HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20180926
AGENDA
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
September 26, 2018
4:30 PM City Council Meeting Room
130 S Galena Street, Aspen
I. SITE VISITS- PLEASE VISIT THE SITES ON YOUR OWN
II. 4:30 INTRODUCTION
A. Roll call
B. Draft minutes for August 22nd
C. Public Comments
D. Commissioner member comments
E. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent)
F. Project Monitoring
G. Staff comments
H. Certificate of No Negative Effect issued
I. Submit public notice for agenda items
J. Call-up reports
K. HPC typical proceedings
III. 4:45 OLD BUSINESS
A. 4:45 304 E. Hopkins Avenue- Demolition, Conceptual Major Development
Review, Conceptual Commercial Design Review, Transportation and Parking
Management, Growth Management, CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
IV. NEW BUSINESS
A. 211 W. Main Street, Minor Development Review and Setback Variation,
CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING TO NOVEMBER 14
V. 5:30 ADJOURN
Next Resolution Number: #15
TYPICAL PROCEEDING- 1 HOUR, 10 MINUTES FOR MAJOR AGENDA ITEM, NEW
BUSINESS
Provide proof of legal notice (affidavit of notice for PH)
Staff presentation (5 minutes)
Board questions and clarifications (5 minutes)
Applicant presentation (20 minutes)
Board questions and clarifications (5 minutes)
Public comments (close public comment portion of hearing) (5 minutes)
Applicant Rebuttal
Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed (5 minutes)
HPC discussion (15 minutes)
Motion (5 minutes)
*Make sure the motion includes what criteria are met or not met.
No meeting of the HPC shall be called to order without a quorum consisting of at least four (4)
members being present. No meeting at which less than a quorum shall be present shall conduct
any business other than to continue the agenda items to a date certain. All actions shall require
the concurring vote of a simple majority, but in no event less than three (3) concurring votes of
the members of the commission then present and voting.
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 25, 2018
1
Commissioners in attendance: Jeffrey Halferty, Scott Kendrick, Nora Berko, Roger Moyer. Absent were
Gretchen Greenwood, Willis Pember, Richard Lai, Bob Blaich and Sheri Sanzone.
Staff present:
Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk
Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney
Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer
Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner
Ben Anderson, Planner
Trish Aragon, City Engineer
Brian Long, Open Space and Trails Supervisor
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mr. Moyer motioned to approve, Ms. Berko seconded. All in favor, motion
carried.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Ms. Berko asked what is going on with Poppie’s at 834 W. Hallam. Ms.
Simon said we expect them to proceed with their affordable housing project once permits are issued.
DISCLOSURES OF CONFLICT: None.
PROJECT MONITORING: St. Mary’s front porch
Amy Simon
Ms. Simon said the building didn’t have a stoop previously and HPC did approve a modification of the
porch. The applicant would like to keep the existing metal shingles instead of changing it to a wood
shingle. Ms. Simon didn’t want the project monitoring team to make the decision since it’s a departure
from what has been proposed so the full board needs to give input. Staff are recommending against
leaving the metal shingles in place. Ms. Simon feels that the wood is important to add to the porch.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Marina Skiles of Charles Cunniffe Architects and Father John Hilton
Ms. Skiles said the reason for requesting change is twofold. First, we felt that keeping the metal shingles
would keep things more harmonious with the building. She showed a picture that was taken earlier in
the day, which reflected the relationship between the existing church and canopy. Father Hilton said
this is also for fire safety reasons and the church is owned by the arch diocese of Denver and they have
asked to keep this metal, so it is important to follow their requests. Ms. Skiles said if there was a fire on
the front porch, we would be putting people’s lives in danger.
PUBLIC COMMENT: John Kelleher - member of the parish for 45 years. He said he is in favor of the
shingles and not in favor of the wood shingles. The existing aluminum shingles are great. Likes them far
and away better as far as maintenance is concerned and he doesn’t like the fire hazard of the wood.
Ms. Berko mentioned HPC approving wood shingles and asked why, at the time, that was ok. Ms. Skiles
said it was ok until the insurance situation became a new development. Mr. Kelleher did some research
P1
II.B.
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 25, 2018
2
on shingles and the unification of the porch to the rest of the structure is not something we previously
considered.
Mr. Moyer pointed out that the church was redone in the 50’s when they put the metal shingles on.
