining two-story bump-out area and the
one-story area will be cantilevered over the ground so as to avoid any
potential impacts to the large tree or its root system. Keeping this area to just
one-story in height will also allow the canopy of the tree to remain
undisturbed as the adjacent roof line/height on the second story of the
structure would not be changed. This element of the proposed design resulted
from direction received during a site visit/meeting with Ian Gray, the Aspen
City Forester.
The proposed second-floor bump-out is limited to the portion of the addition
farthest from the historic resource (and away from the large tree in the front
P217
IV.A.
135 E. Cooper Avenue (PID# 2735-031-04-003) Page 6
yard) where there is an existing two-story dormer element with excessive
glazing that accentuates its height and scale. It is felt that the redesigned
bump-out will read as smaller in scale by virtue of having removed this
vertical element and its excessive glazing pattern that draws one’s eyes
upward. While the existing conditions read such that the addition is perceived
as being just as wide as the historic asset, the proposed bump-out design, with
its more appropriate glazing patterns, its recessed one-story element and its
lack of vertical orientation, will reverse this such that the addition will now
read as being significantly narrower than the Victorian (see existing versus
proposed North Elevation drawings).
The roof form on the addition will also be simplified to a basic gable-end. The
simple gable form will replace the existing large-dormered and hip forms that
currently face East Cooper Avenue and compete with the resource, causing
confusion between what is old versus what is new. The result is a design and
simple form that is more sympathetic to the hipped-roof historic resource and
makes the resource appear more complex, taller and more massive than the
addition. The architectural detailing of the resource is also accentuated as a
result.
Windows on the front (Cooper Avenue) side will be replaced to maintain
compatibility with those of the resource in terms of orientation and scale while
providing improved differentiation and modernity though simplified
grouping patterns. Windows on the ground level at the rear of the addition
will also be replaced, but these windows are not really visible from the
surrounding public ways. Simple wood headers and sills around the windows
of the addition will provide compatibility with the resource while
simultaneously providing appropriately subtle differentiation. Similarly,
vertical wood boards will be added at the corners of the addition to maintain a
common design language between the old and the new but without
mimicking or competing with the historic structure.
In order to accommodate this remodel, the applicant will remove
approximately 280 square feet of floor area from the preexisting attic space in
the Victorian. This “removal” of space in the Victorian will create no visual
impact or change to the resource. The total allowed floor area does not change;
instead, it is being reallocated from a useless attic space (that will be removed)
to the proposed addition. This attic space was never part of or in any manner
whatsoever connected to a previous floor area bonus and the attic removal
and reallocation of its floor area has no bearing on the previous bonus
approval. One should not require a floor area bonus to eliminate and replace
legally created space that existing prior to any previous reviews or approvals.
P218
IV.A.
135 E. Cooper Avenue (PID# 2735-031-04-003) Page 7
Nonetheless, at the direction of staff, a floor area bonus is requested to enable
this reuse of preexisting, legally created floor area.
Review Requirements
Certificate of Appropriateness for a Minor Development
The first step in the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness for Minor
Development is for the Community Development Director to determine that the
proposed development is a minor development. According to the Pre-Application
Conference Summary prepared by Amy Simon (copy attached), since the
proposed remodel is for less than 250 square feet of floor area, it is considered
minor development. (Also, see Code Section 26.415.070.C(1)(a).)
After Staff reviews the submitted materials and prepares a report, HPC will
review everything and decide whether or not to approve the proposed
development. This application will demonstrate compliance with the relevant
Historic Preservation Design Guidelines and Land Use Code sections.
Historic Preservation Design Guidelines
The applicable Guidelines are discussed below relative to the current
proposal. The portions printed in bold are the applicable design guideline
while the bulleted points beneath are merely examples of ways that the
guideline might be met/satisfied. These can be thought of as the “standard” in
bold with suggested means of achieving compliance provided in the bullet
points.
10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic
character of the primary building is maintained.
• A new addition must be compatible with the historic character of the primary
building.
• An addition must be subordinate, deferential, modest, and secondary in
comparison to the architectural character of the primary building.
• An addition that imitates the primary building’s historic style is not allowed.
For example, a new faux Victorian detailed addition is inappropriate on an
Aspen Victorian home.
• Proposals on corner lots require particular attention to creating compatibility.
Despite having received a floor area bonus and a Preservation Award from the
HPC, since the project’s completion in 2003, the approval has proven
problematic on many fronts, with the primary issues having been: 1) a lack of
functionality with the one-story connecting element between the two-story
historic and two-story addition on the finished home, and 2) a continued
feeling that the new and old portions of the finished home are too similar in
P219
IV.A.
135 E. Cooper Avenue (PID# 2735-031-04-003) Page 8
appearance causing many to incorrectly perceive the addition as being original
or having historic significance. Once constructed, an approval just granted by
the HPC in March of this year will serve to resolve the functionality issue;
however, the problems of poor/lack of adequate differentiation between new
and old remain unresolved.
During previous HPC hearings involving various proposals from the
applicant to remodel the existing connecting element into a two-story link,
several commissioners remarked that they would be more inclined to allow
the two-story link if the applicant would simultaneously commit to
remodeling the addition to better differentiate it from the historic resource and
eliminate confusion between what is old and what is new. The applicant was
merely trying to resolve the functionality issues of the single-story link at that
time and was not prepared to undertake a project of the level suggested and
even implored by the HPC until now.
The applicant is proposing to remodel the north façade of the existing
addition, which faces Cooper Avenue. The currently proposed changes to the
addition will create a one-story element while also bumping out a portion of
the two-story front façade by some 5’-10”.
More specifically, the proposed bump-out will include a single-story portion
with a shed roof at the location closest to the historic resource and its wrap-
around first floor porch. This new single-story element steps down in height
and scale to allow the resource to remain the dominant and preeminent
structure while lending subservience to and narrowing the perceived mass of
the addition. This one-story element includes an additional foot of front
setback as compared with the rest of the proposed bump-out addition, further
enhancing its perceived subservience and adding to the sympathetic nature of
the design. In effect, while the square footage of the total addition is modestly
increasing, the result will be an addition that reads as more subordinate and
subservient to the historic asset.
The proposed second-floor bump-out is limited to the portion of the addition
farthest from and most deferential to the historic resource (and away from the
large tree in the front yard) where there is an existing two-story dormer
element with excessive glazing that accentuates its height and scale. It is felt
that the redesigned bump-out will read as smaller in scale by virtue of having
removed this vertical element and its excessive glazing pattern that draws
one’s eyes upward. While the existing conditions read such that the addition is
perceived as being just as wide as the historic asset, the proposed bump-out
design, with its more appropriate glazing patterns, its recessed one-story
element and its lack of vertical orientation, will reverse this such that the
P220
IV.A.
135 E. Cooper Avenue (PID# 2735-031-04-003) Page 9
addition will now read as being significantly narrower than the Victorian (see
existing versus proposed North Elevation drawings).
The roof form on the addition will also be simplified to a basic gable-end. The
simple gable form will replace the existing large-dormered and hip forms that
currently face East Cooper Avenue and compete with the resource, causing
confusion between what is old versus what is new. The result is a design and
simple form that is more sympathetic to the hipped-roof historic resource and
makes the resource appear more complex, taller and more massive than the
addition. The ornate detailing of the resource is also accentuated as a result.
Windows on the front (Cooper Avenue) side will be replaced to maintain
compatibility with those of the resource in terms of orientation and scale while
providing improved differentiation and modernity though simplified
grouping patterns. Windows on the ground level at the rear of the addition
will also be replaced, but these windows are not really visible from the
surrounding public ways. Simple wood headers and sills around the windows
of the addition will provide compatibility with the resource while
simultaneously providing appropriately subtle differentiation. Similarly,
vertical wood boards will be added at the corners of the addition to maintain a
common design language between the old and the new but without
mimicking or competing with the historic structure.
The proposed remodel and addition will provide for compatibility in character
without mimicking the details of the historic resource. The end result will
greatly increase one’s ability to interpret the historic character of the Victorian
home while making the addition far more subordinate, sympathetic and
subservient.
10.4 The historic resource is to be the focus of the property, the entry point,
and the predominant structure as viewed from the street.
• The historic resource must be visually dominant on the site and must be
distinguishable against the addition.
• The total above grade floor area of an addition may be no more than 100% of
the above grade floor area of the original historic resource. All other above
grade development must be completely detached. HPC may consider exceptions
to this policy if two or more of the following are met:
1. The proposed addition is all one story.
2. The footprint of the new addition is closely related to the footprint of the
historic resource and the proposed design is particularly sensitive to the
scale and proportions of the historic resource.
P221
IV.A.
135 E. Cooper Avenue (PID# 2735-031-04-003) Page 10
3. The project involves the demolition and replacement of an older addition
that is considered to have been particularly detrimental to the historic
resource.
4. The interior of the resource is fully utilized, containing the same number of
usable floors as existed historically.
5. The project is on a large lot, allowing the addition to have a significant
setback from the street.
6. There are no variance requests in the application other than those related to
historic conditions that are not being changed.
7. The project is proposed as part of a voluntary AspenModern designation,
or
8. The property is affected by non-preservation related site specific constraints
such as trees that must be preserved, Environmentally Sensitive Areas, etc.
As viewed from both South Aspen Street and East Cooper Avenue, the
prominence of the historic resource will not change as a result of the proposed
addition and remodel. The resource is and will remain the focus of the
property and the far more predominant structure as viewed from the streets.
The front porch and front façade of the historic structure are closer to the street
(both streets) than would be that of the remodeled addition. The large front
porch of the historic asset will remain a full ten (10) or more feet closer to East
Cooper Avenue than will the front of the remodeled addition. The exact
relationship between the two parts of the residence, as viewed from East
Cooper Avenue, is difficult for a passerby to fully comprehend in the first
place due to the presence of a large coniferous tree located between the
sidewalk and the residence and in front of the addition. Said tree blocks views
of the addition while leaving the historic asset far more predominant. The
visibility of the addition from South Aspen Street will be unchanged.
The one-story area of the proposed bump-out measures approximately 4’-10”
deep by 5’-4” wide and will be engineered so as not to require excavation or
footings. That is, the one-story element bumps-out one (1) foot less toward
Cooper Avenue than does the remaining two-story bump-out area and the
one-story area will be cantilevered over the ground so as to avoid any
potential impacts to the large tree or its root system. Keeping this area to just
one-story in height will also allow the canopy of the tree to remain
undisturbed as the adjacent roof line/height on the second story of the
structure would not be changed. This element of the proposed design resulted
from direction received during a site visit/meeting with Ian Gray, the Aspen
City Forester.
P222
IV.A.
135 E. Cooper Avenue (PID# 2735-031-04-003) Page 11
It is noted that Guideline 10.3 above makes specific reference to the character
of the “primary building” and does not make room for consideration of any
accessory structures. This Guideline 10.4, by contrast, requires that the total
above grade floor area of an addition be no more than 100% of the total above
grade floor area of “the original historic resource.” The original historic
resource on the subject property is both the Victorian home and the old
carriage house (now used and restricted as an Accessory Dwelling Unit). This
makes perfect sense since the applicant does not enjoy the freedom to simply
demolish or otherwise change the historically designated ADU structure.
Accordingly, 100% of the above grade floor area of the original historic
resource has been measured to include 1,975 square feet (1,254 square feet on
the ground level and another 721 square feet on the second floor). Meanwhile
the total above grade floor area of the addition, including the currently
proposed remodel, will be 1,738 square feet, or 88% of that in the historic
resource even after removal of its 280 square foot attic space.
10.6 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time.
• An addition should be distinguishable from the historic building, and still be
visually compatible with historic features.
• A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change
in material or a modern interpretation of a historic style are all techniques that
may be considered to help define a change from historic construction to new
construction.
• Do not reference historic styles that have no basis in Aspen.
• Consider these three aspects of an addition: form, materials and fenestration.
An addition must relate strongly to the historic resource in at least two of these
elements. Departing from the historic resource in one of these categories allows
for creativity and a contemporary design response.
• Note that on a corner lot, departing from the form of the historic resource may
not be allowed.
• There is a spectrum of appropriate solutions to distinguishing new from old
portions of a development. Some resources of particularly high significance or
integrity may not be the right instance for a contrasting addition.
Please refer to the response provided for Guideline 10.3, above. The addition
will now, for the first time ever, be easily recognized as a product of its own
time.
10.8 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main
building.
• An addition that is lower than or similar to the height of the primary building
is preferred.
P223
IV.A.
135 E. Cooper Avenue (PID# 2735-031-04-003) Page 12
Both the existing historic structure and its existing two-story addition are
substantial in size and scale. By eliminating the large, windowed dormer from
the front (Cooper Avenue) façade of the existing addition and simplifying the
roof form, the proposed remodel will effectively decrease the perceived mass
and scale of the addition. The proposed changes to the addition will enhance
compatibility and subservience in size and scale. Please also refer to the
responses above for more elaboration on compatibility of size and scale.
10.9 If the addition is taller than a historic building, set it back from
significant facades and use a “connector” to link it to the historic building.
• Only a one-story connector is allowed.
• Usable space, including decks, is not allowed on top of connectors unless the
connector has limited visibility and the deck is shielded with a solid parapet
wall.
• In all cases, the connector must attach to the historic resource underneath the
eave.
• The connector should be a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition and
the primary building.
• Minimize the width of the connector. Ideally, it is no more than a passage
between the historic resource and addition. The connector must reveal the
original building corners. The connector may not be as wide as the historic
resource.
• Any street-facing doors installed in the connector must be minimized in height
and width and accessed by a secondary pathway. See guideline 4.1 for further
information.
This guideline is not applicable since the proposed addition is not taller than
the historic portion of the residence. Nevertheless, the addition will remain
setback further from the street than is the front façade of the historic resource.
Further, the large front porch of the historic asset will remain a full ten (10)
feet closer to East Cooper Avenue than will the front of the remodeled
addition (and 11 feet closer to E. Cooper than the proposed one-story element
addition). The exact relationship between the two parts of the residence, as
viewed from East Cooper Avenue, is difficult for a passerby to fully
comprehend in the first place due to the presence of a large coniferous tree in
the front yard, located between the sidewalk and the residence, and in front of
the easterly corner of the non-historic portions of the house. Said tree blocks
views of the addition while leaving the historic asset far more predominant.
Although the guidelines now say that only a 1-story connector is allowed, the
previous guidelines that preferred a one-story connector were in place when
the two-story connector was designed and approved. The subject resource is
unusual for its era in terms of its size, mass and scale. As such, an “unusual”
P224
IV.A.
135 E. Cooper Avenue (PID# 2735-031-04-003) Page 13
connector is appropriate, and this issue has been resolved and approved by
the HPC.
10.10 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back substantially
from the front to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to
allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent.
• Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate.
• Additions to the side of a primary building are handled on a case-by-case basis
and are approved based on site specific constraints that restrict rear additions.
• Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement,
which will not alter the exterior mass of a building.
The addition already exists and there is inadequate room between the existing
addition and the historic outbuilding located behind it (separated by
approximately 6’-1”) to allow placing of the proposed addition at the rear
without combining the two structures or violating both zoning and building
code separation requirements for detached structures on a lot. Again, the
addition will remain setback further from the street than is the front façade of
the historic resource. Further, the large front porch of the historic asset will
remain a full eleven (11) feet closer to East Cooper Avenue than will the front
of the closest portion of the remodeled addition. Furthermore, there is an
enormous evergreen tree that will continue to largely block the view of the
proposed bump out from Cooper Avenue, minimizing any visual impact. The
original proportions and character of the resource will remain exactly as they
are today; its prominence will be unchanged and likely enhanced.
Please also refer to the responses above for more elaboration on compatibility,
visual impacts, and prominence of the historic character.
10.11 Roof forms shall be compatible with the historic building.
• A simple roof form that does not compete with the historic building is
appropriate.
• On Aspen Victorian properties, a flat roof may only be used on an addition to a
gable roofed structure if the addition is entirely one story in height, or if the flat
roofed areas are limited, but the addition is primarily a pitched roof.
The roof form on the addition will be vastly simplified to a basic gable-end.
The simple gable form will replace the existing large-dormered and hip forms
that currently face East Cooper Avenue and compete with the resource,
causing confusion between what is old versus what is new. The result is a
design and simple form that is more sympathetic to the hipped-roof historic
resource and makes the resource appear more complex, taller and more
massive than the addition. The architectural detailing of the resource is also
P225
IV.A.
135 E. Cooper Avenue (PID# 2735-031-04-003) Page 14
accentuated as a result. The proposed remodel and addition, with its
appropriately simplified roof form will provide for enhanced compatibility in
character without mimicking the details of the historic resource. The end result
will greatly increase one’s ability to interpret the historic character of the
Victorian home.
It is emphasized that the proposed remodel to the addition clearly
distinguishes the old from the new. Many HPC members have pointed out
over the years that the existing development fails with regard to this
preservation goal. As viewed from the street, it is difficult to tell where the
historic structure ends and the new construction begins; they are simply too
similar in design, color, massing and scale, and roof forms to provide this
needed differentiation. The proposed remodel will greatly help to improve
the distinction between old and new, thereby enhancing the historic
preservation effort on this award-winning property.
Floor Area Bonus
Since the property has about 45 square feet of unused floor area available
(after the recently approved second floor connector gets built) to accommodate
the proposed 175 or so square foot addition, it is necessary to remove
approximately 140 square feet of floor area from the property in order to
accommodate the proposed addition.
As mentioned above, in order to accommodate this remodel (and the already
approved second-floor connector element), the applicant will remove
approximately 280 square feet of floor area from the preexisting attic space in
the Victorian. This “removal” of space in the Victorian will create no visual
impact or change to the resource. The total allowed floor area does not change;
instead, it is being reallocated from a useless attic space (that will be removed)
to the proposed addition. This attic space was never part of or in any manner
whatsoever connected to a previous floor area bonus and the attic removal
and reallocation of its floor area has no bearing on the previous bonus
approval. One should not require a floor area bonus to eliminate and replace
legally created space that existing prior to any previous reviews or approvals.
Nonetheless, at the direction of staff, a floor area bonus is requested to enable
this reuse of preexisting, legally created floor area.
It is City staff’s position that the original Floor Area Bonus that was granted to
the property in 2003 was for the specific design that was then presented, the
applicant is now being made to ask the HPC to re-grant 140 square feet of the
bonus as a “new” (but really more of a replacement) floor area bonus. Code
P226
IV.A.
135 E. Cooper Avenue (PID# 2735-031-04-003) Page 15
Section 26.415.110.F provides the criteria used by the HPC when determining
if a floor area bonus is warranted and states as follows:
1. In selected circumstances, the HPC may grant up to five hundred (500)
additional square feet of allowable floor area for projects involving
designated historic properties. To be considered for the bonus, it must
be demonstrated that:
a) The design of the project meets all applicable design guidelines;
b) The historic building is the key element of the property and the
addition is incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual
integrity of the historic building;
c) The work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic
appearance;
d) The new construction is reflective of the proportional patterns
found in the historic building's form, materials or openings;
e) The construction materials are of the highest quality;
f) An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the
building;
g) The project retains a historic outbuilding; and/or
h) Notable historic site and landscape features are retained.
2. Granting of additional allowable floor area is not a matter of right but
is contingent upon the sole discretion of the HPC and the
Commission's assessments of the merits of the proposed project and its
ability to demonstrate exemplary historic preservation practices.
Projects that demonstrate multiple elements described above will have a
greater likelihood of being awarded additional floor area.
3. The decision to grant a floor area bonus for major development projects
will occur as part of the approval of a Conceptual Development Plan,
pursuant to Subsection 26.415.070.D. The floor area bonus may also be
approved as part of a Historic Landmark Lot Split Review.
4. Floor area bonuses are cumulative. A property shall receive no more
than 500 square feet total.
Consistent with sub-standard “a,” demonstration of consistency with all
applicable design guidelines has been provided above. It has also been
demonstrated above that, compliant with sub-standard “b,” the historic
building will remain the key element of the property and that the addition is
incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic
building (the historic building will not be changed at all). The applicant has
already completed all needed restoration work on the historic building,
thereby rendering substandard “c” inapplicable.
P227
IV.A.
135 E. Cooper Avenue (PID# 2735-031-04-003) Page 16
The proposed addition and remodel is fully consistent with sub-standard “d”
inasmuch as the proposed new construction will enhance the overall project’s
compatibility of proportional patterns found in the historic building’s form,
materials and openings as compared with those of the new construction. The
biggest problem of the existing development remains, as repeatedly stated
over the years by many members of the HPC, an inadequate differentiation
between the historic asset’s form, materials and openings from those of the
addition. As explained throughout the foregoing, the proposal will provide a
compatible and appropriate differentiation between these character-defining
features and elements of the two parts of the home. The proposal, therefore,
enhances consistency with this substandard “d.”
The proposed construction materials will be of the highest quality, as one
would expect of a home at this location and of its value. Sub-standard “e” is
and will continue to be satisfied.
The appropriateness of the connecting element between the old and new
portions of the home has already been favorably decided upon by the HPC.
Furthermore, and again as demonstrated throughout the foregoing narratives,
the proposed remodel will greatly improve the distinction between old and
new, thereby enhancing the historic preservation effort on this property. As
such, sub-standard “f” is clearly satisfied as well.
The proposed development does retain the historic outbuilding located at the
rear of the lot without change, thus satisfying sub-standard “g.” No notable
site or landscape features will be affected by the proposed development; in
fact, exemplary and expensive steps are being undertaken to ensure the
preservation of the large conifer in front of the addition, as described earlier.
Thus, sub-standard “h” is also satisfied.
Given the foregoing, the project clearly ranks as an exemplary preservation
effort as it is enhancing a project that has previously been awarded an HPC
Merit Award. Moreover, all eight (8) applicable standards for the grant of a
floor area bonus are fully satisfied. As such, the proposal clearly and fully
warrants the requested granting of a 140 square foot floor area bonus --- a
bonus that will not change the total floor area already on the property
Code Section 26.575.020 provides Calculations and Measurements and states
the following in Subsection 3:
3. Attic Space and Crawl Space. Unfinished and uninhabitable space between the
ceiling joists and roof rafters of a structure or between the ground and floor
framing which is accessible only as a matter of necessity is exempt from the
P228
IV.A.
135 E. Cooper Avenue (PID# 2735-031-04-003) Page 17
calculation of Floor Area as described below. Drop ceilings are not included in the
height measurement for crawl spaces.
Crawl spaces that meet the following are exempt from Floor Area calculations:
1. 5 feet 6 inches or less in height measured between the hard floor structure and
floor framing; and
2. Accessible only through an interior floor hatch, exterior access panel, or similar
feature; and
3. Are the minimum height and size reasonably necessary for the mechanical
equipment. Stacked crawl spaces do not qualify for the Floor Area exemption.
Crawl spaces greater than 5 feet 6 inches in height count toward Floor Area in
accordance with Section 26.575.020.D.8 Subgrade areas.
Attic space that is conveniently accessible and is either habitable or can be made
habitable shall be counted in the calculation of Floor Area.
Areas of an attic level with thirty (30) vertical inches or less between the finished
floor level and the finished ceiling shall be exempt, regardless of how that space is
accessed or used.
If any portion of the attic or crawl space of a structure is to be counted, then the
entire room shall be included in the calculation of Floor Area.
Examples of attic and crawl spaces that do and do not count toward Floor Area:
a) An attic area created above a “hung” or “false” ceiling is exempt.
b) A crawl space that is 6 feet in height that is accessible only through an interior
hatch counts.
c) An attic area accessible only through an interior pull-down access ladder is
exempt.
d) An unfinished attic space or an unfinished crawl space over 4 feet in height
which has convenient access is counted.
e) A crawl space that is 5 feet 6 inches in height, is accessible only through an
interior hatch and is a reasonable size to accommodate the mechanical
equipment is exempt.
The existing space in the attic that is now considered to be floor area will be
decommissioned (i.e., removed entirely) to allow for the proposed remodel.
The property has a total allowable floor area of 4,170 square feet, inclusive of
floor area bonuses previously granted and herein requested, and the final
development will not exceed this limit. The applicant understands this
limitation and plans submitted for a building permit will demonstrate
compliance. Without compliance, it is understood that a building permit will
not be issued.
P229
IV.A.
135 E. Cooper Avenue (PID# 2735-031-04-003) Page 18
It is hoped that the information provided herein and in the accompanying
plan sets proves helpful in the review and approval of this exceptional project
and exemplary preservation effort. If you should have any questions or desire
any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Truly yours,
Haas Land Planning, LLC
Mitch Haas
Owner/Manager
P230
IV.A.
July 5, 2018
Ms. Amy Simon
City of Aspen Historic Preservation Officer
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: West and Combined Side Yard Setbacks Variations Addendum to the
Minor Development HPC Application for 135 E. Cooper Avenue, Lots H
and I, and the easterly 5 feet of Lot G, Block 70, City and Townsite of
Aspen. (a/k/a, the Dixon-Markle House) (Parcel ID # 2735-131-04-003)
Dear Amy:
Please consider this letter as an addendum to the previously submitted
application for Minor Development Approval to allow for a remodel to the
north façade of the addition to the historic Victorian home at 135 E. Cooper
Ave, Aspen. This addendum is provided for the specific purpose of requesting
the west and combined side yard setback variations required for the proposed
plans. More precisely, a west side yard setback variation of 2.6 feet and a
combined side yards setback variation of 9.4 feet.
Pursuant to Section 26.415.110.C of the Code,
Dimensional variations are allowed for projects involving designated
properties to create development that is more consistent with the character of
the historic property or district than what would be required by the underlying
zoning's dimensional standards.
1. The HPC may grant variances of the Land Use Code for designated
properties to allow:
a) Development in the side, rear and front setbacks;
b) Development that does not meet the minimum distance requirements
between buildings;
c) Up to five percent (5%) additional site coverage;
d) Less public amenity than required for the on-site relocation of
commercial historic properties.
HAAS LAND PLANNING, HAAS LAND PLANNING, LLCLLC
• 420 E. MAIN STREET, SUITE 220 • ASPEN, COLORADO • 81611 •
• PHONE: (970) 925-7819 • MITCH@HLPASPEN.COM •
P231
IV.A.
135 E. Cooper Avenue (PID# 2735-031-04-003) Page 2
No variations from the east side yard setback, rear setback, front yard setback,
minimum distance between buildings, site coverage, or public amenity
requirements are needed or requested. The proposed development requires
variances from only the individual west side-yard setback and the combined
side-yard setback requirements. More specifically, the following variances are
requested:
• The west side-yard setback requires a 2.6-foot variance to accommodate
maintenance and extension of the existing 2.4 foot setback where a 5 foot
setback is otherwise required; and
• The required combined side-yard setback for this 6,500 square foot
property is 17.5 feet but the two existing side yard setbacks total to just 8.1
feet, resulting in the need for a 9.4 foot variance to allow for extension of
the westerly facade.
All of these nonconformities already exist and were legally
established/approved during prior HPC reviews. The existing development
maintains the same setbacks as currently proposed but by virtue of extending
the front of the house straight forward (towards Cooper Avenue), it is
considered an extension or enlargement of a nonconforming setback and
requires something of a technical variation from the HPC.
Additionally, pursuant to Code Section 26.415.110(C)(2),
2. In granting a variance, the HPC must make a finding that such a variance:
a) Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic
property or district; and/or
b) Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance
or architectural character of the historic property, an adjoining
designated historic property or historic district.
Not only are the variances requested herein similar to the patterns, features
and character of the historic property, they actually are the patterns,
features and character of the historic property. That is, as mentioned above,
the proposal merely extends the previously approved setback variations
without pushing any further into the setback areas (i.e., toward the side
property lines) than does the existing structure. Further, the granting of the
requested variations will allow the proposed remodel, which greatly
improves differentiation between the historic asset and the modern
additions while, in turn, substantially enhancing and mitigating the
potential for adverse impacts to the historic significance and architectural
character of the historic property/resource. There are no historic structures
on the adjoining property and the site is not within an historic district.
P232
IV.A.
135 E. Cooper Avenue (PID# 2735-031-04-003) Page 3
It is hoped that the information provided herein and in the previously
provided plan sets proves helpful in the review and approval of this
exceptional project and exemplary preservation effort. If you should have any
questions or desire any additional information, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Truly yours,
Haas Land Planning, LLC
Mitch Haas
Owner/Manager
P233
IV.A.
P234IV.A.
P235IV.A.
P236IV.A.
P237IV.A.
AHPC
Minor Review
135 E. Cooper
1
CITY OF ASPEN
PRE-APPLICATION SUMMARY
PLANNER: Amy Simon, amy.simon@cityofaspen.com DATE: 4.9.18
PROJECT: 135 E. Cooper Avenue
DESCRIPTION: 135 E. Cooper Avenue is listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites
and Structures, as well as the National Register of Historic Places. The site contains the 1888 Dixon-
Markle house and a historic outbuilding. In 2003, an HPC approved addition was constructed on the
property.
The owner is interested in a remodel that involves extending the north façade of the addition to the
Victorian house towards Cooper Avenue. The addition will be two stories and amount to
approximately 180 square feet of floor area. Because the addition is less than 250 square feet of
floor area it qualifies for HPC review as Minor Development.
Based on drawings provided for the recently approved remodel of the connector between the
Victorian and addition, the property has about 40 square feet of unused floor area available. This
calculation of allowed floor area includes a 500 square foot floor area bonus awarded as part of
HPC’s 2003 approval. In order to build the currently contemplated addition to the proposed size, the
owner will need to remove 140 square feet of floor area from elsewhere on the site and ask HPC to
regrant that square footage as a new floor area bonus. The bonus was granted for the specific
design presented to the board in 2003 and does not guarantee the right to demolish square footage
contained within the existing building envelopes and enlarge the mass elsewhere on the site.
Staff will prepare a recommendation and HPC will conduct a Minor Development review of the project.
The staff recommendations and the HPC decision will be based on the Historic Preservation Design
Guidelines and relevant sections of the land use code, including the criteria for a floor area bonus.
Below are links to relevant documents:
Historic Preservation Land Use Application form:
https://www.cityofaspen.com/DocumentCenter/Home/View/305
Below is Land Use Code:
https://www.cityofaspen.com/191/Municipal-Code
HPC Design Guidelines:
https://www.cityofaspen.com/DocumentCenter/Home/View/310
Land Use Code Section(s)
26.304 Common Development Review Procedures
26.415.070.C Certificate of Appropriateness for Minor development
26.415.110.F Floor area bonus
26.575.020 Calculations and Measurements
26.710.090 RMF Zone District
P238
IV.A.
2
Review by: Staff for complete application and recommendation, HPC for decision
Public Hearing: Yes
Planning Fees: $1,950 for up to 6 billable hours. Additional/less hours will be billed/refunded at
a rate of $325 per hour.
Referral Fees: None
Total Deposit: $1,950
To apply, submit 1 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 (not 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.
¨ A site improvement survey (not older than a year from submittal) including topography and
vegetation showing the current status of the parcel certified by a registered land surveyor by
licensed in the State of Colorado.
¨ HOA Compliance form (Attached.)
¨ A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form of
how the proposed development complies with the review standards and design guidelines
relevant to the development application and is consistent with land use approvals associated
with the property.
¨ Representations of building materials and finishes.
¨ An 8 1/2” by 11” vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen.
Once the application is determined to be complete, submit:
¨ A digital copy of the application emailed to amy.simon@cityofaspen.com. Please provide
text and graphics as separate files.
¨ 12 copies of the project graphics.
¨ 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.
P239
IV.A.
P240
IV.A.
P241
IV.A.
P242
IV.A.
P243
IV.A.
P244
IV.A.
P245
IV.A.
P246IV.A.
P247IV.A.
P248IV.A.
A
A
D
D
E
E
F
FC
C
G
G
1910 SF
535 SF
NO CHANGE TO EXISTING
B
BA1
A
A
D
D
E
E
F
FC
C
G
G
A
B
C
H
I
J
K
L
D
F
N
P
Q
R
S
T
U
E
G
O
M
535 SF
NO CHANGE TO GUEST HOUSE
1910 SF
B
BA1 3' - 0"AA
DD
BB EE
CC
AREA CALCULATIONS
CONDITIONED LIVING SPACE
COVERED EXTERIOR
GARAGE
FAR CALC BASED ON EXISTING HOUSE- NO PROPOSED CHANGE TO
GARAGE OR GUEST HOUSE
4,116 SF FAR Total Area
EXISTING AREA:
LOWER LEVEL AREA:314 (COUNTABLE SF)
MAIN LEVEL AREA:2,074 SF
UPPER LEVEL AREA:1448 SF
ATTIC:280 SF
GARAGE(EXEMPT):231 SF (NO CHANGE)
TOTAL EXISITNG 4,116 SF
PROPOSED AREA
PROPOSED AREA (MAIN HOUSE):
LOWER LEVEL AREA:265 SF
MAIN LEVEL AREA:2,174 SF (NO CHANGE)
UPPER LEVEL AREA:1543 SF
ATTIC:0 SF
TOTAL AREA FOR PROPOSED:3,982 SF
EXISTING AREA:
FAR Total Area 3,982 SF
ALLOWABLE AREA FAR Total Area 4,180 SF
EXISTING MAIN HOUSE LOWER LEVEL ONLY:
TOTAL WALL AREA: 1964 SF
TOTAL AREA EXPOSED: 278 SF
RATIO FOR CALCULATION: 278/1964 = .141
TOTAL FLOOR AREA OF MAIN HOUSE LOWER LEVEL = 1910 SF (.141) =
269 SF COUNTED TOWARDS FAR
EXISTING GUEST HOUSE LOWER LEVEL ONLY:
TOTAL WALL AREA: 904 SF
TOTAL AREA EXPOSED: 77 SF
RATIO FOR CALCULATION: 77/904 = .085
TOTAL FLOOR AREA OF MAIN HOUSE LOWER LEVEL = 535 SF (.085) = 45
SF COUNTED TOWARDS FAR
PROPOSED MAIN HOUSE LOWER LEVEL ONLY:
TOTAL WALL AREA: 1964 SF
TOTAL AREA EXPOSED: 226 SF
RATIO FOR CALCULATION: 226/1964 = .115
TOTAL FLOOR AREA OF MAIN HOUSE LOWER LEVEL = 1910 SF (.115) =
220 SF COUNTED TOWARDS FAR
A
B C
WALL AREA = 143 SF 9' - 0"22' - 9 1/8"
WALL AREA = 205 SF
9' - 0"15' - 10"
WALL AREA = 140 SF9' - 0"15' - 6 1/2"
D E F
WALL AREA = 18 SF
G
H I
WALL AREA = 72 SF
EXPOSED = 52 SF9' - 0"2' - 0"9' - 0"8' - 0"2' - 3 1/2"9' - 0"WALL AREA = 18 SF9' - 0"2' - 0"9' - 0"35' - 6"
WALL AREA = 21 SF
21' - 7"
WALL AREA = 320 SF WALL AREA = 195 SF
J K
9' - 0"10' - 7"
WALL AREA = 95 SF
EXPOSED = 76 SF
WALL AREA = 236 SF
EXPOSED = 58 SF
L
26 SF
5' - 0 1/2"M
4' - 6 1/8"
WALL AREA = 41 SF
EXPOSED = 26 SF 5' - 0 1/2"4' - 1"3' - 1"
5' - 5 1/8"
WALL AREA = 49 SF
EXPOSED = 35 SF
35 SF
N
R 9' - 0"3' - 3"
WALL AREA = 29 SF
O
9' - 0"3' - 0"
WALL AREA = 27 SF
9' - 0"7' - 10 1/4"
P4' - 9"
12' - 3 3/4"9' - 0"31 SF
WALL AREA = 111 SF
EXPOSED = 31 SF
S T U
3' - 8 1/4"9' - 0"WALL AREA = 34 SF 9' - 0"7' - 9"
WALL AREA = 70 SF 9' - 0"4' - 7 5/8"
WALL AREA = 42 SFWALL AREA = 71 SF6 3/4"EGRESS LIGHTWELL LOWER LEVEL ACCESS/EGRESS
EGRESS LIGHTWELL 6"52 SF 76 SF 58 SF
8' - 4 1/2"4' - 1"4' - 11"26' - 2"9' - 0"Q
3' - 0"
WALL AREA = 27 SF9' - 0"AA BB
FF
WALL AREA = 112 SF9' - 0"28' - 4 3/4"
WALL AREA = 260 SF
EXPOSED = 77 SF 9' - 0"12' - 4 3/4"
WALL AREA = 92 SF9' - 0"10' - 2"
DD
WALL AREA = 24 SF
CC
JJ 9' - 0"2' - 8 17/32"9' - 0"12' - 9 31/32"
12' - 10 1/4"
WALL AREA = 116 SF
WALL AREA = 116 SF
EE WALL AREA = 112 SF9' - 0"12' - 4 3/4"
GG
WALL AREA = 92 SF9' - 0"10' - 2"
A
B C
WALL AREA = 143 SF 9' - 0"22' - 9 1/8"
WALL AREA = 208 SF
9' - 0"15' - 10"
WALL AREA = 140 SF9' - 0"15' - 6 1/2"
D E F
WALL AREA = 18 SF
G
H I
WALL AREA = 72 SF9' - 0"2' - 0"9' - 0"8' - 0"2' - 3 1/2"9' - 0"WALL AREA = 18 SF9' - 0"2' - 0"9' - 0"35' - 6"
WALL AREA = 21 SF
21' - 7"
WALL AREA = 320 SF WALL AREA = 195 SF
J K
9' - 0"10' - 7"
EXPOSED = 76 SF WALL AREA = 236 SF
EXPOSED = 58 SF
L
26 SF
5' - 0 1/2"M
4' - 6 1/8"
WALL AREA = 41 SF
EXPOSED = 26 SF 5' - 0 1/2"4' - 1"3' - 1"
5' - 5 1/8"
WALL AREA = 49 SF
EXPOSED = 35 SF
35 SF
N
R 9' - 0"3' - 3"
WALL AREA = 29 SF
O
9' - 0"3' - 0"
WALL AREA = 27 SF
9' - 0"7' - 10 1/4"
P4' - 9"
12' - 3 3/4"9' - 0"31 SF
WALL AREA = 111 SF
EXPOSED = 31 SF
S T U
3' - 8 1/4"9' - 0"WALL AREA = 34 SF 9' - 0"7' - 9"
WALL AREA = 70 SF 9' - 0"4' - 7 5/8"
WALL AREA = 42 SFWALL AREA = 71 SF6 3/4"EGRESS LIGHTWELL LOWER LEVEL ACCESS/EGRESS
EGRESS LIGHTWELL 6"76 SF 58 SF
8' - 4 1/2"4' - 1"4' - 11"26' - 2"9' - 0"Q
3' - 0"
WALL AREA = 27 SF9' - 0"These documents are the property of EAD. Any unauthorized use without the written consent of EAD is prohibited by law. EAD disclaims responsibility for these documents if they are used whole or in part at any other location and for any other application other than the original intent. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or reproduction of these documents is prohibited by law.Copyright c 2015 by EIGELBERGER ARCHITECTURE & DESIGNSCALE:
Plot Date
Drawn By
Checked By
Project No.
Date Issue
As indicatedBIM 360://135 E. Cooper - 2018/17008 - 135 Cooper - v2018 .rvt7/16/18 9:55:50 AM
A0-01
AREA
CALCULATIONS135 E. COOPER AVE.135 E. COOPER AVE.ASPEN, COLORADO 81611201228
Author
Checker
SCALE :1/8" = 1'-0"A0-01
1 EXISTING LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
SCALE :1/8" = 1'-0"A0-01
2 PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
SCALE :1/8" = 1'-0"A0-01
3 MAIN HOUSE WALLS CALCULATION - EXISTING
2018.02.09 1 PERMIT SUBMITTAL
SCALE :1/8" = 1'-0"A0-01
4 GUEST HOUSE WALLS CALCULATION EXISTING
SCALE :1/8" = 1'-0"A0-01
5 MAIN HOUSE WALLS CALCULATION - PROPOSEDP249
IV.A.
UP
UP
UP
11
A
A
D
D
E
E
F
F
3.13.1
44
55
C
C
G
G
22
3 3
1565 SF
231 SF
61 SF OF STAIR EXISTING
73 SF
30 SF
186 SF
NO CHANGE TO GUEST HOUSE
NO CHANGE TO GARAGE
B
BA1
11
A
A
D
D
E
E
F
F
3.13.1
44
55
C
C
G
G
22
3 3
1664 SF
231 SF
73 SF
30 SF
186 SF
NO CHANGE TO GUEST HOUSE
NO CHANGE TO GARAGE
MAIN LEVEL
B
BA1
AREA CALCULATIONS
CONDITIONED LIVING SPACE
COVERED EXTERIOR
GARAGE
FAR CALC BASED ON EXISTING HOUSE- NO PROPOSED CHANGE TO
GARAGE OR GUEST HOUSE
4,116 SF FAR Total Area
EXISTING AREA:
LOWER LEVEL AREA:314 (COUNTABLE SF)
MAIN LEVEL AREA:2,074 SF
UPPER LEVEL AREA:1448 SF
ATTIC:280 SF
GARAGE(EXEMPT):231 SF (NO CHANGE)
TOTAL EXISITNG 4,116 SF
PROPOSED AREA
PROPOSED AREA (MAIN HOUSE):
LOWER LEVEL AREA:265 SF
MAIN LEVEL AREA:2,174 SF (NO CHANGE)
UPPER LEVEL AREA:1543 SF
ATTIC:0 SF
TOTAL AREA FOR PROPOSED:3,982 SF
EXISTING AREA:
FAR Total Area 3,982 SF
ALLOWABLE AREA FAR Total Area 4,180 SF
EXISTING MAIN HOUSE LOWER LEVEL ONLY:
TOTAL WALL AREA: 1964 SF
TOTAL AREA EXPOSED: 278 SF
RATIO FOR CALCULATION: 278/1964 = .141
TOTAL FLOOR AREA OF MAIN HOUSE LOWER LEVEL = 1910 SF (.141) =
269 SF COUNTED TOWARDS FAR
EXISTING GUEST HOUSE LOWER LEVEL ONLY:
TOTAL WALL AREA: 904 SF
TOTAL AREA EXPOSED: 77 SF
RATIO FOR CALCULATION: 77/904 = .085
TOTAL FLOOR AREA OF MAIN HOUSE LOWER LEVEL = 535 SF (.085) = 45
SF COUNTED TOWARDS FAR
PROPOSED MAIN HOUSE LOWER LEVEL ONLY:
TOTAL WALL AREA: 1964 SF
TOTAL AREA EXPOSED: 226 SF
RATIO FOR CALCULATION: 226/1964 = .115
TOTAL FLOOR AREA OF MAIN HOUSE LOWER LEVEL = 1910 SF (.115) =
220 SF COUNTED TOWARDS FAR
11
A
A
D
D
E
E
F
F
3.13.1
44
55
C
G
G
2
3 3
742 SF
706 SF
STAIR INCLUDED IN SF AS STAIR
ACCESS TO EXISITNG ATTIC
BA1
20 SF
Area
11
A
A
D
D
E
E
F
F
3.13.1
44
55
C G
2
3 3
1544 SF
BA1 These documents are the property of EAD. Any unauthorized use without the written consent of EAD is prohibited by law. EAD disclaims responsibility for these documents if they are used whole or in part at any other location and for any other application other than the original intent. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or reproduction of these documents is prohibited by law.Copyright c 2015 by EIGELBERGER ARCHITECTURE & DESIGNSCALE:
Plot Date
Drawn By
Checked By
Project No.
Date Issue
As indicatedBIM 360://135 E. Cooper - 2018/17008 - 135 Cooper - v2018 .rvt7/16/18 9:55:52 AM
A0-02
AREA
CALCULATIONS135 E. COOPER AVE.135 E. COOPER AVE.ASPEN, COLORADO 81611201228
Author
Checker
SCALE :1/8" = 1'-0"A0-02
1 EXISTING MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
SCALE :1/8" = 1'-0"A0-02
2 PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
SCALE :1/8" = 1'-0"A0-02
3 EXISTING UPPER LEVEL
SCALE :1/8" = 1'-0"A0-02
4 PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL
2018.02.09 1 PERMIT SUBMITTALP250IV.A.
UP
AREA CALCULATIONS
CONDITIONED LIVING SPACE
COVERED EXTERIOR
GARAGE
FAR CALC BASED ON EXISTING HOUSE- NO PROPOSED CHANGE TO
GARAGE OR GUEST HOUSE
4,116 SF FAR Total Area
EXISTING AREA:
LOWER LEVEL AREA:314 (COUNTABLE SF)
MAIN LEVEL AREA:2,074 SF
UPPER LEVEL AREA:1448 SF
ATTIC:280 SF
GARAGE(EXEMPT):231 SF (NO CHANGE)
TOTAL EXISITNG 4,116 SF
PROPOSED AREA
PROPOSED AREA (MAIN HOUSE):
LOWER LEVEL AREA:265 SF
MAIN LEVEL AREA:2,174 SF (NO CHANGE)
UPPER LEVEL AREA:1543 SF
ATTIC:0 SF
TOTAL AREA FOR PROPOSED:3,982 SF
EXISTING AREA:
FAR Total Area 3,982 SF
ALLOWABLE AREA FAR Total Area 4,180 SF
EXISTING MAIN HOUSE LOWER LEVEL ONLY:
TOTAL WALL AREA: 1964 SF
TOTAL AREA EXPOSED: 278 SF
RATIO FOR CALCULATION: 278/1964 = .141
TOTAL FLOOR AREA OF MAIN HOUSE LOWER LEVEL = 1910 SF (.141) =
269 SF COUNTED TOWARDS FAR
EXISTING GUEST HOUSE LOWER LEVEL ONLY:
TOTAL WALL AREA: 904 SF
TOTAL AREA EXPOSED: 77 SF
RATIO FOR CALCULATION: 77/904 = .085
TOTAL FLOOR AREA OF MAIN HOUSE LOWER LEVEL = 535 SF (.085) = 45
SF COUNTED TOWARDS FAR
PROPOSED MAIN HOUSE LOWER LEVEL ONLY:
TOTAL WALL AREA: 1964 SF
TOTAL AREA EXPOSED: 226 SF
RATIO FOR CALCULATION: 226/1964 = .115
TOTAL FLOOR AREA OF MAIN HOUSE LOWER LEVEL = 1910 SF (.115) =
220 SF COUNTED TOWARDS FAR
11
A
A
D
D
E
E
F
F
3.13.1
44
55
C
C
G
G
22
3 3
ELIMINATION OF ATTIC SPACE IN
PROPOSED DESIGN
B
BA1
11
A
A
D
D
E
E
F
F
3.13.1
44
55
C
C
G
G
22
3 3
280 SF
B
BA1
TITLE 26,575.20 (D) (3) (3)"IF ANY PORTION OF
THE ATTIC OR CRAWL SPACE OF A
STRUCTURE IS TO BE COUNTED, THEN THE
ENTIRE ROOM SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE
CALCULATION OF FLOOR AREA."These documents are the property of EAD. Any unauthorized use without the written consent of EAD is prohibited by law. EAD disclaims responsibility for these documents if they are used whole or in part at any other location and for any other application other than the original intent. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or reproduction of these documents is prohibited by law.Copyright c 2015 by EIGELBERGER ARCHITECTURE & DESIGNSCALE:
Plot Date
Drawn By
Checked By
Project No.
Date Issue
As indicatedBIM 360://135 E. Cooper - 2018/17008 - 135 Cooper - v2018 .rvt7/16/18 9:55:53 AM
A0-03
AREA
CALCULATIONS135 E. COOPER AVE.135 E. COOPER AVE.ASPEN, COLORADO 81611201228
Author
Checker
SCALE :1/8" = 1'-0"A0-03
3 PROPOSED ATTIC LEVEL
SCALE :1/8" = 1'-0"A0-03
4 EXISTING ATTIC LEVEL
2018.02.09 1 PERMIT SUBMITTALP251
IV.A.
GEIVBIVBESITE BENCH MARKFOUND NO. 5 REBAR& 1-1/4" YELLOW PLASTICCAP LS-ILLEGIBLEELEVATION:7912.19S75°09'11"E 65.00' S14°50'49"W 100.00'(BASIS OF BEARINGS)N75°09'11"W 65.00'N14°50'49"E 100.00'FOUND NO. 5 REBAR& 1-1/4" YELLOW PLASTICCAP LS24669FOUND NO. 5 REBAR &1-1/4" YELLOW PLASTICCAP LS13166 MARKEDFOUND NO. 5 REBAR& 1-1/4" YELLOW PLASTICCAP LS2376 PESMANN 0 7 °1 4 '0 6 "W 6 7 5 .3 7 '(T I E )N74°40'49"E 1241.51'(TIE)CIYT OF ASPENGPS MONUMENT #5FLAGSTONE WALKFLAGSTONE WALKI.E.W.I.E.W.I.E.W.STEPSSTEPSITE WALL14.0'5.7'2.8'5.5'2.0'1.5'4.3'GRAVEL ALLEYWAYASPHALTAPRON19.2'9.9'4.6'ALLEY - BLOCK 70COOPER AVENUE (73.70' WIDE)2.4'10.3'14.5'2.7'20.3'20.3'12.3'CONCRETE SIDEWALKCONCRETE CURB & GUTTERCONCRETE CURB & GUTTERDETECTIBLE WARNING SYSTEMCONCRETE SIDEWALKCONCRETEDRIVEWAYCONCRETERETAINING WALLSTATUEGARAGEEDGE OF PAVEMENTEDGE OF PAVEMENTS. ASPEN STREET(75.30' WIDE)LOT H123456BUSHBUSHBUSH789101112131415161718192021YARDDRAIN7912.34YARDDRAIN7911.78GRATE:7912.91BOTTOM:7905.71GRATE:7913.30BOTTOM:7905.30GRATE:7913.24BOTTOM:7905.24DRY WELLGRATE:7912.38BOTTOM:7898.98222324DRY WELLGRATE:7912.25BOTTOM:7901.45AC UNITUP
UP
UP
UP
11
A
A
D
D
E
E
F
F
3.13.1
44
55
C
C
G
G
2
3 3
B
B 17' - 9"FRONT PORCH
6' - 1 1/32"
11' - 8 5/8"
9' - 1"11' - 4 1/4"4' - 10 5/8"5' - 4 1/8"5' - 10"10' - 0"
EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN
EXISTING TREE TO BE MITIGATED
A1
SUNKEN SPA AREA These documents are the property of EAD. Any unauthorized use without the written consent of EAD is prohibited by law. EAD disclaims responsibility for these documents if they are used whole or in part at any other location and for any other application other than the original intent. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or reproduction of these documents is prohibited by law.Copyright c 2015 by EIGELBERGER ARCHITECTURE & DESIGNSCALE:
Plot Date
Drawn By
Checked By
Project No.
Date Issue
3/16" = 1'-0"BIM 360://135 E. Cooper - 2018/17008 - 135 Cooper - v2018 .rvt7/16/18 10:19:38 AM
A101
SITE PLAN135 E. COOPER AVE.135 E. COOPER AVE.ASPEN, COLORADO 81611201228
Author
Checker
SCALE :3/16" = 1'-0"A101
1 PROPOSED SITE PLANP252 IV.A.
UP
UP
11
A
A
D
D
E
E
F
F
3.13.1
44
55
C G
2
3 3
BA1
HISTORIC: 721 SF
ADDITION: 819 SF
11
A
A
D
D
E
E
F
F
3.13.1
44
55
C
C
G
G
22
3 3
B
BA1
1254 SF
231 SF
73 SF
30 SF
186 SF
GARAGE
HISTORIC
919 SF
ADDITION:These documents are the property of EAD. Any unauthorized use without the written consent of EAD is prohibited by law. EAD disclaims responsibility for these documents if they are used whole or in part at any other location and for any other application other than the original intent. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or reproduction of these documents is prohibited by law.Copyright c 2015 by EIGELBERGER ARCHITECTURE & DESIGNSCALE:
Plot Date
Drawn By
Checked By
Project No.
Date Issue
1/8" = 1'-0"\\Mac\Home\Documents\17008 - 135 Cooper - v2017 - Bump Out Pantry Partial CS_cstevens02.rvt5/21/18 2:10:33 PM
A0-04
AREA CALCS -
HISTORIC VS.
ADDITION135 E. COOPER AVE.135 E. COOPER AVE.ASPEN, COLORADO 81611201228
Author
Checker
MEASURED FLOOR AREA ABOVE GRADE
MAIN FLOOR
HISTORIC HOUSE: 1,254 SF
ADDITION: 919 SF
UPPER FLOOR
HISTORIC HOUSE: 721 SF
ADDITION: 819 SF
TOTAL SF OF HISTORIC: 1,975 SF
TOTAL SF OF ADDITION: 1,738 SFP253 IV.A.
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
GYM
010
FAMILY
008
BATH
002 BEDROOM
003
MECH.
006
BAR
007
BATH
009
A
A
D
D
E
E
F
FC
C
G
G
FAMILY
ROOM
013
BEDROOM
011
BATH
012
B
BA1
11
A
A
D
D
E
E
F
F
3.13.1
44
55
C
C
G
G
22
3 3
GARAGE
113
LIVING
101
SITTING
102
POWDER
103
HALL
104
LINK 105
105
ENTRY
100
EAST COOPER AVENUECURBBBQ.
BEDROOM
112SITTING/KITCHEN
110
MUD
109
3' - 6"
3' - 6"
REMOVAL OF BBQ AREA
B
BA1
RE-FINISH EXISTING STAIR
A307
1
A
A
D
D
E
E
F
FC
C
G
G
GYM
010
MEDIA
ROOM
001
FAMILY
008
BATH
002 BEDROOM
003
GAMEROOM/
LOUNGE
004
MECH.
006
BAR
007
BATH
009
FAMILY
ROOM
013
BEDROOM
011
BATH
012
LAUNDRY
014
MAKE UP AIR
PROVIDED IN WALL
B
BA1
11
A
A
D
D
E
E
F
F
3.13.1
44
55
C
C G
22
3 3
GARAGE
113
LIVING
101
POWDER
103
HALL
104
LINK 105
105
DINING
106
SITTING
107
ENTRY
100
EAST COOPER AVENUECURBSOUTH ASPEN STREET
BEDROOM
112SITTING/KITCHEN
110
MUD
109
KITCHEN
023
BAR
024
B
BA1 These documents are the property of EAD. Any unauthorized use without the written consent of EAD is prohibited by law. EAD disclaims responsibility for these documents if they are used whole or in part at any other location and for any other application other than the original intent. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or reproduction of these documents is prohibited by law.N
Copyright c 2015 by EIGELBERGER ARCHITECTURE & DESIGNSCALE:
Plot Date
Drawn By
Checked By
Project No.
Date Issue
1/8" = 1'-0"BIM 360://135 E. Cooper - 2018/17008 - 135 Cooper - v2018 .rvt7/16/18 9:56:02 AM
A102
LOWER AND
MAIN FLOOR
PLANS -
EXISTING AND
PROPOSED135 E. COOPER AVE.135 E. COOPER AVE.ASPEN, COLORADO 81611201228
Author
Checker
SCALE :1/8" = 1'-0"A102
3 EXISTING LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN SCALE :1/8" = 1'-0"A102
1 EXISTING MAIN FLOOR PLAN
SCALE :1/8" = 1'-0"A102
2 PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN SCALE :1/8" = 1'-0"A102
4 PROPOSED MAIN FLOOR PLAN
2018.02.09 1 PERMIT SUBMITTALP254IV.A.