From a historic standpoint, the metal shingles are historic.
Mr. Halferty said that on a humanistic scale, the church is part of the fabric of Main Street and we’ve
gone through a lot of staff and monitors on this project. Since it is a historic building across the street
from a lot of new construction, he tends to side with staff’s recommendation.
Mr. Moyer said if the church were to put on a new roof, our requirements would be that it stay original.
Ms. Simon asked if it is time to reroof, if it could potentially be wood and said it’s raising some structural
questions and the shingles would have to be fire treated. She said she is not sure if the diocese is aware
of that. Mr. Moyer said for insurance reasons, they will drop this because fire retardants only last about
a year in this environment.
Ms. Skiles said the porch is not sprinkled and Ms. Simon asked if we could extend that out there and Ms.
Skiles said everything is buttoned up at this point and it isn’t reasonable. She continued to say the
church was originally built with wood shingles and the snow was being retained instead of falling off and
that is why they put on the metal shingles on for a slippery surface. The building, as is, barely meets
structural code, which means it won’t retain snow. Snow clips wouldn’t work on the roof structurally
either because the building just can’t handle it, but there is a snow guard up there right now.
Ms. Simon mentioned that the sidewalk has also been moved away from the building to avoid snow
coming at people.
Mr. Kelleher mentioned that he went into the new county building and looking out from Cindy Houben’s
office, the roof on St. Mary’s looks amazing and said it wouldn’t look good if it were brown.
Mr. Kendrick said he isn’t against the metal material.
Ms. Berko said she believes there is a character to the resource that we need to respect which is why we
approved wood in the first place.
Mr. Moyer mentioned that the porch was never there originally and isn’t a historical part of the church.
He has an issue in the modern world of safety and said he is ok with metal. We’re not really changing
anything. He mentioned they also had this dilemma with Mrs. Paepcke’s house and how it’s perceived.
He said a class A shingle wouldn’t look so appropriate and he’s in agreement with the metal. It’s in the
city right of way and due to safety, he is in support of the change.
Ms. Berko said HPC’s purview is to keep what is historic, but she can’t argue with Mr. Moyer’s point.
MOTION: Mr. Kendrick motioned to amend the existing approval for wood, Mr. Moyer seconded. Roll
call vote: Mr. Kendrick, yes; Ms. Berko, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes. 4-0, motion carried.
STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon said she will be leaving shortly for her high school senior and said Ben
Anderson will handle the presentation regarding way finding.
CERTIFICATES OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: None.
P2
II.B.
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 25, 2018
3
PUBLIC NOTICE: Ms. Bryan said she has it and it’s good.
CALL UPS: None.
STAFF PRESENTATION: Ben Anderson, Trish Aragon & Brian Long
Mr. Anderson said this is the very first presentation on this idea and they are going to be presenting to a
lot of different groups moving forward.
Ms. Aragon said it’s confusing for visitors when they are here to get around and find things and this is
based on feedback received from a 2016 survey. Council suggested we need a better way to direct
people in town and that is how this idea was born.
Mr. Long said we have a fantastic trail system, but unless you actively use it and live here, it’s hard for
people to find and figure out. The project is aimed at the tourists and visitors to town; particularly in the
core. It will be aesthetically pleasing to place in the downtown landscape, the Gondola Plaza, John
Denver sanctuary etc. Ms. Aragon agreed that it’s a walkable and bikeable town, but only if you know
where you’re going.
DESIGN PRESENTATION: Ross Burdekin, KK Closuit & Stephanie Wills of RSM Design
Mr. Burdekin said he and Ms. Wills work in Boulder together, but the company originates from
California. He said they are creating a strategy behind a design program and are looking at palates and
for a certain direction. To start, they are defining and understanding who Aspen is. Our goals are to
create directions to key landmarks and city amenities with a focus on pedestrian and bike directional
while highlighting community assets. This isn’t just about navigating to businesses around town; we
want to provide safety within this and it would be a critical element. As a secondary element, we want
to elevate the brand of Aspen and there is a subtle way that we can do that. This would not be a
clashing of element, but a coming together. Carmel is a good reference because you get a nice blend of
outdoor activity with cultural elements similar to Aspen. This is a very outdoor driven population. A
final reference would be to Jackson, Wyoming, which is also a very similar type of town. The idea here
would be to create a clear and easily understandable system. We will work hard to make it authentic
and want the signs to be relevant and apply to the history and the future of the city, which will combine
the history with current day and stand the test of time while creating a cohesive system.