UP
UP
UP
UP
11
A
A
D
D
E
E
F
F
3.13.1
44
55
C
C
G
G
22
3 3
MASTER
BATHROOM
015
MASTER
CLOSET
016
BEDROOM 2
020
BEDROOM 1
018
BATH 1
019
BATH 2
021
HALL
022
B
BA1
11
A
A
D
D
E
E
F
F
3.13.1
44
55
C
C
G
G
22
3 3
B
BA1
11
A
A
D
D
E
E
F
F
3.13.1
44
55
C
C
G
G
22
3 3
ATTIC
ROOF OUTLINE ABOVE
B
BA1
11
A
A
D
D
E
E
F
F
3.13.1
44
55
C
C
G
G
22
3 3
ROOF OUTLINE ABOVE
FLAT CEILING ABOVE WINDOWS
VAULTED CEILINGVAULTED CEILING
B
BA1 These documents are the property of EAD. Any unauthorized use without the written consent of EAD is prohibited by law. EAD disclaims responsibility for these documents if they are used whole or in part at any other location and for any other application other than the original intent. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or reproduction of these documents is prohibited by law.4'8'16'0
N
Copyright c 2015 by EIGELBERGER ARCHITECTURE & DESIGNSCALE:
Plot Date
Drawn By
Checked By
Project No.
Date Issue
1/8" = 1'-0"BIM 360://135 E. Cooper - 2018/17008 - 135 Cooper - v2018 .rvt7/16/18 10:19:49 AM
A103
UPPER LEVEL
FLOOR PLANS -
EXISTING AND
PROPOSED135 E. COOPER AVE.135 E. COOPER AVE.ASPEN, COLORADO 81611201228
Author
Checker
SCALE :1/8" = 1'-0"A103
3 PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLANS
SCALE :1/8" = 1'-0"A103
1 EXISTING UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLANS
SCALE :1/8" = 1'-0"A103
2 ATTIC LEVEL EXISTING
SCALE :1/8" = 1'-0"A103
4 ATTIC LEVEL PROPOSED
2018.02.09 1 PERMIT SUBMITTALP255
IV.A.
UP
UP
A305
2
A307
1
11
A
A
D
D
E
E
F
F
3.13.1
44
55
C
C
G
G
22
3 3
GYM
010
MEDIA
ROOM
001
FAMILY
008
BATH
002 BEDROOM
003
GAMEROOM/
LOUNGE
004
MECH.
006
BAR
007
BATH
009
001
E FDCBA
FAMILY
ROOM
013
BEDROOM
011
BATH
012
LAUNDRY
014
130129
A304
1
9' - 3 1/8"7' - 1 1/2"6' - 3 1/8"14' - 7 1/8"12' - 11 1/8"12' - 3 5/8"13' - 7 1/2"10' - 11 1/2"4' - 1 1/8"6' - 7 3/8"11 1/2"12' - 9 1/2"1' - 10 3/8"1' - 8 1/2"3' - 4 1/8"8' - 0 3/8"
ALTERED TREAD AT BASE,
SAME NUMBER OF
RISERS/TREADS TO REMAIN AS
EXISTNG.
NEW PROPOSED
LAYOUT OF BAR
NEW WALLS
NEW DOOR
*NOTE: NO CHANGE TO THIS UNIT
NO CHANGES PROPOSED TO EXISITNG
*NOTE: NO EXTERIOR CHANGES PROPOSED TO EXISTING
NEW SINK
1' - 11 3/4"
4A-X5A-A5A-A
4A-X 4A-X5A-A4A-AMAKE-UP AIR
PROVIDED IN WALL
A5031
B
B
2' - 0"
A306
2
A1
REMOVAL OF DOOR
TO BATHROOM These documents are the property of EAD. Any unauthorized use without the written consent of EAD is prohibited by law. EAD disclaims responsibility for these documents if they are used whole or in part at any other location and for any other application other than the original intent. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or reproduction of these documents is prohibited by law.Copyright c 2015 by EIGELBERGER ARCHITECTURE & DESIGNSCALE:
Plot Date
Drawn By
Checked By
Project No.
Date Issue
1/4" = 1'-0"BIM 360://135 E. Cooper - 2018/17008 - 135 Cooper - v2018 .rvt7/16/18 9:56:14 AM
A104
PROPOSED
LOWER LEVEL
FLOOR PLAN135 E. COOPER AVE.135 E. COOPER AVE.ASPEN, COLORADO 81611201228
Author
Checker
SCALE :1/4" = 1'-0"A104
1 PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
2018.02.09 1 PERMIT SUBMITTALP256IV.A.
UP
UP
UP
UP
11
A
A
D
D
E
E
F
F
3.13.1
44
55
C
C
G
G
2
3 3
GARAGE
113
LIVING
101
SITTING
102
HALL
104
LINK 105
105
DINING
106
SITTING
107
ENTRY
100
BEDROOM
112SITTING/KITCHEN
110
MUD
109
POWDER
103
33' - 2 1/4"
*NOTE: NO CHANGE TO THIS UNIT
NO CHANGES PROPOSED TO EXISITNG17' - 9"5' - 5 1/4"
EXISTING LINK
SUNKEN SPA AREA4' - 0"6' - 4 1/2"
4' - 6 3/4"1' - 1 1/32"6' - 0 5/16"12' - 3 15/32"NEW WINDOWS
NEW WINDOWS
FRONT PORCH
FRONT PORCH
13' - 8 17/32"6' - 10 1/2"8' - 4 15/32"6' - 1 1/32"
11' - 8 5/8"
REF.
KITCHEN
023
BAR
024
4' - 9 1/2"1' - 0 1/2"8' - 9 7/8"
5' - 10"
9' - 1"20' - 8 3/4"11' - 10 7/8"2' - 2"40' - 5 3/4"11' - 4 1/4"4' - 10 5/8"5' - 4 1/8"B
B
5' - 10"15' - 4 3/4"EQ EQ
10' - 0"
4' - 3 13/32"
DW
48" RANGE
BAR/COFFEE
STATION W/ LOW
FRIDGE
SLIDING GLASS PARTITION SCREEN
NEW LINEAR FIREPLACE
XX POCKETING DOORS
A306
2
EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN
EXISTING TREE TO BE MITIGATED
PANTRY
A1
2' - 9 9/16"
3' - 9 9/16"
WALL TO BE RE-BUILT AS CLASS
A FIRE RATED ASSEMBLY WITH
DESGLASS SHEATHING,
REMOVAL OF WINDOWS These documents are the property of EAD. Any unauthorized use without the written consent of EAD is prohibited by law. EAD disclaims responsibility for these documents if they are used whole or in part at any other location and for any other application other than the original intent. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or reproduction of these documents is prohibited by law.Copyright c 2015 by EIGELBERGER ARCHITECTURE & DESIGNSCALE:
Plot Date
Drawn By
Checked By
Project No.
Date Issue
1/4" = 1'-0"BIM 360://135 E. Cooper - 2018/17008 - 135 Cooper - v2018 .rvt7/16/18 10:19:57 AM
A105b
PROPOSED
MAIN LEVEL
FLOOR PLAN135 E. COOPER AVE.135 E. COOPER AVE.ASPEN, COLORADO 81611201228
Author
Checker
SCALE :1/4" = 1'-0"A105b
1 PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
2018.02.09 1 PERMIT SUBMITTALP257
IV.A.
UP
UP
11
A
A
D
D
E
E
F
F
3.13.1
44
55
C
C
G
G
22
3 3
13' - 11 3/8"14' - 8 7/8"
14' - 5 3/8"
MASTER
BATHROOM
015
MASTER
CLOSET
016
MASTER
BEDROOM
017
BEDROOM 1
018
BATH 1
019
BEDROOM 2
020
BATH 2
021
HALL
022
33' - 2 1/4"
NO CHANGES PROPOSED TO EXISITNG8' - 4 1/2"1' - 11 23/32"16' - 2 7/8"5' - 4 1/8"5' - 10"15' - 6 1/4"26' - 3 7/8"14' - 1 7/8"
40' - 9 1/4"9' - 4 7/8"11' - 7 3/8"1' - 0"21' - 0 1/4"B
B
7' - 0 1/4"
10' - 0"3' - 0"2' - 0"3' - 6"21' - 7"2' - 0"2' - 0"4' - 3 1/8"
EQ EQ11' - 11 31/32"14' - 11 5/32"5' - 10 9/32"9' - 9 1/2"
3' - 0"3' - 4 1/32"5' - 4 5/16"3' - 7 1/32"
3' - 9 1/4"2' - 2 29/32"3' - 10 27/32"6' - 4 31/32"1' - 0 1/2"3' - 7 1/32"1' - 8 25/32"6' - 4 13/16"9' - 3 5/8"
A306
2
A1
WALL TO BE RE-BUILT AS CLASS
A FIRE RATED ASSEMBLY WITH
DESGLASS SHEATHING,
REMOVAL OF WINDOWS These documents are the property of EAD. Any unauthorized use without the written consent of EAD is prohibited by law. EAD disclaims responsibility for these documents if they are used whole or in part at any other location and for any other application other than the original intent. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or reproduction of these documents is prohibited by law.Copyright c 2015 by EIGELBERGER ARCHITECTURE & DESIGNSCALE:
Plot Date
Drawn By
Checked By
Project No.
Date Issue
1/4" = 1'-0"BIM 360://135 E. Cooper - 2018/17008 - 135 Cooper - v2018 .rvt7/16/18 9:56:21 AM
A106
PROPOSED
UPPER LEVEL
FLOOR PLAN135 E. COOPER AVE.135 E. COOPER AVE.ASPEN, COLORADO 81611201228
Author
Checker
SCALE :1/4" = 1'-0"A106
1 PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
2018.02.09 1 PERMIT SUBMITTALP258IV.A.
11
A
A
D
D
E
E
F
F
3.13.1
44
55
C
C
G
G
22
3 3
B
BA1
HISTORIC HOUSE
GARAGE ROOF TO REMAIN
GUEST HOUSE ROOM TO REMAIN
41' - 0"
2' - 3 3/32"12' - 3 1/2"13' - 1 29/32"12' - 3 1/2"1' - 0"2' - 3 1/2"13' - 0"9' - 3 1/2"24' - 7"11
A
A
D
D
E
E
F
F
3.13.1
44
55
C
C
G
G
22
3 3
B
B
REMOVAL OF DORMER
HISTORIC HOUSE ROOF LINE TO REMAIN
GARAGE ROOF TO REMAIN
GUEST HOUSE ROOM TO REMAIN
REPLACE SHINGLE IF NEEDED
A1
13' - 1 29/32"12' - 3 1/2"1' - 0"5' - 4 11/32"19' - 2 9/16"12' - 11 3/4"1' - 6"1' - 6"1' - 2 29/32"
44' - 9 31/32"24' - 7"18' - 4 9/16"
6' - 1 1/16"
ROOF EAVE ON WEST FACADE TO BE RE-
BUILT AS CLASS A FIRE RATED
ASSEMBLY WITH DESGLASS SHEATHING, These documents are the property of EAD. Any unauthorized use without the written consent of EAD is prohibited by law. EAD disclaims responsibility for these documents if they are used whole or in part at any other location and for any other application other than the original intent. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or reproduction of these documents is prohibited by law.Copyright c 2015 by EIGELBERGER ARCHITECTURE & DESIGNSCALE:
Plot Date
Drawn By
Checked By
Project No.
Date Issue
1/8" = 1'-0"BIM 360://135 E. Cooper - 2018/17008 - 135 Cooper - v2018 .rvt7/16/18 9:56:23 AM
A107
ROOF PLAN -
EXISTING AND
PROPOSED135 E. COOPER AVE.135 E. COOPER AVE.ASPEN, COLORADO 81611201228
Author
Checker
SCALE :1/8" = 1'-0"A107
1 ROOF PLAN - EXISTING
SCALE :1/8" = 1'-0"A107
2 ROOF PLAN PROPOSED
2018.02.09 1 PERMIT SUBMITTALP259
IV.A.
MAIN LEVEL
0"
MAIN LEVEL
0"
1 3.1 4 523
UPPER LEVEL
9' -9 5/8"
UPPER LEVEL
9' -9 5/8"
ROOF PLATE HEIGHT
15' -9"
ROOF PLATE HEIGHT
15' -9"18' - 6 7/8"1/3 POINT OF ROOF22' - 9 13/16"MAIN LEVEL
0"
MAIN LEVEL
0"
1 3.1 4 523
UPPER LEVEL
9' -9 5/8"
UPPER LEVEL
9' -9 5/8"
ROOF PLATE HEIGHT
15' -9"
ROOF PLATE HEIGHT
15' -9"
STONE18' - 6 7/8"NEW LIGHTWELL LOCATION
HORIZONTAL BOARD
NEW WINDOWS
WOOD HEADER
WOOD SILL1/3 POINT OF ROOF22' - 9 13/16"These documents are the property of EAD. Any unauthorized use without the written consent of EAD is prohibited by law. EAD disclaims responsibility for these documents if they are used whole or in part at any other location and for any other application other than the original intent. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or reproduction of these documents is prohibited by law.Copyright c 2015 by EIGELBERGER ARCHITECTURE & DESIGNSCALE:
Plot Date
Drawn By
Checked By
Project No.
Date Issue
1/4" = 1'-0"BIM 360://135 E. Cooper - 2018/17008 - 135 Cooper - v2018 .rvt7/16/18 9:57:28 AM
A304
ELEVATIONS -
EXISTING/
PROPOSED135 E. COOPER AVE.135 E. COOPER AVE.ASPEN, COLORADO 81611201228
Author
Checker
SCALE :1/4" = 1'-0"A304
2 ELEVATION - NORTH EXISTING
SCALE :1/4" = 1'-0"A304
1 ELEVATION - NORTH PROPOSEDP260 IV.A.
LOWER LEVEL
-10' -6"
LOWER LEVEL
-10' -6"
MAIN LEVEL
0"
MAIN LEVEL
0"
13.145 23
UPPER LEVEL
9' -9 5/8"
UPPER LEVEL
9' -9 5/8"
ROOF PLATE HEIGHT
15' -9"
ROOF PLATE HEIGHT
15' -9"1/3 POINT OF ROOF22' - 9 13/16"LOWER LEVEL
-10' -6"
LOWER LEVEL
-10' -6"
MAIN LEVEL
0"
MAIN LEVEL
0"
13.145 23
UPPER LEVEL
9' -9 5/8"
UPPER LEVEL
9' -9 5/8"
ROOF PLATE HEIGHT
15' -9"
ROOF PLATE HEIGHT
15' -9"
GLASS RAILING
LADDER TO LOWER ACCESS
NEW POCKETING DOOR
STONE BASE
VERTICAL TRIM AT CORNERS TO MATCH EXISTING
NEW WINDOWS
REPLACE SHINGLE IF NECESSARY
1/3 POINT OF ROOF22' - 9 13/16"These documents are the property of EAD. Any unauthorized use without the written consent of EAD is prohibited by law. EAD disclaims responsibility for these documents if they are used whole or in part at any other location and for any other application other than the original intent. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or reproduction of these documents is prohibited by law.Copyright c 2015 by EIGELBERGER ARCHITECTURE & DESIGNSCALE:
Plot Date
Drawn By
Checked By
Project No.
Date Issue
1/4" = 1'-0"BIM 360://135 E. Cooper - 2018/17008 - 135 Cooper - v2018 .rvt7/16/18 9:58:35 AM
A305
ELEVATIONS -
EXISTING/
PROPOSED135 E. COOPER AVE.135 E. COOPER AVE.ASPEN, COLORADO 81611201228
Author
Checker
SCALE :1/4" = 1'-0"A305
1 ELEVATION - SOUTH EXISTING
SCALE :1/4" = 1'-0"A305
2 ELEVATION - SOUTH PROPOSEDP261 IV.A.
MAIN LEVEL
0"
A D E FC G
UPPER LEVEL
9' -9 5/8"
ROOF PLATE HEIGHT
15' -9"
B
*NO CHANGE TO GUEST HOUSE
NEW SHINGLE IF NEEDED
A1
E Q
E Q
E Q
1/3 POINT OF ROOF22' - 11 1/16"1/3 POINT OF ROOF
15' - 9" 5'-10"
WALL TO BE RE-BUILT AS CLASS
A FIRE RATED ASSEMBLY WITH
DESGLASS SHEATHING,
REMOVAL OF WINDOWS ON THIS
FACADE, AND ADDITION OF
SPRINKLERS ON INTERIOR
EAVE ON WEST FACADE TO BE
RE-BUILT AS CLASS A ROOF
ASSEMBLY
MAIN LEVEL
0"
A D E FC G
UPPER LEVEL
9' -9 5/8"
ROOF PLATE HEIGHT
15' -9"
BA1
2' - 0 1/2"1/3 POINT OF ROOF 22' 11 1/16"These documents are the property of EAD. Any unauthorized use without the written consent of EAD is prohibited by law. EAD disclaims responsibility for these documents if they are used whole or in part at any other location and for any other application other than the original intent. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or reproduction of these documents is prohibited by law.Copyright c 2015 by EIGELBERGER ARCHITECTURE & DESIGNSCALE:
Plot Date
Drawn By
Checked By
Project No.
Date Issue
1/4" = 1'-0"BIM 360://135 E. Cooper - 2018/17008 - 135 Cooper - v2018 .rvt7/16/18 9:59:41 AM
A306
ELEVATIONS-
EXISTING/
PROPOSED135 E. COOPER AVE.135 E. COOPER AVE.ASPEN, COLORADO 81611201228
Author
Checker
SCALE :1/4" = 1'-0"A306
2 WEST ELEVATION PROPOSED
SCALE :1/4" = 1'-0"A306
1 WEST ELEVATION - EXISTING
2018.02.09 1 PERMIT SUBMITTALP262IV.A.
MAIN LEVEL
0"
MAIN LEVEL
0"
ADEFCG
UPPER LEVEL
9' - 9 5/8"
UPPER LEVEL
9' - 9 5/8"
ROOF PLATE HEIGHT
15' - 9"
ROOF PLATE HEIGHT
15' - 9"
B
5' - 10"
A1
EXISTING WINDOWS TO REMAIN
EXISTING WINDOWS TO REMAIN
NEW WINDOWS
NEW WINDOWS
LOWER LEVEL BUMP OUT
BUMP OUT BEYOND
EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN
NEW STONE BASE 1/3 POINT OF ROOF22' - 9 13/16"EXISTING ROOF LINE TO REMAIN
MAIN LEVEL
0"
MAIN LEVEL
0"
ADEFCG
UPPER LEVEL
9' - 9 5/8"
UPPER LEVEL
9' - 9 5/8"
ROOF PLATE HEIGHT
15' - 9"
ROOF PLATE HEIGHT
15' - 9"
B A1
EXISTING WINDOWS TO REMAIN
EXISTING WINDOWS TO REMAIN
2' - 0 1/2"
ELIMINATE DORMER HERE
1/3 POINT OF ROOF22' - 9 13/16"These documents are the property of EAD. Any unauthorized use without the written consent of EAD is prohibited by law. EAD disclaims responsibility for these documents if they are used whole or in part at any other location and for any other application other than the original intent. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or reproduction of these documents is prohibited by law.Copyright c 2015 by EIGELBERGER ARCHITECTURE & DESIGNSCALE:
Plot Date
Drawn By
Checked By
Project No.
Date Issue
1/4" = 1'-0"A360://17008 - 135 Cooper - 2017/17008 - 135 Cooper - v2017 - OPTION A BUMP OUT.rvt6/11/18 11:38:16 AM
A307
ELEVATIONS -
EXISTING/
PROPOSED135 E. COOPER AVE.135 E. COOPER AVE.ASPEN, COLORADO 81611201228
Author
Checker
SCALE : 1/4" = 1'-0"A307
1 EAST THROUGH CONNECTOR
SCALE : 1/4" = 1'-0"A307
2 EAST THROUGH CONNECTORP263
IV.A.
Page 1 of 7
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Skadron and City Council
FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer
THROUGH: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director
MEETING DATE: July 23, 2018
RE: 500 W. Main Street- Historic Landmark Lot Split, Transferable
Development Rights, Special Review and Variations
First Reading of Ordinance #18, Series 2018
APPLICANT /OWNER
500 W. Main Street, LLC,
Represented by Rowland +
Broughton
LOCATION
Street Address:
500 W. Main Street
Legal Description:
Lots R and S, Block 30, City and
Townsite of Aspen, Colorado
Parcel Identification Number:
2735-124-43-007
CURRENT ZONING & LAND USE
MU, Mixed Use
Office
PROPOSED LAND USE:
Office
SUMMARY: The applicant proposes subdivision of a 6,000
square foot lot into two 3,000 square foot lots. The eastern
lot will contain the Mesa Store a large Victorian-era false
front commercial building, as well as parking, bike racks,
and trash/recycling for the business. The western half of
the lot is currently not proposed to be developed other
than as a garden. Some or all of the allowed floor area
is to be removed from the west lot in the form of
Transferable Development Rights to be constructed
elsewhere in town. To facilitate the proposal, Special
Review, Commercial Design Review and Setback and
Parking Variations are requested to accommodate the
Mesa Store on its new, smaller parcel.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends
approval with
conditions.
SITE LOCATER MAP
P264
IV.B.
Page 2 of 7
LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals from City Council:
• Historic Landmark Lot Split- (Chapter 26.480) for the subdivision of the existing 6,000
square foot lot into two 3,000 square foot lots, the east lot to contain a historic
structure and the west lot to be vacant.
• Transferable Development Rights– (Chapter 26.535) for the creation of up to 7 TDRs,
representing all of the development allowed on the west lot.
• Special Review -(Chapter 26.430) to allow the Mesa Store to exceed the floor area
allowed for a commercial structure on a 3,000 square foot lot in the Mixed Use Zone
District.
• Commercial Design Review- (Chapter 26.410) allowing a waiver of Pedestrian
Amenity on the east lot, where the historic structure and required on-site parking
leave no opportunity for amenity space.
• Setback Variation- (Chapter 26.415) allowing a reduction of the required distance
between the west side of the historic resource at 500 W. Main and the new property
line resulting from the Historic Landmark Lot Split.
• Transportation and Parking Management-(Chapter 26.515) allowing a cash-in-lieu
fee waiver of 0.26 parking units, the portion of the parking unit requirement that
cannot be accommodated on the east lot, where it is required as mitigation for
the commercial use.
Council is the final decision-making authority. A recommendation from HPC will be
provided to Council at Second Reading.
BACKGROUND: Local architecture firm Rowland + Broughton has purchased the subject
property and is underway with an interior renovation to locate their offices in the historic
Mesa Store building.
In 2017, Rowland + Broughton received HPC approval for an expansion to Mesa Store,
including commercial space and a free market residential unit. Subsequently, the firm
determined that office space in the historic structure alone would serve their needs and
looked to scale back their expenditure. Rowland + Broughton determined that two
aspects of the historic preservation benefits program; the Historic Landmark Lot Split and
the Transferable Development Right program, would allow them to avoid development
of the site but still make their ownership of the property feasible. The lot split allows the
western portion of the property, which is currently open space, to be subdivided and
either developed modestly, or not at all, with the value of unbuilt floor area to be
captured through the conversion and sale of square footage to owners of non-historic
properties elsewhere in Aspen.
Council approval is requested for a lot split, reverting to the original platting of the
property as two separate townsite lots, approval of Transferable Development Rights,
P265
IV.B.
Page 3 of 7
and variations to accommodate the Mesa Store on a 3,000 square foot lot, rather than
the current 6,000 square foot lot.
Following is a summary of each land use provision requiring Council action. More
detailed criteria and findings are provided in exhibits to this memo.
Historic Landmark Lot Split
The minimum lot size for all properties in the Mixed Use Zone District is 3,000 square feet.
The applicant is proposing two 3,000 square foot lots, conforming with zoning and
meeting the criteria for subdivision. Both parcels resulting from the lot split will remain
historically designated. Following approval of the subdivision, the applicant must record
a plat depicting the new lot line and other notes and conditions specific to this approval.
Staff finds the criteria for a Historic Landmark Lot Split to be met.
Transferable Development Rights
The proposed new east lot will contain the Mesa Store building, which will consume all
development rights available to that lot.
The proposed new west lot is to function as a garden amenity to the adjacent office. The
applicant requests approval to sever all of the development rights on this parcel in the
form of 7 TDRs. Approval of TDRs does not require the applicant to remove them all.
Approval allows the applicant the option to execute 1 to 7 certificates, at the pace that
they wish. Each certificate will permanently reduce development potential on the new
lot by 250 square feet.
For the purposes of creating Transferable Development Rights, the applicant is required
to determine the maximum residential development that could occur on the west lot and
use that allowed floor area as the basis for TDRs. If the applicant ultimately does not sell
all the TDRs and retains some for construction on the west lot, they can choose
commercial or residential use, but the maximum floor area will remain capped at the
residential level.
The maximum residential development of the new west lot is a single family home. New
single family homes are discouraged in the Mixed Use zone district, where commercial
use is preferred. As a result, the floor area calculation for the maximum house allowed
on the site includes a 20% reduction as a disincentive. The maximum home size for the
proposed west lot is 1,920 square feet of floor area. TDRs are created in 250 square foot
increments. The applicant requests approval for seven TDRs, which will consume all but
170 square feet of allowed development rights on the site (1,920 square feet of floor area
– 1,750 square feet of TDRs = 170.)
Staff finds the criteria for creating TDRs to be met.
P266
IV.B.
Page 4 of 7
Special Review
The historic Mesa Store contains 3,451 square feet of floor area, which is well below the
maximum 6,000 square feet of floor area allowed for commercial use on the current 6,000
square foot site. With the proposed subdivision, the historic structure will be unchanged
in size but located on a 3,000 square foot lot, exceeding the 3,000 square foot floor area
limit on that lot by 451 square feet.
The Mixed Use Zone district, where the property is located, allows Special Review for any
property, historic or not, to be permitted a 25% increase in floor area if applicable criteria
are met. There will be no increase in the size or impact of the existing building. The
premise of this application is to reduce development occurring on this property. Whether
or not all of the development is ultimately transferred away from the west lot, the severing
of even one TDR on that parcel will permanently restrict the site to a maximum floor area
allowed for residential, rather than commercial development. Instead of the current
maximum opportunity of 6,000 square feet on the 500 W. Main parcel, the applicant
would be permitted a maximum of 3,451 square feet on the west lot (with Special Review
approval) and 1,920 square feet of floor area on the west parcel (the development cap
that will be created as a result of TDR approval.) The application results in a net loss of at
least 630 square feet of development that could occur at 500 W. Main.
Staff finds the criteria for Special Review to be met.
Commercial Design Review
25% of a property in the MU Zone District is required to meet the definition of Pedestrian
Amenity space, and meet the design guidelines for such spaces. Currently, 500 W. Main,
a 6,000 square foot lot, provides less than half the 25% minimum because much of the
open area on the west side of the property is devoted to a parking lot, which does not
count as amenity. The applicant intends to relocate all parking to the alley, devoting
much of the west yard to a garden, which will bring the site into compliance with this
code section and greatly enhance the streetscape of the historic district on this
blockface.
With the subdivision of the property, each 3,000 square foot lot must meet the 25%
Pedestrian Amenity Requirement by providing the equivalent of 750 square feet of
Pedestrian Amenity area.
The new west lot is not currently proposed to be developed and will meet the Pedestrian
Amenity requirement by providing street-level open space which has great solar access,
landscaping which provides for active use of the space, and a low fence to preserve
views into the open area for passersby. Historic Preservation Staff has reviewed and
approved the garden design, which has also been verified to meet the City’s Water
Efficiency standards.
The historic structure and parking will occupy almost all of the east lot, so no qualified on-
site Pedestrian Amenity space can be accommodated. The applicant could propose to
P267
IV.B.
Page 5 of 7
mitigate for the east lot Pedestrian Amenity through off-site amenity (such as placing the
obligation for the east lot on the west lot for a total of 1,500 square feet of Pedestrian
Amenity on the west), cash-in-lieu payment of $75,000 (750 square feet required x $100
code required fee-in-lieu value), alternative method, or reduction of requirement, as
described in the Municipal Code. The applicant requests reduction of requirement
based on Section 26.412.070.C.3, wherein the redevelopment or expansion of a historic
landmark constitutes an exemplary preservation effort deserving of an incentive or
reward. The applicant is restoring a prominent historic building, including reinforcing the
structure, repairing deteriorated exterior materials, and taking significant measures to
restore the front porch, windows, exterior stair and chimneys to their historic configuration.
The full list of historic preservation benefits requested from Council for this project are
Reduction of Pedestrian Amenity, Setback Variations and waiver of a portion of the
parking requirement.
Staff find the criteria for full reduction of the Pedestrian Amenity requirement on the east
lot to be met.
Setback Variations
The historic Mesa Store was built on the south (front) and east (side) property lines.
Today’s dimensional standards would require a 10’ front setback and a 5’ side setback.
This legally established non-conformity can continue, however with the proposed
creation of a new lot line immediately west of the historic structure, variation review
becomes necessary. The applicant’s proposal is a 0’ setback on the south and east, as
currently exists, and a full waiver of the 5’ required setback from the proposed new lot
line subdividing this parcel into two 3,000 square foot lots. No variation is needed at the
rear lot line.
The historic landmark lot split cannot result in lots smaller than 3,000 square feet, and the
new lots are to be uniform rectangles, in keeping with the orientation of the historic
townsite platting. The applicant could not move the proposed new lot line further west,
away from the historic structure, and still meet the subdivision criteria.
An important consideration in the granting of a west sideyard setback reduction is
conformance with Building Code. Staff has consulted with the Building Department, who
will require an easement on the new west lot to ensure that no future development,
should it occur, would violate minimum requirements for separation between detached
structures. The following requirement of the Building Department will be a condition of
approval and must be depicted on the subdivision plat.
“An easement measured 10 feet out from the exterior stair on the historic structure will be
required. That easement line will be an assumed property line for fire separation distance
for any future development on the west lot.”
The 5’ setback that should be provided on the east lot is simply being slid westward and
combined with the side setback on the west lot in the form of an easement.
P268
IV.B.
Page 6 of 7
Staff finds the criteria for setback variations to be met.
Parking
The Mesa Store contains 4,260 square feet of net leasable space, requiring mitigation in
the form of 4.26 parking units. The applicant initially intended to address the entire
requirement with on-site parking, however with the proposed subdivision, no more than
2 spaces can be accommodated within the width of the 3,000 square foot lot which will
contain the Mesa Store.
The applicant has provided a Transportation Impact Analysis in their application.
Because the Mesa Store net leasable area is not increasing beyond what has existed
historically, no trip mitigation is actually necessary, but at least two TDM (Transportation
Demand Management) measures must be fulfilled. The applicant proposes to achieve
seven measures focused on providing options for employees to commute to work
through other means than single occupancy vehicle.
The applicant is also voluntarily pursuing five actions which will reduce trip generation
through MMLOS (Multi-modal Level of Service) measures. These actions involve physical
changes to the property that will improve sidewalks and crosswalks and will provide new
bicycle racks. As a result of these efforts, the applicant qualifies to provide mitigation for
one of their parking units as a TIA credit. Only one credit is allowed.
The remaining 1.26 parking units that must be addressed by some means could be
accomplished in one of two ways. The applicant could provide 2 parking spaces on
the new west lot and dedicate them to the office use by an easement. An easement
area this large (approximately 300 square feet) would reduce allowable floor area on
the west lot and affect the number of TDRs that may be created. It appears that one
parking space provided by easement would not reduce the floor area to the extent
that a TDR would be lost, but two spaces would. Staff recommends the applicant
consider providing one space on the west lot.
The remaining 0.26 parking units could be accomplished through a cash-in-lieu
payment of $7,800 (0.26 x $30,000, the standard mitigation for parking). Council could
also waive the cash-in-lieu fee as a landmark benefit, in recognition of the applicant’s
restoration of the Mesa Store and their effort to reduce or eliminate development that
will occur on the west side of the property.
Staff finds the criteria to be met through provision of two parking spaces on the east lot,
one TIA credit, one parking space on the west lot- dedicated to the east lot via easement,
and a Council approved waiver of the $7,800 cash-in-lieu fee completing the balance of
the mitigation requirement.
P269
IV.B.
Page 7 of 7
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of Ordinance #18, Series 0f 2018. The ordinance includes
conditions necessary to meet all applicable review criteria.
PROPOSED MOTION:
“I move to approve Ordinance #18, Series 2018, on First Reading.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________.
ATTACHMENTS:
Ordinance #18, Series of 2018 Exhibit B – Review Criteria/Staff Findings
Exhibit A –Review Criteria/Staff Findings Historic Landmark Lot Split
Exhibit B – Review Criteria/Staff Findings Transferable Development Rights
Exhibit C – Review Criteria/Staff Findings Special Review
Exhibit D – Review Criteria/Staff Findings Commercial Design Review
Exhibit E – Review Criteria/Staff Findings Setback Variations
Exhibit F – Review Criteria/Staff Findings Parking and Transportation Management
Exhibit G- Application
P270
IV.B.
Ordinance #18, Series 2018
500 W. Main
Page 1 of 5
ORDINANCE #18
(Series of 2018)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO
APPROVING HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT, TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS,
SPECIAL REVIEW AND VARIATIONS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 500 W. MAIN
STREET, LOTS R AND S, BLOCK 30, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO
PARCEL ID: 2735-124-43-007
WHEREAS, 500 W. Main Street LLC, owner of 500 W. Main Street, Lots R and S,
Block 30, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, requested City Council approval
for the following:
• Historic Landmark Lot Split- (Chapter 26.480) for the subdivision of the
existing 6,000 square foot lot into two 3,000 square foot lots, the east lot to
contain a historic structure and the west lot to be vacant.
• Transferable Development Rights– (Chapter 26.535) for the creation of up
to 7 TDRs, representing all of the development allowed on the west lot.
• Special Review -(Chapter 26.430) to allow the Mesa Store to exceed the
floor area allowed for a commercial structure on a 3,000 square foot lot in
the Mixed Use Zone District.
• Commercial Design Review- (Chapter 26.410) allowing a waiver of
Pedestrian Amenity on the east lot, where the historic structure and
required on-site parking leave no opportunity for Pedestrian Amenity
space.
• Setback Variation- (Chapter 26.415) allowing a reduction of the required
distance between the west side of the historic resource at 500 W. Main and
the new property line resulting from the Historic Landmark Lot Split.
• Transportation and Parking Management-(Chapter 26.515) allowing a
cash-in-lieu fee waiver of the portion of the parking unit requirement that
cannot be accommodated on the east lot, where it is required as
mitigation for the commercial use; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department performed an
analysis of the application, found that the review standards were met, and
recommended approval with conditions; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposal meets or exceeds all
applicable development standards and that the approval of the development
proposal is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community
Plan; and,
P271
IV.B.
Ordinance #18, Series 2018
500 W. Main
Page 2 of 5
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary
for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1: Historic Landmark Lot Split
Pursuant to the findings set forth above, the City Council does hereby authorize
the subdivision of 500 W. Main Street, Lots R and S, Block 30, City and Townsite of
Aspen, Colorado into two lots of 3,000 square feet each as depicted on the Mesa
Subdivision plat.
Section 2: Transferable Development Rights
Pursuant to the findings set forth above, the City Council does hereby authorize
the creation of up to 7 TDRs from the west lot of the Mesa Subdivision with the
following conditions:
1. Commencing with the severing of the first TDR from the property, the
maximum floor area for the lot shall be 1,920 square feet minus 250 square
feet for each TDR Certificate issued.
2. Upon satisfaction of all requirements, the city and the applicant shall
establish a date on which the respective Historic TDR Certificates shall be
validated and issued by the City and a deed restriction on the property
shall be accepted by the City and filed with the Pitkin County Clerk and
Recorder. The property owner may decide when and if, as warranted by
the TDR market, the development rights will be converted into certificates
and sold.
3. On the mutually agreed upon date, the Mayor of the City of Aspen shall
execute and deliver the applicable number of Historic TDR Certificates to
the property owner and the property owner shall execute and deliver a
deed restriction lessening the available development right of the Sending
Site by 250 square feet per TDR together with the appropriate fee for
recording the deed restriction with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder’s
Office.
Section 3: Special Review
Pursuant to the findings set forth above, the City Council does hereby authorize
the floor area for the east lot of the Mesa Subdivision a maximum floor area of
1.15:1.
Section 4: Commercial Design Review
Pursuant to the findings set forth above, the City Council does hereby authorize a
full waiver of Pedestrian Amenity on the east lot of the Mesa Subdivision in
P272
IV.B.
Ordinance #18, Series 2018
500 W. Main
Page 3 of 5
recognition of the applicant’s restoration of the Mesa Store being an exemplary
preservation effort deserving of an incentive or reward.
Section 5: Setback Variations
Pursuant to the findings set forth above, the City Council does hereby authorize a
waiver of the east, south and west setback requirements for the east lot of the
Mesa Subdivison with the condition that the plat reflect an easement on the west
lot of the Mesa Subdivision measured 10 feet out from the exterior stair on the
historic structure. Note that the easement line will be an assumed property line
for fire separation distance for any future development on the west lot.
Section 6: Parking and Transportation Management
Pursuant to the findings set forth above, the City Council does hereby authorize
provision of two parking spaces on the east lot of Mesa Subdivision, provision of
one unit of parking mitigation using one TIA credit as demonstrated in the land
use application, one parking space on the west lot- dedicated to the east lot via
easement, and a Council approved waiver of the $7,800 cash-in-lieu fee
completing the balance of the mitigation requirement.
Section 7: Severability
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance 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: Existing Litigation
This ordinance shall not have any effect on existing litigation and shall not operate
as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of
the ordinances amended as herein provided, and the same shall be construed and
concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 9: 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
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.
P273
IV.B.
Ordinance #18, Series 2018
500 W. Main
Page 4 of 5
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: 500 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.
Section 10: Public Hearing
A public hearing on the ordinance was held on the 13th day of August, 2018, in the
City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to
which hearing a public notice of the same was published in a newspaper of general
circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City
Council of the City of Aspen on the 23rd day of July, 2018.
______________________
Steven Skadron, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk
P274
IV.B.
Ordinance #18, Series 2018
500 W. Main
Page 5 of 5
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this ___ day of _________, 2018.
_______________________
Steven Skadron, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________
James R. True, City Attorney
P275
IV.B.
1
Exhibit A
Historic Landmark Lot Split
Staff Findings
B.Historic Landmark Lot Split.The split of a lot that is a designated Historic Landmark for the
purpose of creating one additional development parcel shall be approved,approved with
conditions,or denied by the City Council,pursuant to Section 26.480.030 –Procedures for
Review,after a recommendation is provided by the Historic Preservation Commission
pursuant to Section 26.415.110(A)Historic Landmark Lot Split,and according to the following
standards:
*Note –Historic properties eligible for a standard lot split are not required to proceed through the historic lot split
process.
NOT MET DOES NOT
APPLY
1. The request complies with the requirements of Section 26.480.040, General Subdivision
Review Standards.
2. The fathering parcel is listed in the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures.
3. No more than two lots are created by the Historic Landmark Lot Split. No more than one
historic landmark lot split shall occur on any one fathering parcel.
4. In residential zone districts, the allowable Floor Area for each new residential lot shall be
established by allocating the total allowable Floor Area of the fathering parcel to each of the
new lots such that no overall increase in Floor Area is achieved and no individual lot allows a
Floor Area in excess of that allowed a similarly-sized lot in the same zone district. An equal
distribution is not required. The allowable Floor Area for each new lot shall be noted on the
Historic Lot Split Plat.
Any Floor Area bonus already granted by the Historic Preservation Commission shall be
allocated to each individual parcel and shall also be noted on the plat as a square footage
bonus. If the properties remain eligible for a Floor Area bonus from the Historic Preservation
Commission, the plat and subdivision agreement shall specify the manner in which this
potential bonus shall be allocated to the two properties if received.
In non-residential zones districts, the Floor Area shall be calculated according to the
limitations of the zone district applied to each new lot as permitted for the use. The total Floor
Area shall not be stated on the plat because the floor area will be determined by the use
established on each parcel.
5. The Historic Lot Split Plat shall be reviewed and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County
Clerk and Recorder, pursuant to Chapter 26.490 – Approval Documents. No subdivision
agreement need be prepared or entered into between the applicant and the City unless the
Community Development Director determines such an agreement is necessary.
26.480.040. General subdivision review standards. All subdivisions shall be required to
conform to the following general standards and limitations in addition to the specific
standards applicable to each type of subdivision.
NOT MET DOES NOT
APPLY
A. Guaranteed Access to a Public Way. All subdivided lots must have perpetual
unobstructed legal vehicular access to a public way. A proposed subdivision shall not
eliminate or obstruct legal vehicular access from a public way to an adjacent property. All
streets in a Subdivision retained under private ownership shall be dedicated to public use to
ensure adequate public and emergency access. Security/privacy gates across access
points and driveways are prohibited.
B. Alignment with Original Townsite Plat. The proposed lot lines shall approximate, to the
extent practical, the platting of the Original Aspen Townsite, and additions thereto, as
applicable to the subject land. Minor deviations from the original platting lines to
accommodate significant features of the site may be approved.
C. Zoning Conformance. All new lots shall conform to the requirements of the zone district in
which the property is situated, including variations and variances approved pursuant to this
Title. A single lot shall not be located in more than one zone district unless unique
circumstances dictate. A rezoning application may be considered concurrently with
subdivision review.
D. Existing Structures, Uses, and Non-Conformities. A subdivision shall not create or increase
the non-conformity of a use, structure or parcel. A rezoning application or other mechanism
to correct the non-conforming nature of a use, structure, or parcel may be considered
concurrently.
YES
YES
Review Criteria for 500 W. Main Street
The applicant is requesting Historic Landmark Lot Split, which is also considered a minor subdivision. The application must satisfy
the all of the review criteria for Historic Landmark Lot Split listed in Section 26.480.060(B) and the General Subdivision review
standards in Section 26.480.040.
YES
MET
MET
YES
Summary of Review Criteria for Section 26.480.060(B) - Historic Landmark Lot Split
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
P276
IV.B.
2
26.480.060. Minor subdivisions.
The following types of subdivision may be approved by the City Council, pursuant
to the provisions of Section 26.480.030 – Procedures for Review, and the standards
and limitations of each type of subdivision, described below:
B. Historic Landmark Lot Split. The split of a lot that is a designated Historic
Landmark for the purpose of creating one additional development parcel shall
be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the City Council, pursuant
to Section 26.480.030 – Procedures for Review, after a recommendation is
provided by the Historic Preservation Commission pursuant to Section
26.415.110(A) Historic Landmark Lot Split, and according to the following
standards:
1. The request complies with the requirements of Section 26.480.040, General
Subdivision Review Standards.
2. The fathering parcel is listed in the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures.
3. No more than two lots are created by the Historic Landmark Lot Split. No
more than one historic landmark lot split shall occur on any one fathering
parcel.
4. In residential zone districts, the allowable Floor Area for each new
residential lot shall be established by allocating the total allowable Floor
Area of the fathering parcel to each of the new lots such that no overall
increase in Floor Area is achieved and no individual lot allows a Floor Area
in excess of that allowed a similarly-sized lot in the same zone district. An
equal distribution is not required. The allowable Floor Area for each new lot
shall be noted on the Historic Lot Split Plat.
Any Floor Area bonus already granted by the Historic Preservation
Commission shall be allocated to each individual parcel and shall also be
noted on the plat as a square footage bonus. If the properties remain
eligible for a Floor Area bonus from the Historic Preservation Commission,
the plat and subdivision agreement shall specify the manner in which this
potential bonus shall be allocated to the two properties if received.
In non-residential zones districts, the Floor Area shall be calculated
according to the limitations of the zone district applied to each new lot as
permitted for the use. The total Floor Area shall not be stated on the plat
because the floor area will be determined by the use established on each
parcel.
P277
IV.B.
3
5. The Historic Lot Split Plat shall be reviewed and recorded in the office of the
Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder, pursuant to Chapter 26.490 – Approval
Documents. No subdivision agreement need be prepared or entered into
between the applicant and the City unless the Community Development
Director determines such an agreement is necessary.
*Note – Historic properties eligible for a standard lot split are not required to
proceed through the historic lot split process.
Staff Response: The minimum lot size for all properties in the Mixed Use Zone District
is 3,000 square feet. The applicant is proposing two 3,000 square foot lots,
conforming with Zoning. Both parcels resulting from the lot split will remain
historically designated. Following approval of the subdivision, the applicant must
record a plat depicting the new lot line, easements and other conditions of
approval as appropriate. Allowed floor area will not be stated on the plat.
Staff finds this criteria to be met.
26.480.040. General subdivision review standards.
All subdivisions shall be required to conform to the following general standards
and limitations in addition to the specific standards applicable to each type of
subdivision:
A. Guaranteed Access to a Public Way. All subdivided lots must have
perpetual unobstructed legal vehicular access to a public way. A proposed
subdivision shall not eliminate or obstruct legal vehicular access from a public way
to an adjacent property. All streets in a Subdivision retained under private
ownership shall be dedicated to public use to ensure adequate public and
emergency access. Security/privacy gates across access points and driveways
are prohibited.
B. Alignment with Original Townsite Plat. The proposed lot lines shall
approximate, to the extent practical, the platting of the Original Aspen Townsite,
and additions thereto, as applicable to the subject land. Minor deviations from
the original platting lines to accommodate significant features of the site may be
approved.
C. Zoning Conformance. All new lots shall conform to the requirements of the
zone district in which the property is situated, including variations and variances
approved pursuant to this Title. A single lot shall not be located in more than one
zone district unless unique circumstances dictate. A rezoning application may be
considered concurrently with subdivision review.
P278
IV.B.
4
D. Existing Structures, Uses, and Non-Conformities. A subdivision shall not
create or increase the non-conformity of a use, structure or parcel. A rezoning
application or other mechanism to correct the non-conforming nature of a use,
structure, or parcel may be considered concurrently.
In the case where an existing structure or use occupies a site eligible for
subdivision, the structure need not be demolished and the use need not be
discontinued prior to application for subdivision.
If approval of a subdivision creates a non-conforming structure or use, including
a structure spanning a parcel boundary, such structure or use may continue until
recordation of the subdivision plat. Alternatively, the City may accept certain
assurance that the non-conformities will be remedied after recordation of the
subdivision plat. Such assurances shall be reflected in a development agreement
or other legal mechanism acceptable to the City Attorney and may be time-
bound or secured with a financial surety.
Staff Findings: The proposed subdivision creates two conforming lots which have
street frontage and alley access. The property currently consists of two merged
historic townsite lots. The applicant proposes to split the lot in half, reverting to
two individual townsite lots.
Staff finds this criteria to be met.
P279
IV.B.
1
Exhibit B
Transferable Development Rights (TDR)
Staff Findings
26.535.070 Review Criteria for Establishment of Historic TDR. A historic TDR certificate may be
established by the Mayor if the City Council, pursuant to adoption of an ordinance, finds all the
following standards met:
NOT MET DOES NOT
APPLY
A. The sending site is a historic landmark or property identified on the AspenModern Map, on
which the development of a single-family or duplex residence is a permitted use, pursuant to
Chapter 26.710, Zone Districts. Properties on which such development is a conditional use shall
not be eligible.
B. It is demonstrated that the sending site has permitted unbuilt development rights, for either a
single-family or duplex home, equaling or exceeding two hundred and fifty (250) square feet of
floor area multiplied by the number of historic TDR certificates requested.
C. It is demonstrated that the establishment of TDR certificates will not create a nonconformity.
In cases where a nonconformity already exists, the action shall not increase the specific
nonconformity.
D. The analysis of unbuilt development right shall only include the actual built development,
any approved development order, the allowable development right prescribed by zoning for a
single-family or duplex residence, and shall not include the potential of the sending site to gain
floor area bonuses, exemptions or similar potential development incentives.
E. Any development order to develop floor area, beyond that remaining legally connected to
the property after establishment of TDR Certificates, shall be considered null and void.
F. The proposed deed restriction permanently restricts the maximum development of the
property (the sending site) to an allowable floor area not exceeding the allowance for a single-
family or duplex residence minus two hundred and fifty (250) square feet of floor area multiplied
by the number of historic TDR certificates established.
For properties with multiple or unlimited floor areas for certain types of allowed uses, the
maximum development of the property, independent of the established property use, shall be
the floor area of a single-family or duplex residence (whichever is permitted) minus two hundred
fifty (250) square feet of floor area multiplies by the number of historic TDR certificates
established.
The deed restriction shall not stipulate an absolute floor area, but shall stipulate a square
footage reduction from the allowable floor area for a single-family or duplex residence, as may
be amended from time to time. The sending site shall remain eligible for certain floor area
incentives and/or exemptions as may be authorized by the City Land Use Code, as may be
amended from time to time. The form of the deed restriction shall be acceptable to the City
Attorney.
G. A real estate closing has been scheduled at which, upon satisfaction of all relevant
requirements, the City shall execute and deliver the applicable number of historic TDR
certificates to the sending site property owner and that property owner shall execute and
deliver a deed restriction lessening the available development right of the subject property
together with the appropriate fee for recording the deed restriction with the County Clerk and
Recorder's office.
H. It shall be the responsibility of the sending site property owner to provide building plans and
a zoning analysis of the sending site to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.
Certain review fees may be required for the confirmation of built floor area.
I. The sale, assignment, conveyance or other transfer or change in ownership of transferable
development rights certificates shall be recorded in the real estate records of the Pitkin County
Clerk and Recorder and must be reported by the grantor to the City of Aspen Community
Development Department within five (5) days of such transfer. The report of such transfer shall
disclose the certificate number, the grantor, the grantee and the total value of the consideration
paid for the certificate. Failure to timely or accurately report such transfer shall not render the
transferable development right certificate void.
Review Criteria for 500 W. Main Street
The applicant is requesting approval to create up to 7 Transerable Development Rights (TDR). The proposal must satisfy all of the
criteria found at Section 26.535.070.
MET
YES
YES
YES
YES
Summary of Section 26.535.070 - Review Criteria for Establishment of Historic Transferable Development Rights (TDR)
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
P280
IV.B.
2
26.535.070 Review criteria for establishment of a historic transferable
development right
A historic TDR certificate may be established by the Mayor if the City Council,
pursuant to adoption of an ordinance, finds all the following standards met:
a. The sending site is a historic landmark or property identified on the
AspenModern Map, on which the development of a single-family or
duplex residence is a permitted use, pursuant to Chapter 26.710,
Zone Districts. Properties on which such development is a conditional
use shall not be eligible.
b. It is demonstrated that the sending site has permitted unbuilt
development rights, for either a single-family or duplex home,
equaling or exceeding two hundred and fifty (250) square feet of
floor area multiplied by the number of historic TDR certificates
requested.
c. It is demonstrated that the establishment of TDR certificates will not
create a nonconformity. In cases where a nonconformity already
exists, the action shall not increase the specific nonconformity.
d. The analysis of unbuilt development right shall only include the actual
built development, any approved development order, the allowable
development right prescribed by zoning for a single-family or duplex
residence, and shall not include the potential of the sending site to
gain floor area bonuses, exemptions or similar potential development
incentives.
e. Any development order to develop floor area, beyond that
remaining legally connected to the property after establishment of
TDR Certificates, shall be considered null and void.
f. The proposed deed restriction permanently restricts the maximum
development of the property (the sending site) to an allowable floor
area not exceeding the allowance for a single-family or duplex
residence minus two hundred and fifty (250) square feet of floor area
multiplied by the number of historic TDR certificates established.
For properties with multiple or unlimited floor areas for certain types
of allowed uses, the maximum development of the property,
P281
IV.B.
3
independent of the established property use, shall be the floor area
of a single-family or duplex residence (whichever is permitted) minus
two hundred fifty (250) square feet of floor area multiplies by the
number of historic TDR certificates established.
The deed restriction shall not stipulate an absolute floor area, but shall
stipulate a square footage reduction from the allowable floor area
for a single-family or duplex residence, as may be amended from
time to time. The sending site shall remain eligible for certain floor
area incentives and/or exemptions as may be authorized by the City
Land Use Code, as may be amended from time to time. The form of
the deed restriction shall be acceptable to the City Attorney.
g. A real estate closing has been scheduled at which, upon satisfaction
of all relevant requirements, the City shall execute and deliver the
applicable number of historic TDR certificates to the sending site
property owner and that property owner shall execute and deliver a
deed restriction lessening the available development right of the
subject property together with the appropriate fee for recording the
deed restriction with the County Clerk and Recorder's office.
h. It shall be the responsibility of the sending site property owner to
provide building plans and a zoning analysis of the sending site to the
satisfaction of the Community Development Director. Certain review
fees may be required for the confirmation of built floor area.
i. The sale, assignment, conveyance or other transfer or change in
ownership of transferable development rights certificates shall be
recorded in the real estate records of the Pitkin County Clerk and
Recorder and must be reported by the grantor to the City of Aspen
Community Development Department within five (5) days of such
transfer. The report of such transfer shall disclose the certificate
number, the grantor, the grantee and the total value of the
consideration paid for the certificate. Failure to timely or accurately
report such transfer shall not render the transferable development
right certificate void.
Staff Findings: The proposed new east lot will contain the Mesa Store building,
which will consume all development rights available to that lot.
The proposed new west lot is to function as a garden amenity to the adjacent
office. The applicant requests approval to sever all of the development rights on
this parcel in the form of 7 TDRs. Approval of TDRs does not require the applicant
P282
IV.B.
4
to remove them all. Approval allows the applicant the option to execute 1 to 7
certificates, at the pace that they wish. Each certificate will permanently reduce
development potential on the new lot by 250 square feet.
For the purposes of creating Transferable Development Rights, the applicant is
required to determine the maximum residential development that could occur
on the west lot and use that allowed floor area as the basis for TDRs. If the
applicant ultimately does not sell all the TDRs and retains some for construction
on the west lot, they can choose commercial or residential use, but the maximum
floor area will remain capped at the residential level.
The maximum residential development of the new west lot is a single family home.
New single family homes are discouraged in the Mixed Use zone district, where
commercial use is preferred. As a result, the floor area calculation for the
maximum house allowed on the site includes a 20% reduction as a disincentive.
The maximum home size for the proposed west lot is 1,920 square feet of floor
area. TDRs are created in 250 square foot increments. The applicant requests
approval for seven TDRs, which will consume all but 170 square feet of allowed
development rights on the site (1,920 square feet of floor area – 1,750 square feet
of TDRs = 170.)
Staff finds the criteria for creating 1- 7 TDRs on the proposed new west lot are met.
The applicant has demonstrated that there are unused development rights that
are eligible to be converted into TDRs. As each TDR is executed, deed restrictions
reducing the allowed floor area on the site will be secured in exchange for the
issuance of the TDR certificate.
P283
IV.B.
1
Exhibit C
Special Review
Staff Findings
26.430.040. Review standards for special review.
No development subject to special review shall be permitted unless the Planning
and Zoning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development
complies with all standards and requirements set forth below.
A. Dimensional requirements. Whenever the dimensional requirements of a
proposed development are subject to special review, the development
application shall only be approved if the following conditions are met.
1. The mass, height, density, configuration, amount of open space,
landscaping and setbacks of the proposed development are designed in
a manner which is compatible with or enhances the character of
A. Dimensional requirements. Whenever the dimensional requirements of a
proposed development are subject to special review, the development
application shall only be approved if the following conditions are met.
NOT MET DOES NOT
APPLY
1. The mass, height, density, configuration, amount of open space,
landscaping and setbacks of the proposed development are
designed in a manner which is compatible with or enhances the
character of surrounding land uses and is consistent with the purposes
of the underlying zone district.
2. The applicant demonstrates that the proposed development will
not have adverse impacts on surrounding uses or will mitigate those
impacts, including but not limited to the effects of shading, excess
traffic, availability of parking in the neighborhood or blocking of a
designated view plane.
YES
MET
Review Criteria for 500 W. Main Street
The applicant is requesting Special Review to increase the allowed floor area on the proposed new east lot from
3,000 square feet to 3,451 square feet. The applicant must satisfy both reivew criteria for Special Review according
to Section 26.430.040(A).
Summary of Section 26.430.040 - Review Standards for Special Review
26.430.040 Special Review. No development subject to special review shall be permitted unless the Planning and
Zoning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all standards and
requirements set forth below.
YES
P284
IV.B.
2
surrounding land uses and is consistent with the purposes of the underlying
zone district.
2. The applicant demonstrates that the proposed development will not have
adverse impacts on surrounding uses or will mitigate those impacts,
including but not limited to the effects of shading, excess traffic, availability
of parking in the neighborhood or blocking of a designated view plane.
Staff Findings: The historic structure at 500 W. Main is 3,451 square feet of floor area,
which is well below the maximum 6,000 square feet of floor area allowed for
commercial use on the current 6,000 square foot site. With the proposed
subdivision, the historic structure will be unchanged in size but will be located on
a 3,000 square foot lot, exceeding the 3,000 square foot floor area limit on that lot
by 451 square feet.
The Mixed Use Zone district, where the property is located, allows Special Review
for any property, historic or not, to be permitted a 25% increase in floor area if the
criteria above are met. The applicant requests approval and staff supports the
request finding that there will be no increase in the size or impacts of the existing
building, and the premise of this application is to reduce development which will
occur on this property. The application includes creation of a new west lot and
approval of Transferable Development Rights to remove floor area from the
property. Whether or not all of the development is ultimately transferred away
from the west lot, the severing of even one TDR on that parcel will permanently
restrict the site to a maximum floor area allowed for residential, rather than
commercial development. Instead of the current maximum opportunity of 6,000
square feet on the 500 W. Main parcel, the applicant would be permitted a
maximum of 3,451 square feet on the west lot (with Special Review approval) and
1,920 square feet of floor area on the west parcel (the development cap that will
be created as a result of TDR approval.) The application results in a net loss of at
least 630 square feet of development that could occur at 500 W. Main.
Staff finds this criteria to be met, finding that the increased floor area that would
be allowed on the new east lot will be offset by a reduction of what can occur on
the west lot. To the extent that TDRs are created, all the development impacts
represented by those TDRs will be removed from this highly visible historic property
and dispersed to properties where historic resources are not impacted.
P285
IV.B.
1
Exhibit D
Commercial Design Review
Staff Findings
26.412.060 Review Criteria. An application for commercial design review may
be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance
with the following criteria:
NOT MET DOES NOT
APPLY
1. The Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Standards and
Guidelines are met as determined by the appropriate Commission. The
Standards and Guidelines include design review criteria that are to be
used to determine whether the application is appropriate.
2. All applicable standards in the Commercial, Lodging and Historic
District Design Standards and Guidelines shall be met unless granted a
Variation pursuant to Section 26.412.040.D, Variations.
N/A
3. Not every guideline will apply to each project, and some balancing
of the guidelines must occur on a case-by-case basis. The applicable
Commission must:
NOT MET DOES NOT
APPLY
a.) determine that a sufficient number of the relevant guidelines are
adequately met in order to approve a project proposal;
b.) weigh the applicable guidelines with the practicality of the
measure.
C. Reduction of requirement. The Historic Preservation Commission may
reduce the required pedestrian amenity amount, pursuant to the procedures
and criteria of Chapter 26.412, Commercial Design Review, for historic
landmark properties upon one (1) of the following circumstances:
NOT MET DOES NOT
APPLY
1. When the Historic Preservation Commission approves the on-site
relocation of an historic landmark such that the amount of on-site public
space is reduced below that required by this Chapter.
N/A
2. When the manner in which an historic landmark building was originally
developed reduces the amount of on-site public amenity required by
this Chapter.
N/A
3. When the redevelopment or expansion of an historic landmark
constitutes an exemplary preservation effort deserving of an incentive
or reward, as provided in the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design
Guidelines.
YES
MET
Review Criteria for 500 W. Main Street
The applicant is requesting approval to provide Pedestrian Amenity as required on the newly created west lot and
full Reduction of Pedestrian Amenity on the newly created east lot. To do so, the applicant must satisfy all of the
criteria of Section 26.412.060, and one of the three reivew criteria for reduction of Pedestrian Amenities in Section
26.412.070.(C).
MET
YES on West
Lot.
Reduction
on east
MET
YES on West
Lot.
Reduction
on east
YES on West
Lot.
Reduction
on east
26.412.070 Pedestrian Amenity. Creative, well-designed public places and settings contribute to an attractive,
vital, human-scale downtown commercial district and a pleasant pedestrian shopping and entertainment
atmosphere. Pedestrian amenity space can take the form of physical or operational improvements to public
rights-of-way or private property within commercial areas
Summary of Section 26.412.060 - Review Criteria for Pedestrian Amenity
P286
IV.B.
2
26.412.060. Review Criteria.
An application for commercial design review may be approved, approved with
conditions or denied based on conformance with the following criteria:
A. Guidelines and Standards
1. The Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Standards and
Guidelines are met as determined by the appropriate Commission. The
Standards and Guidelines include design review criteria that are to be used
to determine whether the application is appropriate.
2. All applicable standards in the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District
Design Standards and Guidelines shall be met unless granted a Variation
pursuant to Section 26.412.040.D, Variations.
3. Not every guideline will apply to each project, and some balancing of the
guidelines must occur on a case-by-case basis. The applicable Commission
must:
a. determine that a sufficient number of the relevant guidelines are
adequately met in order to approve a project proposal;
b. weigh the applicable guidelines with the practicality of the measure.
B. Pedestrian Amenity
The proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.070,
Pedestrian Amenity.
26.412.070. Pedestrian Amenity.
Creative, well-designed public places and settings contribute to an attractive,
vital, human-scale downtown commercial district and a pleasant pedestrian
shopping and entertainment atmosphere. Pedestrian amenity space can take
the form of physical or operational improvements to public rights-of-way or
private property within commercial areas.
A. Applicability and Requirement. The requirements of this Section shall apply to
the development of all commercial, lodging and mixed-use development within
the CC, C-1, MU, NC, S/C/I, L, CL, LP and LO Zone Districts, as well as any Essential
Public Facility pursuant to section 26.412.020(A). This area represents the City's
primary pedestrian-oriented downtown, as well as important mixed-use, service
and lodging neighborhoods. Development in these zone districts consisting of
entirely residential uses is exempt from these provisions. Remodel and renovation
activities that do not trigger demolition, and which maintain 100% of the existing
pedestrian amenity present on the site are exempt from this Section. Changes to
pedestrian amenity space as a result of required accessibility or building code
P287
IV.B.
3
compliance are exempt from compliance with the 25% requirement if demolition
is not triggered.
Twenty-five percent (25%) of the Gross Lot Area of properties within the applicable
area shall be provided as pedestrian amenity regardless of existing onsite
pedestrian amenity amount. A project that qualifies as demolition, as defined in
Section 26.104.100, must meet the requirements of this Section. Vacated rights of
way do not count toward pedestrian amenity requirements.
Calculation of pedestrian amenity shall include stairs, walkways or other means
of accessing pedestrian amenity space from rights-of-way or internal circulation
ways counted as non-unit space per Section 26.575.020. Airlocks providing
access to internal pedestrian amenity space, and
which meet the criteria provided in Section 26.575.020 may be included in the
calculation of pedestrian amenity space.
B. Provision of pedestrian amenity. Unless specified, the Planning and Zoning
Commission or Historic Preservation Commission shall determine the appropriate
method or combination of methods for providing this required amenity. One (1)
or more of the following methods may be used to meet the requirement.
1. On-site pedestrian amenity. On-site pedestrian amenity options are
provided within the Commercial, Lodging, and Historic District Design
Standards and Guidelines.
a. For properties located on rights-of-way designated as pedestrian malls
including Hyman and Cooper Streets between Galena and Mill Streets,
and Mill Street between Hyman Street and Durant Street, new
pedestrian amenity is limited to second floor or street level. Existing on-
site pedestrian amenity may be maintained, with any difference
between the existing amount and the 25% required to be provided as
cash-in-lieu.
2. Off-site pedestrian amenity. These may be improvements to private
property, public property or public rights-of-way.
a. An easement providing public access over an existing public amenity
space for which no easement exists may be accepted if the easement
provides permanent public access and is acceptable to the City
Attorney.
P288
IV.B.
4
b. Off-site improvements shall:
i. equal or exceed the value of an otherwise required cash-in-lieu
payment as determined by the City Engineer, and
ii. be consistent with any public infrastructure or capital
improvement plan for that area.
3. Cash-in-lieu provision. Cash-in-lieu for pedestrian amenity requirements
may be provided, subject to the following requirements:
a. For properties located on rights-of-way designated as pedestrian malls
including Hyman and Cooper Streets between Galena and Mill Streets,
and Mill Street between Hyman Street and Durant Street, cash-in-lieu of
on-site public amenity space is encouraged. Fees collected as cash-in-
lieu for public amenity of designated pedestrian malls shall be held in
reserve by the City for the maintenance and improvement of the
pedestrian malls.
b. For properties not located adjacent to the pedestrian malls, where on-
site public amenity is not appropriate or may not be feasibly provided
due to site or development
constraints, cash-in-lieu may be accepted as an alternative. Such
conditions shall be determined on a case-by-case basis at the discretion
of the Planning and Zoning Commission or Historic Preservation
Commission.
c. A cash-in-lieu payment for 50% or more of the required pedestrian
amenity for properties not located on a pedestrian mall or less than 100%
for properties located on a pedestrian mall requires City Council
approval.
4. Alternative method. The Commission may accept any method of
providing a pedestrian amenity not otherwise described herein if it finds
that the alternative method meets the intent of pedestrian amenity, equals
or exceeds the monetary value, or meets the purpose and intent of these
regulations to an equivalent extent, of an otherwise required on-site
amenity space or cash-in-lieu payment.
P289
IV.B.
5
5. Pedestrian links. If the City has adopted a trail plan incorporating mid-block
pedestrian links, any required public amenity space must, if the City shall so
choose, be applied and dedicated for that use. The development of mid-
block walkways to access second tier commercial spaces located off the
primary street frontage, which are not part of an adopted trail plan, may
be counted towards public amenity space requirements for a property and
must be designed in accordance with the Commercial, Lodging and
Historic District Standards and Guidelines.
C. Reduction of requirement. The Historic Preservation Commission may reduce
the required pedestrian amenity amount, pursuant to the procedures and criteria
of Chapter 26.412, Commercial Design Review, for historic landmark properties
upon one (1) of the following circumstances:
1. When the Historic Preservation Commission approves the on-site
relocation of an historic landmark such that the amount of on-site public
space is reduced below that required by this Chapter.
2. When the manner in which an historic landmark building was originally
developed reduces the amount of on-site public amenity required by
this Chapter.
3. When the redevelopment or expansion of an historic landmark
constitutes an exemplary preservation effort deserving of an incentive
or reward, as provided in the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design
Guidelines.
Staff Findings: 25% of a property in the MU Zone District is required to meet the
definition of Pedestrian Amenity space, and meet the design guidelines for such
spaces. Currently, 500 W. Main, a 6,000 square foot lot, provides less than half the
25% minimum because much of the open area on the west side of the property
is devoted to a parking lot, which does not count as amenity.
With the subdivision of the property, each 3,000 square foot lot must meet the 25%
Pedestrian Amenity Requirement by providing the equivalent of 750 square feet
of Pedestrian Amenity area.
The new west lot is not currently proposed to be developed and will serve as a
garden, providing outdoor area for the office in the historic structure and meeting
the Pedestian Amenity requirement by providing street-level open space which
has great solar access, landscaping which provides for active use of the space,
P290
IV.B.
6
and a low fence to preserve views into the open area for passersby. Historic
Preservation Staff has reviewed and approved the garden design, which has also
been verified to meet the City’s Water Efficiency standards.
The historic structure and alley parking will occupy almost all of the east lot, so no
qualified on-site Pedestrian Amenity space can be accommodated. The
applicant could propose to mitigate for the east lot Pedestrian Amenity through
off-site amenity (such as placing the obligation for the east lot on the west lot for
a total of 1,500 square feet of Pedestrian Amenity on the west), cash-in-lieu
payment of $75,000 (750 square feet required x $100 code required fee-in-lieu
value), alternative method, or reduction of requirement, as described in the code
language provided above. The applicant requests reduction of requirement
based on Section 26.412.070.C.3, wherein the redevelopment or expansion of an
historic landmark constitutes an exemplary preservation effort deserving of an
incentive or reward. The applicant is restoring a prominent historic building,
including reinforcing the structure, repairing deteriorated exterior materials, and
taking significant measures to restore the front porch, windows, exterior stair and
chimneys to their historic configuration. The full list of historic preservation benefits
requested from Council for this project are Reduction of Pedestrian Amenity,
Setback Variations and Waiver of a portion of the parking requirement.
Staff recommends Council approve full mitigation of the on-site Pedestrian
Amenity on the west lot and full reduction of the Pedestrian Amenity requirement
on the east lot, finding the criteria for reduction of amenity in the case of
exemplary historic preservation effort to be met.
P291
IV.B.
1
Exhibit E
Setback Variations
Staff Findings
26.415.110. Benefits.
C. Variances. Dimensional variations are allowed for projects involving
designated properties to create development that is more consistent with the
character of the historic property or district than what would be required by the
underlying zoning's dimensional standards.
1. The HPC may grant variances of the Land Use Code for designated
properties to allow:
a) Development in the side, rear and front setbacks;
b) Development that does not meet the minimum distance requirements
between buildings;
c) Up to five percent (5%) additional site coverage;
C.Variances.Dimensional variations are allowed for projects involving
designated properties to create development that is more consistent with
the character of the historic property or district than what would be required
by the underlying zoning's dimensional standards.
1. The HPC may grant variances of the Land Use Code for designated
properties to allow:NOT MET DOES NOT
APPLY
a.) Development in the side, rear and front setbacks;
b.) Development that does not meet the minimum distance
requirements between buildings;N/A
c.) Up to five percent (5%) additional site coverage;N/A
d.) Less public amenity than required for the on-site relocation of
commercial historic properties.N/A
2. In granting a variance, the HPC must make a finding that such a variance:NOT MET DOES NOT
APPLY
a.) Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic
property or district; and/or
b.) Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic
significance or architectural character of the historic property, an
adjoining designated historic property or historic district.
MET
YES
Summary of Review Criteria for Section 26.415.110(C) - Variances
Review Criteria for 500 W. Main Street
The applicant is requesting setback reductions on the south, east and west sides of the historic resource to in
order to address historic conditions as well as new conditions created by the proposed subdivision. The
application must satisfy the one of the two review criteria for dimensional variations listed in Section
26.415.110(C).
YES
YES
MET
P292
IV.B.
2
d) Less public amenity than required for the on-site relocation of
commercial historic properties.
2. In granting a variance, the HPC must make a finding that such a variance:
a) Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property
or district; and/or
b) Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or
architectural character of the historic property, an adjoining designated
historic property or historic district.
Staff Findings: The historic Mesa Store was built on the south (front) and east (side)
property lines. Today’s dimensional standards would require a 10’ front setback
and a 5’ side setback. This legally established non-conformity can continue,
however with the proposed creation of a new lot line immediately west of the
historic structure, variation review becomes necessary. The applicant’s proposal
is a 0’ setback on the south and east, as currently exists, and a full waiver of the
5’ required setback from the proposed new lot line subdividing this parcel into two
3,000 square foot lots. No variation is needed at the rear lot line.
The historic landmark lot split cannot result in lots smaller than 3,000 square feet,
and the new lots are to be uniform rectangles, in keeping with the orientation of
the historic townsite platting. The applicant could not move the proposed new
lot line further west, away from the historic structure, and still meet the subdivision
criteria.
An important consideration in the granting of a west sideyard setback reduction
is conformance with Building Code. Staff has consulted with the Building
Department, who will require an easement on the new west lot to ensure that no
future development, should it occur, would violate minimum requirements for
separation between detached structures. The following requirement of the
Building Department will be a condition of approval and must be depicted on
the subdivision plat.
“An easement measured 10 feet out from the exterior stair on the historic structure
will be required. That easement line will be an assumed property line for fire
separation distance for any future development on the west lot.”
Staff recommends Council approve the requested reductions of the front and
east setback requirements, which are existing historic conditions not proposed to
be changed. Staff recommends Council approve the requested reduction of the
sideyard on the west of the historic structure finding that the easement on the
P293
IV.B.
3
west lot will ensure a total of 10’ of separation between buildings. The 5’ setback
that should be provided on the east lot is simply being slid westward and
combined with the side setback on the west lot.
Staff finds this criteria to be met.
P294
IV.B.
1
Exhibit F
Parking
Staff Findings
D. Parking. Parking reductions are permitted for designated historic properties
on sites unable to contain the number of on-site parking spaces required by
the underlying zoning. Commercial designated historic properties may
receive waivers of payment-in-lieu fees for parking reductions.
NOT MET DOES NOT
APPLY
In addition to the review criteria listed in Chapter 26.515, the parking
reduction and waiver of payment-in-lieu fees may be approved upon a
finding by the HPC that it will enhance or mitigate an adverse impact on the
historic significance or architectural character of a designated historic
property, an adjoining designated property or a historic district.
A special review for establishing, varying or waiving transportation, mobility,
or off-street parking requirements may be approved, approved with
conditions or denied based on its conformance with all of the following
criteria:
NOT MET DOES NOT
APPLY
1. The transportation, mobility, and off-street parking needs of the
residents, customers, guests and employees of the project have
been met, taking into account potential uses of the parcel, the
projected traffic generation of the project, any shared parking
opportunities, expected schedule of parking demands, the
projected impacts on the on-street parking of the neighborhood, the
proximity to mass transit routes and the downtown area and any
special services, such as vans, provided for residents, guests and
employees.
2. An on-site mitigation solution meeting the requirements and
guidelines is practically difficult or results in an undesirable
development scenario.
3. Existing or planned on-site or off-site facilities adequately serve the
needs of the development, including the availability of street parking.
YES
Review Criteria for 500 W. Main Street
The applicant must provide 4.26 parking units for the Mesa Store office space according to the Mixed Use Zone
District and Transportation and Parking Management provisions. The applicant proposes mitigating three
parking units through on-site parking and TIA crediits. As a commercial designated historic property, the
applicant may receive wavier of the remaining 1.26 parking units as a Historic Preservation Benefit, Section
26.415.110.(D). The applicant must clarify whether they request the full 1.26 parking units to be waived or whether
they will provide one space on the west lot of the lot split. The applicant must satisfy all three reivew criteria for
Special Review in Section 26.515.080.
MET
MET
YES
Summary of Section 26.415.110(D) - Parking
Summary of Review Criteria for Section 26.515.080 - Special Review
Whenever the transportation, mobility, and parking impacts of a proposed development are subject to special
review, an application shall be processed as a special review in accordance with the common development
review procedures set forth in Chapter 26.304 and be evaluated according to the following standards. Review
is by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
If the project requires review by the Historic Preservation Commission and the Community Development Director
has authorized consolidation pursuant to Subsection 26.304.060.B, the Historic Preservation Commission shall
approve, approve with conditions or disapprove the special review application.
YES
YES
Summary of Section 26.430.040 - Review Standards for Special Review
26.430.040 Special Review. No development subject to special review shall be permitted unless the Planning and
Zoning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all standards and
requirements set forth below.
D. Off-street parking requirements. Whenever a special review is conducted to determine a
change in the off-street parking requirements, it shall be considered in accordance with the
standards set forth at Chapter 26.515.
P295
IV.B.
2
26.415.110. Benefits.
D. Parking. Parking reductions are permitted for designated historic properties
on sites unable to contain the number of on-site parking spaces required by the
underlying zoning. Commercial designated historic properties may receive
waivers of payment-in-lieu fees for parking reductions.
In addition to the review criteria listed in Chapter 26.515, the parking reduction
and waiver of payment-in-lieu fees may be approved upon a finding by the HPC
that it will enhance or mitigate an adverse impact on the historic significance or
architectural character of a designated historic property, an adjoining
designated property or a historic district.
Staff Findings: The Mesa Store, currently being remodeled for use as office space,
contains 4,260 square feet of net leasable space, requiring 4.26 parking units to
be provided. The applicant initially intended to address the entire requirement
with on-site parking, however with the proposed subdivision, no more than 2
spaces can be accommodated on the 3,000 square foot lot which will contain
the Mesa Store.
The applicant has provided a Transportation Impact Analysis in their application.
Because the Mesa Store net leasable area is not increasing beyond what has
existing historically, no trip mitigation is actually necessary, but at least two TDM
(Transportation Demand Management) measures must be fulfilled. The applicant
proposes to achieve seven measures focused on providing options for employees
to commute to work through other means than single occupancy vehicle.
The applicant is also voluntarily pursuing five actions which will reduce trip
generation through MMLOS (Multi-modal Level of Service). These actions involve
physical changes to the property that will improve sidewalks and crosswalks and
will provide new bicycle racks. As a result of these efforts, the applicant qualifies
to provide mitigation for one of their parking units as a TIA credit. Only one parking
unit credit is allowed.
The remaining 1.26 parking units that must be addressed by some means could
be accomplished in one of two ways. The applicant could provide 2 parking
spaces on the new west lot and dedicate them to the office use by an easement.
An easement area this large (approximately 300 square feet) would reduce
allowable floor area on the west lot and affect the number of TDRs that may be
created. It appears that one parking space provided by easement would not
reduce the floor area to the extent that a TDR would be lost, but two spaces
P296
IV.B.
3
would. Staff recommends the applicant consider providing one space on the
west lot.
The remaining 0.26 parking units could be accomplished through a cash-in-lieu
payment of $7,800 (0.26 x $30,000, the standard mitigation for parking). Council
could also waive the cash-in-lieu fee as a landmark benefit, in recognition of the
applicant’s restoration of the Mesa Store and their effort to reduce or eliminate
development that will occur on the west side of the property.
Staff finds this criteria to be met through provision of two parking spaces on the
east lot, one TIA credit, one parking space on the west lot- dedicated to the east
lot via easement, and a Council approved waiver of the $7,800 cash-in-lieu fee
completing the balance of the mitigation requirement.
P297
IV.B.
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
Agreement to Pay Application Fees
An agreement between the City of Aspen (“City”) and
Property Phone No.:
Owner (“I”): Email:
Address of Billing
Property: Address:
(Subject of (send bills here)
application)
I understand that the City has adopted, via Ordinance No., Series of 2011, review fees for Land Use applications and payment of
these fees is a condition precedent to determining application completeness. I understand that as the property owner that I
am responsible for paying all fees for this development application.
For flat fees and referral fees: I agree to pay the following fees for the services indicated. I understand that these flat fees are
non-refundable.
$___________flat fee for ____________________ $____________ flat fee for ____________________________________
$___________ flat fee for ___________________ $_____________ flat fee for____________________________________
For Deposit cases only: The City and I understand that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not
possible at this time to know the full extent or total costs involved in processing the application.
I understand that additional costs over and above the deposit may accrue. I understand and agree that it is impracticable for
City staff to complete processing, review and presentation of sufficient information to enable legally required findings to be
made for project consideration, unless invoices are paid in full.
The City and I understand and agree that invoices mailed by the City to the above listed billing address and not returned to the
City shall be considered by the City as being received by me. I agree to remit payment within 30 days of presentation of an
invoice by the City for such services.
I have read, understood, and agree to the Land Use Review Fee Policy including consequences for no-payment. I agree to pay
the following initial deposit amounts for the specified hours of staff time. I understand that payment of a deposit does not
render and application complete or compliant with approval criteria. If actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, I agree
to pay additional monthly billings to the City to reimburse the City for the processing of my application at the hourly rates
hereinafter stated.
$________________ deposit for_____________ hours of Community Development Department staff time. Additional time
above the deposit amount will be billed at $325.00 per hour.
$________________ deposit for _____________ hours of Engineering Department staff time. Additional time above the
deposit amount will be billed at $325.00 per hour.
City of Aspen: Property Owner:
________________________________ _______________________________________________
Jessica Garrow, AICP
Community Development Director Name:
_______________________________________________
Title:
____________________________________________________
City Use:
Fees Due: $____Received $_______
P298
IV.B.
City of Aspen Community Development Department
Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Packet
City of Aspen|130 S. Galena Street.| (970) 920 5090 Historic Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: March 2016
ATTACHMENT 2 - Historic Preservation Land Use Application
PROJECT:
Name:
Location:
(Indicate street address, lot & block number or metes and bounds description of property)
Parcel ID # (REQUIRED)___________________________________________________________
Applicant:
Name:
Address:
Phone #: _______________________Fax#:___________________E-mail:_______________________________________________
REPRESENTATIVE:
Name:
Address:
Phone #: _______________________Fax#:___________________E-mail:________________________________________________
TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply):
Historic Designation
Certificate of No Negative Effect
Certificate of Appropriateness
-Minor Historic Development
-Major Historic Development
-Conceptual Historic Development
-Final Historic Development
-Substantial Amendment
Relocation (temporary, on
or off-site)
Demolition (total demolition)
Historic Landmark Lot Split
EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.)
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.)
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
P299
IV.B.
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
P300
IV.B.
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): ______________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
P301
IV.B.
AHPC
Historic Lot Split
500 W Main St.
1
CITY OF ASPEN
PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PLANNER: Amy Simon, 429.2758 DATE: January 9, 2018
PROJECT: 500 West Main Street
APPLICANT: R+B
TYPE OF APPLICATION: Historic Landmark Lot Split
DESCRIPTION: The Applicant is interested in pursuing a historic landmark lot split for the property at
500 W. Main. The site is a designated landmark located within the Main Street Historic District. It is zoned
Mixed Use (MU) and is 6,000 square feet in area.
The historic resource, a large false-front structure known as Mesa Store, occupies the east 3,000 square
feet of the lot, Lot S, while the west 3,000 square feet of the lot, Lot R, is undeveloped except for parking.
A Historic Landmark Lot Split requires that the newly created lots each be at least 3,000 square feet in
size and the lot configurations are expected to mimic the original townsite platting. This pre-application
assumes that no specific development of the newly created west lot will be proposed at this time. A
separate pre-application will be prepared when requested. Options for development of the west lot include
commercial use, a free market single family home, affordable housing, or commercial use and affordable
housing. Affordable housing mitigation will be required and no historic preservation benefits or variations
will be available to the west lot.
The existing development which is to remain on the new east lot will be required to meet all dimensional
requirements, including maximum floor area, setbacks, pedestrian amenity, parking, and Trash and
Recycling Storage. Variation requests are possible for some of these topics.
Regarding floor area, the previous land use application for this property indicated that existing floor area
of the Mesa Store is 3,451 square feet. The maximum floor area by right on the new east lot for commercial
use would be 1:1 or 3,000 square feet. The applicant could take actions on the interior of the building to
try to reduce floor area to 3,000 square feet or may ask HPC for an increase to 1.25:1 via Special Review,
Section 26.430.040.A, which allows an increase if it is found that the impacts of the additional space are
appropriate.
The lot split would result in a request for variations on the east, front and west yards because of the siting
of the historic building. These variations are among the benefits that HPC can approve, however potential
building code implications to the structure such as new fire protection requirements along the west side
will have to be fully understood.
In terms of requirements for Pedestrian Amenity, 25% of the new east lot must meet the design
characteristics of Pedestrian Amenity space, as described in the Commercial Design Guidelines. It
appears that the applicant will not be able to meet this requirement to a meaningful degree as the historic
building, parking and trash storage will occupy much of the 3,000 square foot lot. The applicant would
need to receive approval for either cash-in-lieu payment, which would require Council authorization, or an
P302
IV.B.
2
improvement on other private property, public property or right-of-way which is found to be beneficial and
of an equal value to on-site amenity.
Parking must be provided for the east lot in the form of approximately 4.49 parking units, based on an
existing net leasable area of 4,493 square feet and a required mitigation rate of 1 parking unit per 1,000
square feet of net leasable area. Section 26.515 of the land use code allows one parking unit to be
provided through a TIA credit, to be demonstrated through the completion of the TIA Trip Generation Tool.
The lot split is not expected to generate new trips because no new net leasable space is created, however
the lot split is considered to be development and therefore the TIA Tool must be completed, at least two
TDM measures identified in the tool must be accomplished, and a TIA credit must be generated if it is to
be applied towards the 4.49 parking unit requirement.
The remaining 3.49 parking unit requirement must be addressed through the provision of at least 2.09 on
site parking spaces (60% of the parking units), up to 1.4 parking units provided by a cash-in-lieu payment
at $30,000 per unit (40% of the parking units), or variations to on-site parking and/or cash-in-lieu which
may be considered by HPC. It is expected that the Building Department will require one van accessible
parking space to be constructed behind the historic building and that there will not be enough room for any
other code compliant parking spaces on the 30 foot alley frontage given the need to also address Trash
and Recycling in that area. The applicant may be able to meet parking requirements by constructing
parking on the new west lot and committing that it will be shared by the abutting properties as described
at Section 26.515.050.6. The applicant could also dedicate parking on the west lot to the east lot via an
easement, bearing in mind that future development of the west lot will likely generate its own on-site
parking requirements. Adding to the demands along the alley, a transformer will likely be required on one
of the two lots.
Regarding Trash and Recycling, the applicant will be required to meet the requirements of Municipal Code
Section 12.10, which would call for a 20’ long and 10’ deep area along the alley of the east lot devoted to
the purpose. The applicant will work with Environmental Heath on this topic and will, at the least, need to
request that the shorter length of the trash area be set along the alley so that there is room to
accommodate an accessible parking space.
Staff suggests that the applicant consider the possibility of addressing some of the variations described
above on the west lot and limiting development of that lot by severing and selling TDRs from it. As already
mentioned, parking could be established on the west lot. It could also serve as off-site Pedestrian Amenity
and could provide the R+B office with outdoor space. If this scenario is pursued, the floor area available
for TDRs would be based on the size of a single family home allowed on the site, which is currently 1,920
square feet. Up to seven 250 square foot TDRs could be sold, essentially sterilizing the lot, which would
likely appeal to HPC. The applicant could elect to leave some square footage available for future
construction on the west lot. Any use allowed by zoning would still be a possibility but the floor area would
be approximately 1,920 square feet minus however many TDRs are removed.
The process for this request will be a one-step review by HPC, at which time they will determine all
variations and make a recommendation to City Council regarding the Subdivision. HPC will apply the
Historic Preservation Design Guidelines and Commercial Design Guidelines as relevant to the scope of
the application. Council will make the final decision on Subdivision after a First and Second Reading of
the Ordinance. Passage of the Ordinance will make the subdivision permanent unless the applicant does
not file a plat within the required timeframe or later pursues a merger to combine the lots together again.
Review of the plat will be subject to the standards provided in Chapter 26.490, Approval Documents.
P303
IV.B.
3
Following are links to the Municipal Code, Land Use Code, Land Use Application form and Design
Guidelines.
Land Use Code:
https://www.cityofaspen.com/191/Municipal-Code
Land Use Application:
https://www.cityofaspen.com/DocumentCenter/Home/View/305
Commercial Design Guidelines:
https://www.cityofaspen.com/DocumentCenter/Home/View/412
Historic Preservation Design Guidelines:
https://www.cityofaspen.com/DocumentCenter/Home/View/310
Land Use Code Section(s)
26.304 Common Development Review Procedures
26.412.070 Pedestrian Amenity
26.415.110 Historic Preservation Benefits
26.430.040.A Special Review for floor area
26.480.060.B Minor Subdivision- Historic Landmark Lot Split
26.490 Approval documents
26.515 Transportation and Parking Management
26.535 Transferable Development Rights
26.575.020 Calculations and Measurements
26.710.180 Mixed Use Zone District
and
Municipal Code Section
12.10 Space Allotment for Trash and Recycling Storage
Review by: Staff for complete application and recommendations
HPC and City Council for determinations
Public Hearing: Yes - publication, mailing and posting
Referral Fees: $325 one hour deposit – Engineering
$975 flat fee- Environmental Health
Planning Fees: $3,250 (for a 10 hour deposit, billed at $325 per hour for over 10 hours)
Total Deposit: $4,550
Following approval, the City will assess a separate deposit of $975 towards three hours of review of
the final Subdivision Agreement and Plat.
P304
IV.B.
4
To apply, submit one complete copy of the following information:
Completed Land Use Application and signed fee agreement.
Pre-application Conference Summary (this document).
Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur,
consisting of a current (no older than 6 months) certificate from a title insurance company, an
ownership and encumbrance report, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado,
listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements,
contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner’s right to apply for
the Development Application.
Applicant’s name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant that states
the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of
the applicant.
HOA Compliance form (Attached)
A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form of
how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the
development application and relevant land use approvals associated with the property.
Written responses to all review criteria.
A Mobility Plan, meeting the requirements of Chapter 26.515 of the Aspen Municipal Code.
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: https://www.cityofaspen.com/documentcenter/view/1781 A copy of the tool showing trips
generated and the chosen mitigation measures should be included with the application.
An 8 1/2” by 11” vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen.
Existing floor area and net leasable calculations and identification of any variation requests
created by the proposal.
Improvement survey of existing conditions.
Proposed Subdivision Plat.
Once the copy is deemed complete by staff, the following items will then need to be
submitted:
A printed copy of the full application.
An emailed copy of the full application.
12 sets of all graphics, printed at 11”x17.”
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.
P305
IV.B.
P306
IV.B.
P307
IV.B.
PROFORMA TITLE REPORTSCHEDULE A1. EffectiveDate: May 1,2018 at 8:00AM2. Policy or Policies to be issued:Case No. PCT24641PRO3Proposed lnsured:PROFORMA3. Title to the FEE SIMPLE estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment is at theeffective date hereof vested in:5OO WEST MAIN STREET, LLC, A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY4. The land referred to in this Commitment is situated in the County of PITKIN State of COLORADO and isdescribed as follows:LOTS R AND S,BLOCK 30,CITYAND TOWNSITE OF ASPENPITKIN COUNTY TITLE INC.601 E. HOPKINg ASPEN, CO.8161197 0-925:17 66 Phone / 97 ù925 4527 F ax877-217-3158Toll FreeAGENTCountersigned:P308IV.B.
SCHEDULEB-SECTIONl.REQUIREMENTSTHIS REPORT IS FURNISHED FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY, IT IS NOT A CONTRACT TO ISSUE TITLEINSURANCE AND SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED AS SUCH. IN THE EVENT A PROPOSED INSURED IS NAMED THECOMPANY HEREBY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO MAKE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS AND/OR EXCEPTIONS ASDEEMED NECESSARY. THE RECIPIENT OF THIS INFORMATIONAL REPORT HEREBY AGREES THAT THECOMPANY HAS ISSUED THIS REPORT BY THEIR REQUEST AND ALTHOUGH WE BELIEVE ALL INFORMATIONCONTAINED HEREIN IS ACCURATE AND CORRECT, THE COMPANY SHALL NOT BE CHARGED WITH ANYFINANCIAL LIABILITY SHOULD THAT PROVE TO BE INCORRECT AND THE COMPANY IS NOT OBLIGATED TOISSUE ANY POLICIES OF TITLE INSURANCEP309IV.B.
SCHEDULE B SECTION 2EXCEPTIONSThe policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of tothe satisfaction of the Company:1. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records.2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records.3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, any facts which a correctsurvey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the public records.4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor, or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by lawand not shown by the public records.5. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the publicrecords or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed insuredacquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment.6. Taxes due and payable; and any tax, special assessment, charge or lien imposed for water or sewerservice or for any other special taxing district.7. Reservations and exceptions as set forth in the Deed from the Cig of Aspen recorded in Book 59 at Paqe223 providing as follows: "That no title shall be hereby acquired to any mine of gold, silver, cinnabar orcopper or to any valid mining claim or possession held under existing laws".B. Terms, conditions and obligations of Ordinance No. 32 and Ordinance No. 60, designating Lots R and S,Block 30, City and Townsite of Aspen as Historic District, recorded in Book 314 at Paqe 338 and in Book321 at Paqe 51.9. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in Encroachment Agreement recorded in Book553 at Paqe 109.10. Easements, rights of way and all matters as disclosed on Survey of subject property recorded April 6,1998 in Plat Book 44 at Paqe 71.11. Terms, conditions, provisions, obligations and all matters as set forth in Resolution of the The AspenHistoric Preservation Commission recorded September 13, 1999 as Reception No. 435423 as ResolutionNo. 38 Series 1999.12. Terms, conditions, provisions, obligations and all matters as set forth in Resolution of the Aspen HistoricPreservation Commission recorded October 19,2016 as Reception No. 633130 as Resolution No.32-2016.13. Easements, rights of way and all matters as disclosed on lmprovement Survey Plat of subject propertyrecorded November 10,2016 in Plat Book 116 at Paqe 43.14. Deed of Trust from : 500 W. MAIN STREET, LLC, A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANYTo the Public Trustee of the County of PITKINFor the use of : ANB BANKOriginalAmount :$3,160,000.00Dated : June 30,2016Recorded : June 30,2016Reception No. : 63037815. Assignment of Leases and Rents given in connection with the above Deed of Trust recorded June 30,2016 as Reception No. 630379.16. Any existing leases and tenancies.17. Terms, conditions, provisions, obligations and all matters as set forth in Resolution of theAspen HistoricPreservation Commission recorded August 21,2017 as Reception No. 640807 as Resolution No. 12-201718. Terms, conditions, provisions, obligations and all matters as set forth in Resolution of the Aspen HistoricPreservation Commission recorded April 16, 2018 as Reception No. 646598.P310IV.B.
WIRING¡NSTRUCTIONS FORPITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC.601 E. HOPKINS, THIRD FLOORASPEN, CO 8161 197 0 -925-17 66 I 97 0 -925-6527 F þü,TOLL FREE 877-217-3158A¡ I TRANSACTIOGARDING THE CLOSING OF THIS F¡LENS REARE AS FOLLOWS:ALPINE BANK-ASPEN600 E. HOPKINS AVE.ASPEN, CO.81611ABA ROUTING NO. IO21O34O7FOR CREDIT TO:PITKIN COUNTY T¡TLE, INC., ESCROW ACCOUNTACCOUNT NO. 2021 012 333REFERENCE : PGT24641 PRO/PROFORMAP311IV.B.
il1ilililililüïilililrililillllfl ilililililililltilililililililr ff ililRECEPTIONf: 646598, R: 318.00, D: $0.O0DOC GODE: RESOLUTION35^lJ Í: $3j g3îii f i?,ïi'fj":ü, " oA R.ESOLUTTON OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATTON COMMTSSTON (HPC)GRANTING MINOR DEVELOPMENT AND VARIATIONS FOR THE PROPERTYLOCATED AT 5OO \ilEST MAIN STiIEET, LOTS R & S, BLOCK 30, CITY A¡IDTO1VNSITE OF ASPf,N, COLORADORESOLUTION #3, SERIES OF 2OI8PARCEL lD: 27 35-124-43-007\ryHEREAS, the applicant, 500 W. Main Street LLC., represented by Rowland + Broughton, hasrequested HPC approval for Minor Development and Variations for the prope4y located at 500West Main Street, Lots R & S, Block 30, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; andWHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structureshall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving adesignated historic property or district until plans or suflïcient information have been subminedto the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the proceduresestablished for their review;" andWHEREAS, for Minor Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staffanalysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformancewith the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.C.3.band c of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve,disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional informationnecessary to make a decision to approve or deny; andWHEREAS, rhe HPC may approve setback variations according to Section 26.415.1l0.C.l.a,Variances; and\üHEREAS, HPC reviewed the project on March 28,2018. HPC considered the application, thestaff memo and public comments, and found the proposal consistent with the review standardsand granted approval with conditions by a vote of ó to 0.NOlry, THEREFORE, BE tT RESOLVED:That HPC hereby approves Minor Development and Variation review for 500 \ilest Main Str€et w¡ththe following conditions:l. HPC hereby grants the following dimensional variances:a. A 0'-0" front yard setback to allow for the rebuilding of the overhanging roof on thewest elevalion.2. The exact location of window I I will be based on review of framing once exposed.3. cut sheets for new windows and doors rnust be reviewed and approved by staff.HPC Resolution #3, Series of 2018Page I of2P312IV.B.
RECEPTION# 646598, O4t'1612018 at02:f.2:28 PM, Pgs 2 of 2, Janice K. Vos Gaudill, P¡tk¡n County, CO4. Provide plans confirming the location of the meterVequipment which are to be detached fromthe building to the extent possible, will be reviewed and approved by staff.5. Review historic photos and provide detail reconstructing all three chimneys to a historicallyaccurate appeafimce-6. Submit site work for Certifìcate of No Negative Effect.7. The previous approvals are vacated hereby as the Municipal Code does not allow multipleland use approvals to be valid at one time.APPROVED By THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 28ù day of March, 2018.Approved as toApproved as to ContentCityChairATTEST:Manning, CityHPC Resolution #3, Series of 2018Page2of 2P313IV.B.
Page 1 of 1
09 May 2018
Amy Simon
City of Aspen Community Development Department
130 S. Galena Street, 3rd Floor
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: Mesa Store – 500 W. Main Street – Historic Landmark Lot Split
Dear Amy,
As the property owner of 500 W. Main Street we submit this Land Use Application for a Historic
Landmark Lot Split for the Mesa Store, located within the Main Street Historic District.
Rowland+Broughton Architecture’s employees are authorized to act on behalf of 500 West Main
Street, LLC.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
John Rowland, AIA
Rowland+Broughton Architecture / Urban Design / Interior Design
500 West Main Street, LLC
234 E. Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
970-544-9006
P314
IV.B.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION COMPLIANCE FORM
CITY OF ASPEN 130 S. GALENA ST | ASPEN, CO 81611
All applications for a building permit within the City of Aspen are required to include a certification of compliance with applicable covenants and homeowner association policies. The certification must be signed by the property owner or attorney representing the property owner. The following certification shall accompany the application for a permit.
___________________________________ _________ ___________________________
I, the property owner, certify as follows: (pick one)
This property is not subject to a homeowners association or other form of private covenant.
This property is subject to a homeowners association or private covenant and the improvements proposed in this building permit do not require approval by the homeowners association or covenant beneficiary.
This property is subject to a homeowners association or private covenant and the improvements proposed in this building permit have been approved by the homeowners association or covenant beneficiary.
I understand the City of Aspen does not interpret, enforce, or manage the applicability, meaning, or effect of private covenants or homeowner association rules or bylaws. I understand that this document is a public document.
Owner Signature ____________________________ Date _________________
Owner Printed Name ________________________
OR
Owner’s Attorney Signature ___________________________ Date _________________
Owner’s Attorney Printed Name _______________________
ADDRESS UNIT #PARCEL ID #
ADDRESS: ____________________________PERMIT NUMBER: _______________________________
January 2018 P315
IV.B.
P316
IV.B.
P317
IV.B.
Page 1 of 4
MEMORANDUM
Project: Mesa Store, 500 W. Main Street – Historic Lot Split
Subject: Description
Date: 17 May 2018, updated 20 June 2018
500 W. Main Street LLC is undergoing a restoration and remodel of the historic Mesa building located
at 500 W. Main Street, Aspen, Colorado. We are requesting a Historic Landmark Lot Split with the
intention to request TDRs.
Dimensional Requirements Summary:
• Floor Area:
o Existing FA: 3,451 SF
o Allowed FA for 3,000 SF Lot: 3,000 SF (1:1)
o Request: Increase to 1.25:1 via Special Review (3,750 SF allowable)
o Proposed:
• Setback Variations:
o East, Front and West setbacks would all be infringed upon by the historic resource.
o Only the West setback is new.
• Pedestrian Amenity:
o The East lot where the historic Mesa building sits will not be able to meet the 25%
requirement for Pedestrian Amenity.
o 387 SF will be remaining, 750 SF required.
• Parking:
o 4.49 spots required for the East lot.
o TIA Credit will be gained through:
o 60% of 3.49 parking units must be provided on site: 2.09
▪ 2 spots (1 being van accessible provided)
▪ 1.4 spots must be paid for cash-in-lieu = $42,000
• Trash and Recycling:
o The trash and recycling has been reviewed by Environmental Health as a part of the
Building Permit #0012.2018.ACBK
We plan on selling TDRs and utilizing the lot as off-site Pedestrian Amenity for the Mesa building.
Responses to Review Criteria:
• 26.412.070 Pedestrian Amenity.
o With the proposed Historic Landmark Lot Split, (2) 3,000 SF lots would be created.
25% of the lot should be provided for Pedestrian Amenity. 3,000 SF x 25% = 750 SF
o The restoration efforts being made on the historic resource is above and beyond what
would be required to make the project feasible. Window restoration, entry restoration
and substantial building structural upgrades will be completed.
o 26.412.070.C – Reduction of requirement 3 – When the redevelopment or expansion
of an historic landmark constitutes an exemplary preservation effort deserving of an
P318
IV.B.
Page 2 of 4
incentive or reward, as provided in the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design
Guidelines.
▪ Rehabilitation occurring on the Mesa building:
• Windows
• Porches
• Architectural Details
o The new 3,000 SF west lot will also be used as pedestrian amenity space for historic
Mesa building with at grade landscaping and fences. These improvements have been
presented with the current building permit for the restoration and renovation of the
Mesa building.
• 26.415.110 Benefits.
o 26.415.110.A Historic landmark lot split.
o The Historic Landmark Lot Split will follow the MU zone district lot size requirements
which allows 3,000 SF lots.
• 26.430.040.A Dimensional requirements.
o The proposed development of a Historic Landmark Lot Split is subject to special
review.
o 1. The mass, height, density, configuration, amount of open space, landscaping and
setbacks of the proposed development are designed in a manner which is compatible
with or enhances the character of surrounding land uses and is consistent with the
purposes of the underlying zone district.
▪ The historic Mesa Store building will be maintained and restored. The mass,
height, density, configuration will all be maintained or reduced.
▪ The building floor area is requested to be increased to 1.25:1 or 3,750 SF in
order to allow the existing density of the historic resource to work dimensionally
on a 3,000 SF site.
▪ The existing exterior stair on the east façade of the historic resource will remain
and will be within the new 5’-0” setback. It is an existing condition to remain.
• 26.480.060.B
o This request complies with the requirements of Section 26.480.040:
▪ The site has and will continue to have a guaranteed access to a public way.
▪ The subdivision lot lines follow the Original Aspen Townsite platting lines.
▪ The new lots conform to the requirements of the zone district including special
review for FA and setback variances that are a result of existing historic
conditions.
▪ The existing structure, the Mesa Store building will not be increased in non-
conformity.
o The Mesa Store Building is listed on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures.
o Only two lots are being created.
o This building is not within a residential zone district.
o The Historic Lot Split Plat will be submitted and recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk
and Recorder once approved.
• 26.515
o Included in this application is the TIA.
o Parking requirements are Parking:
▪ 4.49 spots required for the East lot.
▪ TIA Credit will be gained through:
• 60% of 3.49 parking units must be provided on site: 2.09
P319
IV.B.
Page 3 of 4
• 2 spots (1 being van accessible provided)
• 1.4 spots must be paid for cash-in-lieu = $42,000
• 26.535
o This land use application requests the creation of Historic transferable development
right certificates. It is a designated historic landmark property.
o Owner confirmation of the issuance of TDR certificates will be submitted as notarized
affidavits if pursued.
• 26.535.010 Purpose
o The historic Mesa Store building stands as a lone commercial piece of architecture on
the west end of Main Street. The purpose of preserving this iconic piece of
architecture involves the establishment of Transferable Development Rights (TDR) in
order to maintain and restore the existing building while decreasing density around the
building.
• 26.535.030 Applicability and prohibitions
o 500 W. Main Street is a Sending Site and eligible for issuance of a Historic TDR
Certificate.
o 500 W. Main Street, the Mesa Store building is a designated Historic Landmark in the
City of Aspen.
o The allowable development extinguishment of a Historic TDR Certificate on this lot is
as follows:
▪ 3,000 SF Lot
▪ FAR follows R-6 zone district:
• • 3,000 SF / 100 = 300 x 80 = 2,400 SF (20%) = 1,920 SF Allowable
• 1,920 SF / 250 SF (per TDR) = 7.68 / 7 TDRs Requested
• 26.535.050 Procedure for establishing a historic transferable development right certificate.
o Preapplication conference – Completed
o Owner Confirmation – Owner confirms that at issuance a notarized affidavit from the
sending site property owner will be submitted acknowledging:
▪ A deed restriction will permanently encumber the sending site and restrict that
property's development rights to below that allowed by right by zoning
according to the number of historic TDR certificates established from that
sending site.
▪ For each certificate of development right issued by the City for the particular
sending site, that property shall be allowed two hundred and fifty (250) square
feet less of floor area, as permitted according to the property's zoning, as
amended.
P320
IV.B.
Page 4 of 4
▪ The sending site property owner shall have no authority over the manner in
which the certificate of development right is used by subsequent owners of the
historic TDR certificate.
o Application for issuance of historic TDR certificate.
▪ Application included:
▪ 1. The general application information required in Common development
review procedures, Chapter 26.304.
▪ 2. A notarized affidavit from the sending site property owner signifying
acknowledgment of the following: a) A deed restriction will permanently
encumber the sending site and restrict that property's development rights to
below that allowed by right by zoning according to the number of historic TDR
certificates established from that sending site. b) For each certificate of
development right issued by the City for the particular sending site, that
property shall be allowed two hundred and fifty (250) square feet less of floor
area, as permitted according to the property's zoning, as amended. c) The
sending site property owner shall have no authority over the manner in which
the certificate of development right is used by subsequent owners of the
historic TDR certificate.
▪ 3. A site improvement survey of the sending site depicting: a) Existing natural
and man-made site features. b) All legal easements and restrictions.
▪ 4. Dimensioned, scaled drawings of the existing development on the sending
site and a floor area analysis of all structures thereon.
▪ 5. A proposed deed restriction for the sending site.
▪ 6. Written response to each of the review criteria.
P321
IV.B.
= input
= calculation
DATE:
PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT ADDRESS:
APPLICANT CONTACT
INFORMATION:
NAME, COMPANY,
ADDRESS, PHONE, EMAIL
Minor
Entering Exiting Total Entering Exiting Total
Commercial (sf)0.0 sf 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Free-Market Housing (Units)0 Units 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Affordable Housing (Units)0 Units 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
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
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
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
DANA ELLIS, ROWLAND+BROUGHTON, 234 E HOPKINS AVE, ASPEN CO 81611, (970) 429
8707, DANA@ROWLANDBROUGHTON.COM
Trip Generation
MAY 25, 218
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?
500 W MAIN STREET ASPEN CO 81611
MESA
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
P322
IV.B.
= input
= calculation
30
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?
Yes 5
2 Is the proposed effective sidewalk width greater than the standard
minimum width?No 0
3 Does the project propose a landscape buffer greater than the
standard minimum width?No 0
5
4
Does the project propose a detached sidewalk on an adjacent
block? Does the proposed sidewalk and buffer meet standard
minimum widths?
No 0
5 Is the proposed effective sidewalk width on an adjacent block
greater than the standard minimum width?No 0
6 Is the proposed landscape buffer on an adjacent block greater than
the standard minimum width?No 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? No -5
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.
Yes 5
10 Does the project propose an improved crosswalk? This measure must
get City approval before receiving credit. Yes 5
5
11 Are existing driveways removed from the street? No 0
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.
Yes 5
15 Does the project propose enhanced pedestrian or bicyclist
interaction with vehicles at driveway areas?Yes 5
10
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.
No 0
18 Is the project proposing an off site improvement that results in a
pedestrian directness factor below 1.2?* No 0
19 Are traffic calming features proposed that are part of an approved
plan (speed humps, rapid flash)?*No 0
0
20
Are additional minor improvements proposed which benefit the
pedestrian experience and have been agreed upon with City of
Aspen staff?
No 0
21
Are additional major improvements proposed which benefit the
pedestrian experience and have been agreed upon with City of
Aspen staff?
No 0
0
20Pedestrian 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 ConsiderationsP323
IV.B.
Category Sub.Measure Number Question Answer Points
22 Is a new bicycle path being implemented with City approved design? No 0
23 Do new bike paths allow access without crossing a street or
driveway?No 0
24 Is there proposed landscaping, striping, or signage improvements to
an existing bicycle path?No 0
25 Does the project propose additional minor bicycle improvements
which have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff?No 0
26 Does the project propose additional major bicycle improvements
which have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff?No 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?No 0
29 Is a trash receptacle proposed?No 0
30 Is transit system information (signage) proposed? No 0
31 Is shelter/shade proposed?No 0
32 Is enhanced pedestrian-scale lighting proposed? No 0
33 Is real-time transit information proposed? No 0
34 Is bicycle parking/storage proposed specifically for bus stop use? No 0
35 Are ADA improvements proposed?Yes 5
5
36 Is a bus pull-out proposed at an existing stop? No 0
37 Is relocation of a bus stop to improve transit accessibility or roadway
operations proposed?No 0
38 Is a new bus stop proposed (with minimum of two basic amenities)? No 0
0
5
Bicycles Total*
Transit Total*BicyclesModifications to Existing Bicycle PathsTransitBasic AmenitiesSubtotal
Subtotal
Enhanced AmenitiesSubtotal
Subtotal
P324
IV.B.
Category Measure
Number Sub. Question Answer Strategy VMT
Reductions
Will an onsite ammenities strategy be implemented? NA
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?Small
What percentage of customers are eligible?
3 Nonmotorized Zones Will a nonmotorized zones strategy be implemented? NA 0.00%
0.00%
Category Measure
Number Sub. Question Answer Strategy VMT
Reductions
Will a network expansion stragtegy be implemented? No
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? No
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? No
What is the extent of access improvements?
7 Intercept Lot Will an intercept lot strategy be implemented?No 0.00%
0.00%
Category Measure
Number Sub. Question Answer Strategy VMT
Reductions
Will there be participation in TOP?No
What percentage of employees are eligible?
Is a transit fare subsidy strategy implemented?No
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? No
What percentage of employees are eligible?
Is a workplace parking pricing strategy implemented? No
What is the daily parking charge?
What percentage of employees are subject to priced parking?
Is a compressed work weeks strategy implemented? Yes
What percentage of employees are participating? 25%
What is the workweek schedule?4-day/40-hour
Is an employer sponsered shuttle program implemented? No
What is the employer size?
What percentage of employees are eligible?
Is a carpool matching strategy implemented?Yes
What percentage of employees are eligble?100%
Is carshare participation being implemented?Yes
How many employee memberships have been purchased? <100
What percentage of employees are eligble?100%
Is participation in the bikeshare program WE-cycle being implemented? Yes
How many memberships have been purchased?<100
What percentage of employees/guests are eligble? 100%
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? No
What percentage of employees are eligible?
Is a carpool/vanpool priority parking strategy being implemented? Yes
What is the employer size?Small
What number of parking spots are available for the program? 1
Is a private employer shuttle strategy being implemented? No
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%
4.03%
0.00%
4.03%
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%
3.75%
0.00%
7.50%
2.00%
Bikeshare Program
0.20%
TDM Input Page
1.50%
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.
P325
IV.B.
DATE:
PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT ADDRESS:
APPLICANT CONTACT
INFORMATION:
NAME, COMPANY,
ADDRESS, PHONE, EMAIL
Peak Hour Max Trips Generated MMLOS TDM Total Trips Mitigated
PM 0.0 30 0.00 30.00 0.00
DANA ELLIS, ROWLAND+BROUGHTON, 234 E HOPKINS AVE, ASPEN CO 81611, (970) 429 -8707, DANA@ROWLANDBROUGHTON.COM
Summary and Narrative:
Narrative:
MAY 12 2017
MESA STORE - ROWLAND + BROUGHTON STUDIO
500 W MAIN ST, ASPEN CO 81611
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.
Project Description
In the space below provide a description of the proposed project.
The project is a restoration and renovation of the historic Mesa building located at 500 W. Main Street. The project includes a Historic
Landmark Lot Split, breaking the current parcel into two 3,000 SF parcels.
MMLOS
In the space provided call out the effective sidewalk width and the percentage of the site which meets or exceeds the minimum standard
width. Explain the site constraints for areas which do not meet the minimum width.
All sidewalks will meet the minimum standard widths.
In the space provided desicribe what new landscaping is proposed and how the proposed landscaping plan enhances the pedestrian
experience. This measure is only applicable to large scale projects and requires more extensive landscaping then a few plantings or lawn
area. The project shall establish extensive landscaping which significantly benefits the site and improves the pedestrian comfort and
experience.
A new corner circulation pattern is planned with an ADA compliant ramp. New ground cover, maintenance of existing Aspen trees, and the
addition of one new tree by the alley is planned along Fourth Street. The Main Street frontage will see sidewalk improvements and the
maintenance of an existing street tree.
Explain the proposed improved crosswalk and how this improvement benefits the pedestian experience and the site as a whole. An
improved crosswalk includes measures such as incorporating a corner bulb out or defining a crosswalk path with colored concrete. Simply
re-striping a crosswalk will not recieve credit. This measure must be pre-approved by City staff.
P326
IV.B.
The crosswalk at Fourth will be upgraded at the corner, providing adequate turning radius for a person in a wheelchair.
Describe the enhanced pedestrian access point(s). This measure is to improve pedestrian access to the site from the ROW. It includes
adding additional access points which prevent pedestrians and bicyclists from crossing a street, improvements to the project's ADA ramps
in the ROW, and improvements to existing access points.
The crosswalk at Fourth will be upgraded at the corner, providing adequate turning radius for a person in a wheelchair.
Explain the enhanced pedestrian interaction at driveway areas or alley crossings. There must be an existing deficiency on the proposed
site to select this mesaure. If the project will increase interaction between pedestrians and vehicles at a driveway this should be mitigated
by implementing improvements to that area. New signage, striping, mirrors, and other approved devices are examples to address
pedestrian-vehicle conflicts at driveways.
No current sidewalk exists at the alley crossing. One is planned that meets the alley requirements and standards.
Explain the proposed bus stop ADA improvements.
Currently no ADA compliant route exists on Main Street to the existing Fourth Street bus stop. The project includes improving the ROW to
meet current accessibility standards.
Include any additional information that pertains to the MMLOS plan in the space provided below.
n/a
TDM
Provide details below for the proposed compressed work weeks strategy. Compressed work week schedules allow an employee to work
the typical 40-hour workweek in an alternative manner such as 4/10s or 9/80s. This eliminates the need for work-related travel on the
days not worked, thus reducing SOV trips. The successful project will demonstrate that it will offer compressed work week schedules to
25% of its employees.
R+B has a culture that allows staff to work from home or have compressed work weeks limiting the commuting to the office to 4x week.
Currently 6/24 employees utilize this = 25%. The goal is to have all employees on tablet computers by the time we move into this building,
increasing that percentage.
Provide details for the proposed carpool matching strategy below. Facilitating the formation of employee carpool groups is a method of
reducing SOV trips. The successful project will include use the city of Aspen Commuter Connect service to allow for the formation of
carpools as well as the sharing of other important transportation information via a custom employer web page.
Employee carpool groups will be implemented. The Commuter Connect service will also be used.
Provide details in the space provided for the proposed carshare participation. Carshare programs have been linked to increased use of
alternative transportation modes and reduced SOV trips. The successful project will provide access to Aspen’s CAR TO GO carshare
program. Trip reduction potential will depend on the level to which the development participates. Car share memberships can be
provided to all employees or residents of new developments.
P327
IV.B.
R+B is currently looking into the Car to Go program. We are currently working out the specifics.
Provide details for the proposed bike share program participation. Bike sharing provides access to a fleet of bicycles for short trips, thus
reducing SOV travel. The successful project will provide memberships to the existing WE-cycle program. Include details on how many WE-
cycle memberships will be purchased and whether these will be made available to guests, employees, or both.
R+B plans on purchasing 2 Sonos e-bikes as well as 2-4 Linus commuter bikes for employee use. We have also initiated conversation about a
business WE-Cycle membership.
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.
There will be personal lockers, changing areas, bicycle parking (covered and with space to lock bikes).
Explain the proposed carpool/vanpool priority parking strategy below. Priority parking for carpools and vanpools encourages and
incentivizes employees to ride-share to work, thus reducing SOV trips. The successful project will located the carpool and vanpool spaces
at the front entrances of the buildings and will monitor use of parking spaces to ensure compliance.
One parking spot will be for carpools only. A sign will be posted.
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.
We would like to work with Lynn in Transportation to gain information on events, education and opporunities for trip reduction.
Include any additional information that pertains to the TDM plan in the space provided below.
n/a
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.
Sidewalk Width and Buffer Width
Slopes Between Back of Curb and Sidewalk
Landscape Plan
Crosswalk Improvement(s)
2% Slope at Pedestrian Driveway Crossings
Enhanced Pedestrian Access Point
Enhanced Pedestrian Interaction at Driveway Areas
Pedestrian Directness Factor (See callout number 9 on the MMLOS sheet for an example)
Bicycle Parking
P328
IV.B.
Bus Stop ADA Improvements
Enforcement and Financing
Provide an overview of the Enforcement and Financing plan for the proposed transportation mitigation measures.
The work will be completed by the completion of construction.
Summer 2018 - Work with the Transportation Department to fine tune opportunities. Fall 2018 - Car-To-Go and WE-Cycle memberships
active. Winter 2019 - Project Complete, all site enhancements complete. Invite Transportation Department representative to do an
orientation with the staff in the new building. Spring 2019 - Company bicycles purchased and on-site. Summer 2019 - Final review with
Transportation Department.
Scheduling and Implementation Responsibility of Mitigation Measures
Provide an overview of the scheduling and implementation responsibility for the proposed transportation mitigation measures.
The work will be completed by the completion of construction.
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.
P329
IV.B.
P330
IV.B.
P331
IV.B.
P332
IV.B.
P333
IV.B.
P334
IV.B.
P335IV.B.
1
DEED RESTRICTION AND AGREEMENT FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF A
HISTORIC TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHT
PURSUANT TO ASPEN CITY COUNCIL
ORDINANCE #___ , SERIES OF 20__
THIS DEED RESTRICTION AND AGREEMENT is made and entered into this 13th
day of June, 2018, by 500 W. Main Street, LLC, (hereinafter referred to as “Owner”), whose
address is 234 E Hopkins Ave Aspen, CO 81611, and The City of Aspen, a body politic and
corporate pursuant to its Home-Rule Charter and the Constitution of the State of Colorado,
acting through its City Council, (hereinafter the “City”);
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, Owner owns real property more specifically described as 500 W. Main St.
Aspen CO 81611; Parcel ID Lots R and S, Block 30, City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County,
Colorado, (hereinafter referred to as “Real Property”), which Real Property is designated as a
Historic Site, as such are defined in the City of Aspen Land Use Code (“City Code”); and
WHEREAS, Owner has submitted an affidavit, duly notarized, in compliance with
Section 26.535.090.A.2 of the City Code, and supplied the necessary application materials
identified in Section 26.535.090 showing compliance with the criteria set forth in Section
26.535.070 of the City Code; and
WHEREAS, The Community Development Department has reviewed Owner’s
application according to the review standards identified in 26.535.070 of the City Code, and has
recommended approval of the application and the establishment of 7 (seven) approved Historic
TDR Certificates as set forth herein; and
WHEREAS, City Council Ordinance #____, Series of 20___ (the “Ordinance”) was
approved on ___(date)__________, establishing the above referenced Historic TDR Certificates,
and requiring that a Deed Restriction be recorded in real property records of Pitkin County,
designating the Real Property as a Sending Site and permanently restricting the development of
the Real Property (the Sending Site) to an allowable Floor Area not exceeding the allowance for
a single-family residence or duplex if allowed, minus two hundred and fifty (250) square feet of
Floor Area multiplied by the number of Historic TDR Certificates established; and
WHEREAS, in consideration of the establishment of 7 (seven). Historic TDR
Certificates pursuant to the Ordinance and City Code, Owner agrees to restrict the Real Property
as set forth herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and obligations contained
herein, Owner and the City hereby covenant and agree as follows:
1. Development of the Real Property (the Sending Site) is hereby permanently
restricted to an allowable Floor Area not exceeding the allowance for a single-
family residence or duplex as otherwise permitted by the City Code on the Real
P336
IV.B.
2
Property, minus any deductions resulting from previous issuance of TDR
certificate(s) and minus 250 square feet, that being two hundred fifty (250) square
feet of Floor Area multiplied by the one (1) Historic TDR Certificate hereby
established.
2. In consideration of the foregoing, and pursuant to the City Code and the
Ordinance, the City shall cause the issuance of one (1) Historic TDR Certificate,
executed by the Mayor, allowing the transfer of development rights to a Receiver
Site to be determined pursuant to the City Code. This Historic TDR Certificate
may be sold, assigned, transferred, or conveyed. Transfer of title shall be
evidenced by an assignment of ownership on the actual certificate document.
Upon transfer, the new owner may request the City re-issue the certificate
acknowledging the new owner. Reissuance shall not require adoption of a new
ordinance. The market for such Historic TDR Certificates shall remain
unrestricted and the City shall not prescribe or guarantee the monetary value of
any Historic TDR Certificates.
3. This deed restriction shall not be construed to stipulate an absolute Floor Area on
the Real Property, but only a square footage reduction from the allowable Floor
Area, as that allowable Floor Area may be amended from time to time.
4. The Real Property (Sending Site) shall remain eligible for Floor Area inc entives
and/or exemptions as may be authorized by the City Code, as it may be amended
from time to time.
5. This restriction may be modified only in a writing signed by both the Owner and
the City.
6. Unless modified as stated above, this Agreement shall constitute a covenant
running with the Real Property as a burden thereon for the benefit of, and shall be
specifically enforceable by, the City Council of the City of Aspen by any
appropriate legal action including, but not limited to, injunction or abatement.
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGES]
P337
IV.B.
3
IN WITNESS HEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this instrument on the date and
year above first written.
OWNER:
By:___________________________
(property owner)
STATE OF COLORADO )
)ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ________ day of
______________, 20___, by ___________
Witness my hand and official seal.
My commission expires:___________________
_____________________________
Notary Public
P338
IV.B.
4
APPROVAL OF CITY ATTORNEY
By:___________________________
James R. True, City Attorney
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO
a body politic and corporate pursuant to
its Home-Rule Charter and the Constitution of the State of Colorado
By:____________________________ Date:______________
Steve Skadron, Mayor
STATE OF COLORADO )
)ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of
_________________, 20__, by_____________, as Mayor of the City of Aspen, Colorado.
Witness my hand and official seal.
My commission expires:___________________
_____________________________
Notary Public
P339
IV.B.
500 W. Main St.
N
VICINITY MAP P340IV.B.
P341IV.B.
P342IV.B.
P343IV.B.
LOT
R
LOT
S
LOT
Q
LOT
P
ALLE
Y
-
B
L
O
C
K
3
0
LOT
I
LOT
H
LOT
G
FOURTH STREETMAIN
S
T
R
E
E
T
LOT
O
NE CORNER OF BLOCK 30
FOUND 1-1/4" YELLOW
PLASTIC CAP LS20151
NW CORNER OF BLOCK 30
FOUND 1" IRON PIPE
N6
1
°
0
5
'
3
1
"
W
1
4
7
8
.
9
0
'
(
T
I
E
)
S73°46'
5
1
"
W
6
9
5
.
3
6'
(
T
I
E
)
CITY OF ASPEN
GPS 7
CITY OF ASPEN
GPS 6
500
W
E
S
T
M
A
I
N
S
T
R
E
E
TNORTH1 inch = ft.
(IN U.S. SURVEY FEET)
GRAPHIC SCALE
0010 5 10 20 40
10 BYNO.DATEBYPROJECT NO.OR 534 - 06700 IN METRO DENVERUNDERGROUND MEMBER UTILITIESEXCAVATE FOR THE MARKING OFBEFORE YOU DIG, GRADE, ORCALL 2-BUSINESS DAYS IN ADVANCE1-800-922-1987CENTER OF COLORADOCALL UTILITY NOTIFICATIONREVISIONHIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING, INC.PHONE (970) 945-8676 - FAX (970) 945-2555www.hceng.comdrawn by:checked by:date:file:1517 BLAKE AVENUE, STE 101, GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601SHEET NUMBER
2171014
0932
1 of 1ROWLAND & BROUGHTON500 W. MAIN STREETMESA SUBDIVISIONCITY OF ASPENPITKIN COUNTY, COLORADOBNBWAB05-09-2018CLERK & RECORDER'S CERTIFICATE
SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE
PARCEL OF LAND COMPRISED OF LOTS R & S, BLOCK 30, CITY OF ASPEN TOWNSITE
BEING A PART OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84 WEST, OF THE 6TH P.M.
CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO
CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR APPROVAL
MESA SUBDIVISION
CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP
_______________
_____________
CITY OF ASPEN ENGINEER REVIEW
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
PITKIN COUNTY TITLE , INC. CASE NO. PCT24641W
EFFECTIVE DATE DECEMBER 28, 2015.
TITLE COMMITMENT EXCEPTIONS NOTES
PITKIN COUNTY TITLE , INC. CASE NO. PCT24641W
EFFECTIVE DATE DECEMBER 28, 2015.
SURVEYOR'S NOTES
SITE
VICINITY MAP
P344IV.B.
Page 1 of 1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer
MEETING DATE: July 25, 2018
RE: REFERRAL COMMENT TO CITY COUNCIL
500 W. Main Street- Historic Landmark Lot Split, Transferable
Development Rights, Special Review and Variations
SUMMARY: In 2017, Rowland + Broughton Architects received HPC approval for an
expansion to the historic Mesa Store, including new office space and a free market
residential unit. Subsequently, the firm determined that the historic structure alone would
serve their needs and looked to scale back their expenditure. An interior remodel with
no addition to the historic resource is currently underway.
Rowland + Broughton also determined that two aspects of the historic preservation
benefits program; the Historic Landmark Lot Split and the Transferable Development
Rights program, would allow them to avoid development of the site but still make their
ownership of the property feasible. An application has been submitted to subdivide the
existing 6,000 square foot lot into two 3,000 square foot lots, the east lot to contain the
historic structure and the west lot to be vacant. The development rights available to the
west lot are to be converted into Transferable Development Rights so that in the future
the west lot will be developed modestly, or not at all, with the value of unbuilt floor area
to be captured through the conversion and sale of square footage to owners of non-
historic properties elsewhere in Aspen.
Because there is no development proposed, City Council is the sole review authority on
this application, but an HPC recommendation is needed prior to council Second
Reading, which is scheduled for August 13th. The Council packet, including all details of
the review requests, is attached. Staff recommends HPC support the application.
Exhibit A_City Council packet, July 23, 2018
P345
IV.B.
EXHIBIT
d
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060(E),ASPEN LAND USE CODE
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: !�` ���
� � /�� /�,Aspen,CO
SCHEDULED PUB1 1 li!'ik ING DATE:
1111 20i�
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
County of Pitkin )
I, , (name,please print)
being r representing an p icant 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
i 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. aid notice wap sted at least fifteen(15)days prior to the public hearing
on the day of , 20d, to and including the date and time
of the pub is hearing. ph tograph of the osted 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, PDs that create more
than one lot, and new Planned Developments are subject to this notice
requirement.
44— Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any
way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this
Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended,whether such revision be
made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or
otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal
description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of
real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the
proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning
agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing
on such amendments.
�C 5
Signature J
The foreg 'ng"Affidavit of Notice"was acknow edged beforee this /7 day
of Lt. ,201k,by •' A,u �C,L&C
KIM L.MEYER WITNESS W HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
Notary Public,State of New york
No.01
in Kings
County
My commission expires:
Qualified in Kings County q
Commission Expires April 24,20 �/ 7
Notary Public
ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE:
• COPY OF THEPUBLICATION
• PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE(SIGN)
• LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED
BYMAIL
• APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTATE OWNERS NOTICE
AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S.§24-65.5-103.3
7/18/20,18 Vidicom,Inc.Mail-Fwd:Cooper St.Signage
V I D I C O M Patricia O'Brien<pobrien@citybuzz.com>
Fwd: Cooper St. Signage
1 message
Cassondra Stevens<cstevens@eigelberger.com> Mon,Jul 9,2018 at 7:03 PM
To:Amy Simon<amy.sirnon@cityofaspen.com>
Cc:Mitch Haas<mitch@hlpaspen.com>,Patricia O'Brien<pobrien@citybuzz.com>,Christy Ferer<cferer@citybuzz.com>,Cristof Eigelberger<cristof@eigelberger.com>
Hi Amy,
See attached for the posted signage at 135 E.Cooper. Patricia will be mailing out the affidavits by tomorrow.
Thank you,
Cassandra.1.Stevens
Senior Project Monsgcr l Archilechnal Designer
Cell lexl 559-287-6482
cstevens 0 eigelberger corn
EIGELBERGER
ARCHITECNRE DESIGN
102 Sycamore Ave Suite 8 Mill valley.Ca 94941
270 West Main Street.Suite 201 Aspen.Coloiadu 81811
w.nv,eigelbeng.r.—
www facebook.comleigelbergereN
wew.instagram corn/eigelbcrgor_archileclurel
e I <
4.
f f
r.P 1 w-
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=ceO973O14d&jsver=h[CmByCRTiiM.en.&cbl=gmail_fe_180711.12_p1&view=pt&q=amy.simon%40cityofaspe .. 1/4
7/18/2018 Vidicom,Inc.Mail-Fwd:Cooper St.Signage
i
ELIC NOTICE
Ddt@;. Wednesday. July 25, 2018
Time: 4.-30 P.m.
r PIaCezAen _
-t: - ---City Hall. 130 S.
PurpoSe. -
NPC will review a re
addition at the -`MQdel.and
this grope north comer p(
OeVelo e''considerin9_MinQr
Pment, a flo
`Nest side Or area bonus a
ed s ds tbac_kyaria6on and___
a combined
variation. The _Yardse_tback
Pen,LLC, 1 P.1 nt is Chris p"`I
Ne D7 F , at
_fifth
W Y9rk,_C�Y-10j _.AYenue,#3S
inf0rmat(on conta_28_ dorr fu
4 . eVel°Pment pd unifu
s
hrl.-k`.
I�
hftps://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=ce0973014d&jsver=h I CmByCRTiM.en.&cbl=gmail_fe_180711.12_p 1&view=pt&q=amy.Simon%40cityofaspe... 2/4
7/18/2 1" Vidicom,Inc.Mail-Fwd:Cooper St.Signage
4-
I
' i,1 '
I if
` &
PUBLIC NOTICE
Date: *ednesaa
_ Y July 25. 2018 '
g: Time: 4.30�,.m
addition'• �evtew a remodel and ,� • _ �:�
at the northwest corner of
-"�• this property,
Y considering Minor
Development a floor area
...R. +est side bonus.a `
yard setback variation and
combined side
yard Theyard setback
�,• Aspen, applicant is Chris pat ;
Ae LLC. 1107 Fifth A,,enue •
w York.N Y #3S
itorfrIa 10'28 For further
hnn
evelo
Pmell Contact the Cornmunity
pt-at 970 429-2758.
s:
https:/Imail,google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=ceO973014d&jsver=hlCmByCRTiiM.en.&cbl=gmail_fe_180711.12_pl&view=pt&y=amy.simon%40cityofaspe... 3/4
AVERY 5160 Easy Peel'Address Labels
BROADSCOPE PTY LTD BARNES ROBERT M DANCING BEAR RES OWNERS ASSOC INC
149 RIVERTON DR 6445 SENECA RD 411 S MONARCH ST
ROSSMOYNE WESTERN AUSTRALIA 6148, MISSION HILLS,KS 66208 ASPEN,CO 81611 `
i �
PINES LODGE DEV LLC ZEFF CAPITAL LP CALLAHAN PATRICIA LIVING TRUST
2353 IRVINE AVE 555 E DURANT AVE 184 MOUNTAIN LAUREL DR
NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92660 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611
SCULL JAMES E LIMELIGHT SUB/PUD BARRETT STEVEN R
PO BOX 2051 E HYMAN AVE 150 N MARKET
ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81611 WICHITA,KS 67202
DANCING BEAR RES OWNERS ASSOC INC MURPHY JULIANNE RUTH&WILLIAM R JR R MICHAEL MICHAELA ANN
411 S MONARCH ST 100 E COOPER AVE#8 PO BOX 1006
ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 816111763 B�RLINGAME,CA 94011
WICHMANN VICTORIA VERMONT AVE LLC NEW YORK AVE LLC
119 E COOPER ST#4 623 E HOPKINS AVE 623 E HOPKINS AVE LLC
ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 ` ' 'ASPEN,CO-81611
i
r
CS WEBER INVESTMENTS LLC SCHAPIRO PATRICIA JACARANDA ASPEN LLC
15 S WILLOW CT 1685 TAMARAC DR PO BOX 11980
P
ASPEN,CO 81611 GOLDEN,CO 80401 ASPEN,CO 81612
SALISBURY JAMES A REV TRUST SHENNAN MELISSA A ASPEN WILD CONDO ASSOC
101 MONTROSE ST 1242 N LAKE SHORE DR#4S' 101 E COOPER AVE
---;
MORGANTON,NC 28655 CHICAGO,IL 60610 s ASPEN,CO 81611
N(
:1n
CHART HOUSE PROJECT OWNER LLC HATCHER HUGH S Aj GROOS NICHOLAS D
0115 BOOMERANG RD#5201 B 205 E DURANT AVE APT 2E G31, 210 N INDUSTRIAL PARK RD
ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 I ' HASTINGS,MI 49058
ie
' L
RUDERMAN ERIC P&MIMI E BERHORST FAMILY REV TRUST 911 VANOVER STEFANIE KAI
3773 E CHERRY CREEK N DR#575 7161 LINDENMERE DR PO BOX 3394
DENVER,CO 802093825 BLOOMFIELD HILLS,MI 48301 ASPEN,CO 81612
N
THREE REEDS LLC LARRAC INV LLC SERIES H WOLPERT FAMILY REV TRUST
2224 VIA SEVILLE RD NW 840 FM 474 2280 KOHLER DR
ALBUQUERQUE,NM 87104-3096 BOERNE,TX 78006 BOULDER,CO 80305
� .
Peel'Address L,ii-Is Gotoavery.conviewplates
AVERY 5160
KAPLAN BARBARA JOHNSTON MARGARET S GILLUM ANNE
3076 EDGEWOOD RD 30 DEXTER ST 205 E DURANT ST#1 B
PEPPER PIKE,OH 44124 DENVER,CO 80220 ASPEN,CO 81611
CAIN CONSTANCE M&DOUGLAS M WINFIELD ARMS CONDO ASSOC PARRA KEVIN REV TRUST
1960 HUDSON ST 600 E HOPKINS AVE#203 75-1 HO'OLEI CIR
DENVER,CO 80220 ASPEN,CO 81611 WAILEA,HI 96753
MARK KENNETH A MAGES LAWRENCE M&MARY K COOPER ST LOFT CONDO ASSOC
10 KATH CT 216 LINDEN AVE COMMON AREA
SAYVILLE,NY 117821537 WILMETTE,IL 60091 ASPEN,CO 81611
ZAUNER HEINZ J REV TRUST HOMONY MICHAEL J ASPEN SKIING COMPANY LLC
0451 STAGECOACH LN 202 BLUE BONNET BLVD PO BOX 1248
CARBONDALE,CO 81623 SAN ANTONIO,TX 78209 A�PEN,CO 81612
DANCING BEAR PROJECT OWNER LLC LARKIN THOMAS&MARYANN PRODINGER IRMA
0115 BOOMERANG RD#5201 B 1 SHELDRAKE LN PO BOX 1245
ASPEN,CO 81611 PALM BEACH GARDENS,FL 33418-6820 ASPEN,CO 81612
WAYNE TIMOTHY&JILL C 306 S GARMISCH TOWNHOMES CONDO HANKIN STUART W&BRITNEY P
965 PEARL ST 16130 VENTURA BLVD#320 124 E DURANT AVE#7
DENVER,CO 80203 ENCINO,CA 91436 ASPEN,CO 81611
WOW LIFT ONE LLC KNAPP C EVAN REV TRUST WHITE JALEH REV TRUST
4824 E MARSTON DR 233 E COOPER AVE#WS-2 960 E DURANT AVE#7
PARADISE VALLEY,AZ 852534054 ASPEN,CO 81611-1821 ASPEN,CO 816112053
LEVY HELEN JOAN TRUST MESSNER CHRISTIAN ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY HOUSING AUTH 0.01
521 W 23RD ST APT 3F 119 E COOPER AVE#21 210 E HYMAN AVE#202
NEW YORK.NY 100111112 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611
DANCING BEAR RES OWNERS ASSOC INC VANOVER STEFANIE COX HEATHER J
411 S MONARCH ST PO BOX 3394 555 E DURANTI#4A
ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81611
BECKLEY KATHERINE PINES LODGE DEV LLC MARQUARDT HEIDI MARIE
100 EAST DEAN STREET 43A 2353 IRVINE AVE 1499 BLAKE ST#2A
ASPEN,CO 81611 NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92660 DENVER,CO 80202
Easy • • • /
Peel'Address
I,
MICHAEL ARTHUR&CINDY REV TRUST SILVERMAN MARC&MARILYN CASA KESS LLC
PO BOX 1006 937 DALE RD PO BOX 8442
BURLINGAME.CA 94011 MEADOWBROOK,PA 19046 .I0 ASPEN,CO 81612
SCHAYER CHARLES M III CHART HOUSE PROJECT OWNER LLC PATERSON JOHN
2601 S QUEBEC ST#17 0115 BOOMERANG RD#5201 B 88 GRANGE RD SANDRINGHAM
DENVER,CO 80231 ASPEN,CO 81611 MELBOURNE VICTORIA AUSTRALIA 3191,
WHITE JALEH REV TRUST GUBSER STEVEN S VISCONSI DOMINIC A JR
960 E DURANT AVE#7 3 QUEENSTON PL 30050 CHAGRIN BLVD#360
ASPEN,CO 816112053 PRINCETON,NJ 08540 CLEVELAND,OH 441245774
LLOYD ZOE W EXEMPT TRUST MWFLLC EVANS DAVID COURTNEY
PO BOX 1845 PO BOX 1026 PO BOX 952
WILSON,WY 83014 PALM BEACH,FL 33480 AjPEN,CO 81612
WOLF FAMILY TRUST BISSET KAREN 1 NELSON ARLENE
1221 MYRTLE AVE 6445 SENECA RD 119 E COOPER ST#6
SAN DIEGO,CA 92103 MISSION HILLS,KS 66208 ASPEN,CO 81611
HARLOW VIRGINIA TRUST FRY KATHERINE TYDEN FAMILY FARMS PTNP
0554 ESCALANTE t PO BOX 5082 19331 BEACH CLIFF BLVD
CARBONDALE,CO 81623 SNOWMASS VILLAGE,CO 816155082 ROCKY RIVER,OH 44116
PINES LODGE DEV LLC CHU FAMILY TRUST COOPER STREET LOFT #3 LLC
2353 IRVINE AVE 42 HILLSDALE DR 124 E COOPER AVE '
NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH,CA 926604234 ASPEN,CO 81611
LANE DAVID&PAIGE BOGIN ROBERT M JCS GARMISCH LLC
124 E DURANT AVE#2 4280 S MEADOW BROOK LN PO BOX 11636
ASPEN,CO 81611 EVERGREEN,CO 80439 ALEXANDRIA,LA 71315
WOODING PAMELA G CHAPLIN ARLENE&WAYNE DANCING BEAR RES OWNERS ASSOC INC
2601 SHELTINGHAM DR 54 LAGORCE CIR 411 S MONARPH ST
WELLINGTON,FL 33414 MIAMI BEACH,FL 33141 ASPEN,CO 81611
LIFT ONE LLC ILLINOIS AVE LLC COHEN JACK DAVID
24 LINDENWOOD LN 623 E HOPKINS AVE LLC 305 S ASPEN ST#3
LITTLETON,CO 80127 ASPEN.CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611
Go to averyxonl,�templates
Easy Pel,I'Acldres�-
BRAYMAN WALTER W TRUST 4120/17 DANCING BEAR RES OWNERS ASSOC INC TREMOLS LUCILA
844 ROCKWELL LN 411 S MONARCH ST 205 E DURANT AVE#3D
KANSAS CITY,MO 641122363 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611
SKY BLUE LLC JPL LLC COHN PETER L
5743 CORSA AVE#101 2201 E CAMELBACK RD#650 PO BOX 2138
WESTLAKE VILLAGE,CA 91362 PHOENIX,AZ 85016 ASPEN,CO 81612
SEVERY FAMILY TRUST SNOW QUEEN LODGE LLC PETERSEN CRISTINA CORTES
8815 YUBA CIR#1103B 124 E COOPER AVE MONTE CHIMBORAZO 559.3
HUNINGTON BEACH,CA 92646 ASPEN,CO 81611 MEXICO D F 11000,
CENTRAL VIEW TOWNHOMES CONDO PINES LODGE DEV LLC MACDONALD KENNETH HUGH REV TRUST
107 E HYMAN AVE 2353 IRVINE AVE 44 W HANNUM
ASPEN,CO 81611 NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92660 /GINAW,MI 48602
NORTH CAROLINA AVE LLC PENNSYLVANIA AVE LLC SLOAN SUSAN MARIE
623 E HOPKINS AVE 623 E HOPKINS AVE 500 S ORANGE AVE
ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 'SARASOTA,FL 342361
BULL RUN ENTERPRISES LLC SOUTH POINT CONDO ASSOC ONEAL SUSAN C
PO BOX 75 205 E DURANT AVE#3D 205 E DURANT AVE#1-1
CANADIAN,TX 79014 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611
PINES LODGE CONDO ASSOC DANCING BEAR RES OWNERS ASSOC INC MOP LLC
152 E DURANT AVE 411 S MONARCH ST 9101 ALTA DR#1801
ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 LAS VEGAS,NV 89145
HBN FAMILY TRUST DUNN DAVID&POLLY NEWMAN KERRY J&RICKI R
9420 WILSHIRE BLVD#400 611 S UPPER BROADWAY 617 PRINCE DR
BEVERLY HILLS,CA 90212 CORPUS CHRISTI,TX 78401 NEWBURGH,IN 47630
CHAPIN ANZLE TRUST LEE FRANCIS A III CHART HOUSE PROJECT OWNER LLC
1887 STILLWATER ST 706 NORMANDY 0115 BOOMER�NG RD#5201 B
ST PAUL,MN 55110-8507 MOORESVILLE,NC 28117 ASPEN,CO 81611
GUNION JOHN F FERAL VENTURE CAPITAL LLC CAYTON ANDREA TRUST
1004 MARINA CIR 6226 N RIVIERA DR 2379 EARLS CT
DAVIS,CA 95616 OKLAHOMA CITY,OK 73112 LOS ANGELES,CA 90077
I
I
�iN�1IlOHl�T
Easy Peel*Address Labels Go to avery.com/tem0ales
AVEPY •
LOFINO MICHAEL D JR DUPLEX INVESTMENTS LLC DANCING BEAR RES OWNERS ASSOC INC
100 E COOPER AVE APT 3 10601 N PENNSYLVANIA AVE 411 S MONARCH ST
ASPEN,CO 81611 OKLAHOMA CITY,OK 73120 ASPEN,CO 81611
CHART HOUSE PROJECT OWNER LLC CARSON LLC CHART HOUSE PROJECT OWNER LLC
0115 BOOMERANG RD#52016 1562 S 187TH CIR 0115 BOOMERANG RD#52016
ASPEN,CO 81611 OMAHA,NE 68130 ASPEN,CO 81611
SMITH FRANK FORD JR 8 KATHARINE LIND COHEN SANDRA IRREV TRUST TENNESSEE AVE LLC
2506 STRATFORD DR 6000 ISLAND BLVD#2608 623 E HOPKINS AVE
AUSTIN,TX 78746 AVENTURA,FL 33160 ASPEN,CO 81611
CJM INVESTMENTS LLC VORTEX INVESTMENTS LLC HOLDER STEPHANIE
1340 W HENDERSON ST#2W 15 W 6TH ST#2400 100 E COOPER AVE 45
CHICAGO,IL 60657 TULSA,OK 74119 AjPEN,CO 81611
DANCING BEAR RES CONDO ASSOC CHART HOUSE PROJECT OWNER LLC RINGSBY GRAY
411 S MONARCH ST 0115 BOOMERANG RD#52018 220 APUWAI ST
ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81611 'HAIKU,HI 967084821
GOLDREICH ELIZABETH&HILTON TRESTMAN EVAN F TRUST SCHUMACHER JENNIFER
2204 BRADBURY CT 111 VETERANS BLVD 91700 PO BOX 445
PLANO,TX 75093 METAIRIE,LA 70005 WOODY CREEK,CO 81656
PACIFIC AVE LLC CARRIGAN RICHARD A JR LIFT ONE CONDOMINIUM ASSOC
623 E HOPKINS AVE 2044 AUDUBON AVE#BT505' 131 E DURANT AVE
ASPEN,CO 81611 NAPERVILLE,IL 605635352 ASPEN,CO 81611
YOMAC MANAGEMENT LIMITED TIMBER RIDGE CONDO ASSOC KENT STACEY
410 GILES BLVD E 100 E DEAN ST 457 SCHOONER LN
WINDSOR ONTARIO CANADA N9A4C6, ASPEN,CO 81611 CARBONDALE,CO 81623
KNAPP MICHAEL P MARITAL TRUST SPAULDING RICHARD W&THOMPSON ELEi GREGORY NEIL MARTIN 8 LYNETTE
3516 GOODWOOD DR SE 200 WHEELER RD FL 2 100 E DEAN Sj#2C
GRAND RAPIDS,MI 49546 BURLINGTON,MA 018035501 ASPEN,CO 81611
SALISBURY JAN ETHRIDGE REV TRUST MICHAEL MELISSA MARY-SUE HUNT CHRISTINA
101 MONTROSE ST PO BOX 1006 28526 EVERGREEN MANOR DR
MORGANTON,NC 28655 BURLINGAME,CA 94011 EVERGREEN,CO 80439
•
L,isy Peul' Address Labels
ALVERY •
LOFINO MICHAEL D JR DUPLEX INVESTMENTS LLC DANCING BEAR RES OWNERS ASSOC INC
100 E COOPER AVE APT 3 10601 N PENNSYLVANIA AVE 411 S MONARCH ST
ASPEN,CO 81611 OKLAHOMA CITY,OK 73120 .00 ASPEN,CO 81611
CHART HOUSE PROJECT OWNER LLC CARSON LLC CHART HOUSE PROJECT OWNER LLC
0115 BOOMERANG RD#52018 1562 S 187TH CIR 0115 BOOMERANG RD#52018
ASPEN,CO 81611 OMAHA,NE 68130 ASPEN,CO 81611
SMITH FRANK FORD JR&KATHARINE LIND COHEN SANDRA IRREV TRUST TENNESSEE AVE LLC
2506 STRATFORD DR 6000 ISLAND BLVD#2608 623 E HOPKINS AVE
AUSTIN.TX 78746 AVENTURA,FL 33160 ASPEN,CO 81611
CJM INVESTMENTS LLC VORTEX INVESTMENTS LLC HOLDER STEPHANIE
1340 W HENDERSON ST 92W 15 W 6TH ST#2400 100 E COOPER AVE#5
CHICAGO.IL 60657 TULSA,OK 74119 AjPEN,CO 81611
DANCING BEAR RES CONDO ASSOC CHART HOUSE PROJECT OWNER LLC RINGSBY GRAY
411 S MONARCH ST 0115 BOOMERANG RD#5201 B 220 APUWAI ST
ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81611 'HAIKU,HI 967084821
GOLDREICH ELIZABETH&HILTON TRESTMAN EVAN F TRUST SCHUMACHER JENNIFER
2204 BRADBURY CT 111 VETERANS BLVD#1700 PO BOX 445
PLANO,TX 75093 METAIRIE,LA 70005 WOODY CREEK,CO 81656
PACIFIC AVE LLC CARRIGAN RICHARD A JR LIFT ONE CONDOMINIUM ASSOC
623 E HOPKINS AVE 2044 AUDUBON AVE#BT505' 131 E DURANT AVE
ASPEN,CO 81611 NAPERVILLE,IL 605635352 ASPEN,CO 81611
YOMAC MANAGEMENT LIMITED TIMBER RIDGE CONDO ASSOC KENT STACEY
410 GILES BLVD E 100 E DEAN ST 457 SCHOONER LN
WINDSOR ONTARIO CANADA N9A4C6, ASPEN,CO 81611 CARBONDALE,CO 81623
KNAPP MICHAEL P MARITAL TRUST SPAULDING RICHARD W&THOMPSON ELEF GREGORY NEIL MARTIN&LYNETTE
3516 GOODWOOD DR SE 200 WHEELER RD FL 2 100 E DEAN STI#2C
GRAND RAPIDS,MI 49545 BURLINGTON,MA 018035501 ASPEN,CO 81611
SALISBURY JAN ETHRIDGE REV TRUST MICHAEL MELISSA MARY-SUE HUNT CHRISTINA
i
101 MONTROSE ST PO BOX 1006 28526 EVERGREEN MANOR DR
MORGANTON,NC 28655 BURLINGAME,CA 94011 EVERGREEN,CO 80439
E.1sy Peet Address Labels Go toivery.corni�teiiiplziti-��-�
i
GILLESPIE JOHN E REV TRUST GEORGIEFF KATHERINE REV LVG TRUST WINFIELD ARMS CONDO ASSOC
775 GULFSHORE DR #4219 11 TOPPING LN 600 E HOPKINS AVE#203
DESTIN,FL 32541 ST LOUIS,MO 63131 ASPEN.CO 81611
DORNBUSCH ELLIOT&JESSICA NAPIHOLDINGS LLC RUMSEY LIVING TRUST
BISCAYNE BLVD#808 PO BOX 8907 1325 PACIFIC HWY#1902
AVENTURA,FL 33180 ASPEN,CO 81612 SAN DIEGO,CA 92101
CABELL JOSEPH TRUST GUTNER TODDI L GST DESC TRUST FOUR JLM LLC
1765 ALA MOANA BLVD 260 N DEERE PK DR 101 DESTIN LN
HONOLULU,HI 96815 HIGHLAND PARK,IL 60035 RIVER RIDGE,LA 70123
UHLFELDER FAMILY INVESTMENTS RLLP ROARING FORK RIVER MANAGEMENT LLC UNIFIED CREDIT TRUST
210 AABC#AA 1233 EDLIN PL 300 S POINTE DR#2403
ASPEN,CO 81611 MINNEAPOLIS,MN 55416 MIAMI BEACH,FL 33139
415 SOUTH ASPEN ST LLC SILBERMAN IAN R DANCING BEAR PROJECT OWNER LLC
162 WEST MEADOW DR#2 8182 MARYLAND AVE#801 0115 BOOMERANG RD#5201 B
VAIL,CO 81657 SAINT LOUIS,MO 63105 ASPEN,CO 81611
SKI TOWN GORSKI LLC SHAW ROBERT PENTHOUSE ONE&TWO LLC
9012 W 126TH ST ` 5408 BIRCHMAN AVE PO BOX 11980
PALOS PARK,IL 60464 FORT WORTH,TX 76107 ASPEN,CO 81611
SMITH NATHANIEL THOMAS ROSSI HALSTON A&TAYLOR R MAGES ELIZABETH J
706 NORMANDY 8135 RIDGEFIELD DR 1 2828 HARRISON ST
MOORESVILLE,NC 28117 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92646 EVANSTON,IL 60201
IMHOF FAMILY TRUST 210 COOPER CONDO ASSOC MOUNTAIN GETAWAY PROPERTIES LLC
2409 GREEN ST 210 E COOPER AVE 9 ISLAND AVE#2103
SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94123 ASPEN,CO 81611 MIAMI BEACH,FL 33139-1343
DANCING BEAR RES OWNERS ASSOC INC HBN FAMILY TRUST KULLGREN NANCY A
411 S MONARCH ST 9420 WILSHIRE BLVD#400 205 E DURANT AVE UNIT 2-C
ASPEN,CO 81611 BEVERLY HILLS,CA 90212 ASPEN,CO 81611
LACY ROANE M JR&ANN MINYARD CLYNE VICTORIA HEIM WILLIAM D
PO BOX 21625 7630 115TH PL NE 124 E DURANT AVE#1
WACO,TX 76702 KIRKLAND,WA 98033 ASPEN,CO 81611-1769
Go to�ivery.coiii,,tcinl)lziltr_-.s.
CHART HOUSE PROJECT OWNER LLC MCKENZIE PAIGE PARAVANO 201 EH INVESTMENTS LLC
0115 BOOMERANG RD#52018 4133 33RD RD NORTH 10880 WILSHIRE BLVD#2222
ASPEN,CO 81611 ARLINGTON,VA 22207 AO LOS ANGELES,CA 90024
LARRABEE DONALD C JR PINES LODGE DEV LLC 233 COOPER ASPEN LLC
1417 POTTER DR STE 105 2353 IRVINE AVE 1035 N DEARBORN ST FL 19
COLORADO SPRINGS,CO 80909 NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92660 CHICAGO,IL 60610
DANCING BEAR RES OWNERS ASSOC INC WELCH PATRICK T LIV TRUST 306 S GARMISCH TOWNHOMES CONDO
411 S MONARCH ST 121 KING ST 16130 VENTURA BLVD#320
ASPEN,CO 81611 LARKSPUR,CA 94939 ENCINO,CA 91436
TOWNE PLACE CONDO ASSOC FAULKNER JOHN L TAYLOR FAMILY PROP LLC
730 E DURANT AVE 2433 ROCKINGHAM ST 5920 E WATERFORD RD
ASPEN,CO 81611 ARLINGTON,VA 22207 ITRTFORD,WI 53027
TOMLINSON JAMES KAMINER NINA SILVER QUEEN LLC
457 SCHOONER LN 15 WILLIAM ST#D4 PO BOX 24540
CARBONDALE,CO 81611 NEW YORK,NY 10005 'OKLAHOMA CITY,OK173124
IMREM SUE GORDON REVOC TRUST CHART HOUSE PROJECT OWNER LLC LIFT ONE 105 LLC
1240 N LAKE SHORE DR#27B 0115 BOOMERANG RD#5201 B 7268 S TUCSON WY
CHICAGO, IL 60610 ASPEN,CO 81611 ENGLEWOOD,CO 80112
DANCING BEAR PROJECT OWNER LLC DUNN DAVID&POLLY SKI TOWN DONCER LLC
0115 BOOMERANG RD#5201B 611 S UPPER BROADWAY 7660 W 124TH PL
ASPEN,CO 81611 CORPUS CHRISTI,TX 78401 PALOS HEIGHTS,IL 60463
ELLIS PAUL DAVID HOLYOAKE LAURENCE M&COX HEATHER, LEE FRANCIS A
100 E DEAN ST #2F 555 E DURANT#4A 706 NORMANDY
ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 MOORESVILLE,NC 28117
NOBLE GUY T GOOD THUNDER CONDO ASSOC BRYAN HELEN
100 E DEAN ST#2A PO BOX 871 2011 LAKE SHARE DR
ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81612 AUSTIN,TX 78746
FUQUA ALVAH D JR&DIANNE L MONARCH ON THE PARK CONDO ASSOC DER BERGHOF CONDO ASSOC
446 LAKE SHORE DR 233 E COOPER AVE COMMON AREA
SUNSET BEACH,NC 28468 ASPEN,CO 81611 110 E COOPER AVE
ASPEN,CO 81611
AVERY 5160 :1 1
NORTH LAUDERDALE PETROLEUM LLC KEEFE MERRY L REV TRUST DATUSE LLC
6318 23RD ST NW 119 E COOPER#11 #1213 27 COMMERCIAL RD
BOCA RATON,FL 33434 ASPEN,CO 81611 NEWSTEAD QLD 4006 AUSTRALIA,
CHART HOUSE PROJECT OWNER LLC TAROCH HOLDINGS LTD SHEFFER BARBARA
0115 BOOMERANG RD#52018 315 E HYMAN AVE#305 PO BOX 2763
ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611-2909 BASALT,CO 81621
SOUTH POINT CONDO LLC KIKEN KENNETH MARK CORKSCREW LLC
150 N MARKET 1499 BLAKE ST#2A PO BOX 24540
WICHITA,KS 67202 DENVER,CO 80202 OKLAHOMA CITY,OK 73124
KAUFMAN STEVEN TRUST SEVERY CHARLES LAMB JOBE MARCIA
0554 ESCALANTE 30 DEXTER ST PO BOX M-3
CARBONDALE,CO 81623 DENVER,CO 80220 `PEN,CO 81612
CHART HOUSE PROJECT OWNER LLC MOLLICONI CHARLES A ASPENIPITKIN COUNTY HOUSING AUTH 0.01
0115 BOOMERANG RD#5201 B 119 E COOPER 410 210 E HYMAN AVE 9202
ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 I
SIMPSON JANET MARIE VANDER WALL ASSET PRO TRUST PINES LODGE DEV LLC
233 E COOPER AVE#205 PO BOX 189 2353 IRVINE AVE
ASPEN,CO 81611 LONE PINE,CA 935450189 NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92660
CASPER MARY LYNN JODIS MELISSA GUBSER CHARLES C
124 E DURANT AVE#8 119 E COOPER AVE#1 26 HINTERLINDENWEG
ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN.CO 81611 REINACH SL 4153 SWITZERLAND,
PAY-ASE PROPERTIES LLC FEINBERG HELEN HOUGH LARKIN FRED C SPOUSAL TRUST
4888 DAVIS BLVD STE 284 2701 SUNSET WAY ONE COVE LN
NAPLES,FL 34104 ST PETE BEACH,FL 33706 BOW MAR,CO 80123
CHART HOUSE PROJECT OWNER LLC GOZON BENJAMIN&HEIDI Z LVG TRUST TRENTLY TRUST
0115 BOOMERANG RD#52018 8606 W FREISTAOT RD 311 S MAPLETPN DR
ASPEN,CO 81611 MEQUON,WI 53097 LOS ANGELES,CA 90024
CROCKETT RUFUS ALPINE PETROLEUM LLC LEATHERMAN ROBERT D
PO BOX 3837 435 E MAIN ST PO BOX 11930
ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81612
FARR BRUCE K&GAIL H WARREN MATTHEW L LLOYD JAMES QTIP TRUST
589 SOCIETY HILL CIR 2022 BASELINE DR PO BOX 1845
THE VILLAGES,FL 321626128 GRAND JUNCTION,CO 81507 WILSON,WY 83014
FELDMAN SELMA LORING PETER&ELIZABETH S DANCING BEAR RES CONDO ASSOC
300 S POINTE DR#2403 230 CONGRESS ST 411 S MONARCH ST
MIAMI BEACH,FL 331397329 BOSTON,MA 02110 ASPEN,CO 81612
CLAUSEN FAMILY TRUST#1 ROSE JON E&RITA L PINES LODGE DEV LLC
PO BOX 685 333 TRISMEN TER 2353 IRVINE AVE
MORRIS,IL 60450 WINTER SPRINGS,FL 32789 NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92660
COOPER TWO LLC PARKER RICHARD C&KAREN S BRIGHT GALEN
950 HILL RD 3029 BAKER MDWS SE 205 E DURANT AVE#3D
WINNETKA,IL 60093 ATLANTA,GA 303394814 ASPEN,CO 81611
GREINER JERRY M&TERESA U CHART HOUSE PROJECT OWNER LLC 119 E COOPER UNIT 5 LLC
323 HOLMECREST RD 0115 BOOMERANG RD#52018 119 E COOPER AVE#5
JENKINTOWN,PA 19046 ASPEN,CO 81611 'ASPEN,CO 81611
COOPER STREET LOFT#4 LLC MACDONALD VALERIE JACOBSON FAMILY TRUST
124 E COOPER AVE PO BOX 1681 3237 SUMMER WIND LN#1424
ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81612 LITTLETON,CO 80129
VANTONGEREN LIDIA CHART HOUSE PROJECT OWNER LLC LU NANCY CHAO TRUST
2000 E 12TH AVE BOX 8 0115 BOOMERANG RD#520116 15 ANSON RD
DENVER,CO 80206 ASPEN,CO 81611 HILLSBOROUGH,CA 94010
SEVERN RICHARD L PURVIS ROBERT K TRUST DANCING BEAR RES OWNERS ASSOC INC
30 DEXTER ST PO BOX 3089 411 S MONARCH ST
DENVER,CO 80220 ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81611
KAISER HARRIS FAMILY TRUST OTT JOHN&CAROL SOUTH POINT CONDO ASSOC
12942 CHALON RD 129 LITTLE ELK CREEK AVE PO BOX 4100 I
LOS ANGELES,CA 90049 SNOWMASS,CO 81654-9318 BASALT,CO 81621
LIFT ONE CONDOMINIUM ASSOC 306 S GARMISCH TOWNHOMES CONDO RUMSEY DANIEL W SEP PROP TRUST
131 E DURANT AVE 16130 VENTURA BLVD#320 1325 PACIFIC HWY#1902
ASPEN,CO 81611 ENCINO,CA 91436 SAN DIEGO,CA 92101
AVERY 7
L-- I r ric-1 x!;jIof ILI if fit? liso Aveiv vmr')Iml�5 160
ASPEN WILD LLC PASCHALL BARBARA ROARING FORK PROPERTIES
POINTE MILOU GRAND CARENAGE#11 6918 LUPTON DR N 9242 SOUTH SHORE DR
97133 SAINT BARTHELEMY DALLAS,TX 75225 EAST TROY,WI 55120
FRENCH WEST INDIES,
KOSTER DEREK N OFM HOLDINGS LP NOBLE STEVE TRAYLOR JR
100 E DEAN ST #2E PO BOX 541208 542 N IRVING BLVD
ASPEN,CO 81611 DALLAS,TX 75354 LOS ANGELES,CA 90004
POPKIN PHILIP G MCKENZIE BART BRYAN SCHAYER JANET A
PO BOX 7956 4840 30TH ST 900 KINSEY AVE
ASPEN,CO 81612 ARLINGTON,VA 22207 KREMMLING,CO 80459
PITNER N KATHRYN WINDLE BRIAN ASPEN TOWNHOUSES CENTRAL
PO BOX 11930 7630 115TH PL NE COMMON AREA
ASPEN,CO 81612 KIRKLAND.WA 98033 124 E DURANT AVE
ASPEN,CO 81611
GINSBURG ANNE C&ROBERT B HANSEN JULIA S TRUST PRENTICE GWYN A
11206 BOCA WOODS LN 255 SEASPRAY AVE 2001 SHAWNEE MISSION PKY
BOCA RATON,FL 33428 PALM BEACH,FL 33480 SHAWNEE MISSION,IkS 66205
CZAJKOWSKI MICHAEL&SANDRA J HBN FAMILY TRUST YEWER ELISABETH B
2701 MIDLAND AVE#111 9420 WILSHIRE BLVD 4TH FLR 6259 HWY 83
GLENWOOD SPRINGS,CO 81601 BEVERLY HILLS,CA 90212 CHENEQUA,WI 53029
HOTEL DURANT JRD 2004 IRREV TRUST SINGER JEFFREY S
122 E DURANT 510 BERING DR#455 8182 MARYLAND AVE#801
ASPEN,CO 81611 HOUSTON,TX 77057 SAINT LOUIS,MO 63105
INDIANA AVE LLC MURRAY EDWARD M JR&MELISSA A ATTERBURY ANDREW L
623 E HOPKINS AVE 498 WOODBRIDGE WY 2001 SHAWNEE MISSION PKY
ASPEN,CO 81611 DURANGO,CO 81301 SHAWNEE MISSION,KS 66205
AVERITT DON R GLISMANN JOHN P TOWNE PLACE OF ASPEN CONDO ASSOC M
6918 LUPTON 681 SOPRIS MOUNTAIN RANCH RD 200 E DURANT�AVE
DALLAS,TX 75225 BASALT,CO 81621 ASPEN,CO 81611
CARRUTHERS MARILYN
101 E COOPER #301
ASPEN,CO 81611
Etiquettesd'adresse Easy Peel
THE CITY OF ASPEN
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, CO 81611
p: (970) 920.5000
f: (970) 920.5197
w:www.aspenpitkin.com
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
135 E. Cooper Avenue
Public Hearing: 4:30 p.m., Wednesday, July 25, 2018
Meeting Location: City Hall, City Council Chambers
130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, CO 81611
Project Location: 135 E. Cooper Avenue
Legal Description: Lots H and I, and the easterly 5 feet of Lot G, Block 70, City and
Townsite of Aspen, PID#2735-131-04-003.
Description: The applicant requests Minor Development approval, a floor area
bonus, a west sideyard setback variation and a combined sideyard
setback variation for a remodel and addition at the northwest
corner of the property.
Land Use Reviews: Minor Development, Floor Area Bonus, Variation
Decision Making Body: Historic Preservation Commission
Applicant: CHRISPAT Aspen LLC, 1107 Fifth Avenue, #3S, New York, NY 10128
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.
Published in the Aspen Times on July 5,2018