Mr. Burdekin said they want to divide areas up into districts, such as the downtown core area, periphery
mountain green area, neighborhood in purple and then everything else, which they showed in color
code on screen. He then presented various ideas for parks, trails, crosswalks, sidewalks, etc.
Mr. Anderson said we want to know how the system might work. 1. Destinations – identifying some
major destination points. 2. Getting to places are that are most essential, such as, the Hopkins street
corridor, the Hallam street corridor, the pedestrian mall and key tourists destinations, such as, the
gondola plaza, Rio Grande park, the Aspen Institute, parks and trails.
Mr. Halferty said Ruby park and the Rio Grande parking garage might be added to this list. He also
doesn’t think we should litter up the west end with kiosks.
P3
II.B.
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 25, 2018
4
Ms. Berko agree with Mr. Halferty. It sounds very much like it should be on an app and not on a sign.
This would be great for an app instead of hundreds of signs around town.
Mr. Kendrick said it’s overwhelming the number of signs we already have in town so adding signs isn’t
the answer.
Mr. Halferty said that safety and health and wellness of pedestrians is important, but he doesn’t think it
should be too urban. A lot of those people still pull out the old maps and that’s the old romantic in me.
It’s very logical what you’re doing, so keep this simple and don’t clutter. He likes the app idea without
any signage or clutter. Personally, he is concerned with how it reflects to our history. Your purview
needs to address this day and not how we did it 50 years ago, but still tie in the history. It’s a fine line
for him.
Mr. Burdekin said the issue is moving people from one destination to another. It’s about moving people,
not identifying spaces. We don’t need another layer of that, we’re just recommending tying everything
together here. We want to create one comprehensive system for signs and a style that ties everything
together. The app is a great system for certain people, but not everyone wants to use that. We want
people to engage in the environment and find their way. It’s ok to wander and explore and get lost.
Mr. Moyer said you have to consider why people come here. He thinks they’re on the right track. Don’t
leave out other places people come to visit, such as, houses, cemeteries, mines, etc. Right now, all of
our signs are all different and submit to messy vitality. We need some serious thought about that and
the history of the community. There are specific design elements of the signs.
Mr. Halferty commented that the current signage for cycling is great. It has effectively been done
perfectly. There are different types of signs and graphics on the street and it’s a simple way to make us
more transit and bike friendly.
Mr. Moyer asked them if they do apps and Mr. Burdekin said yes, we do, but it’s not currently a part of
this scope. It certainly could be addressed at some point. When we decide on a type of sign, it will tie
into the app so it’s recognizable. Ms. Wills said they find that a lot of people don’t download apps
anymore and if you’ve got google, why do you need an app? How do we tie these together when we
can’t see a huge component of this being used? People don’t want QR codes anymore. It was a tool
and it’s slowly phasing out.
Mr. Moyer asked if the crosswalk brandings work and Mr. Burdekin said they do several things, like, slow
down traffic. While you’re standing and waiting, you’re looking up and engaging in the environment. Mr.
Moyer asked if there are any negative comments regarding polluting to landscape. Mr. Burdekin said it
depends on the environment. We design the graphic to blend it so it feels like part of the place, so we
don’t get any complaints if it’s done right.
Mr. Moyer motioned to adjourn, Mr. Kendrick seconded. All in favor, motion carried.
________________________________
Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk
P4
II.B.
C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\FFD07B6B-0F3F-
471F-B017-57B4303A7DCE\14762.doc
9/20/2018
HPC PROJECT MONITORS- projects in bold are under construction
Nora Berko 1102 Waters
602 E. Hyman
210 S. First
333 W. Bleeker
51 Meadows Road
Bob Blaich Lot 2, 202 Monarch Subdivision
232 E. Bleeker
609 W. Smuggler
209 E. Bleeker
300 E. Hyman, Crystal Palace
128 E. Main, Sardy House
Gretchen Greenwood 1280 Ute
124 W. Hallam
411 E. Hyman
300 E. Hyman, Crystal Palace
101 W. Main, Molly Gibson Lodge
201 E. Main
834 W. Hallam
Willis Pember 305/307 S. Mill
534 E. Cooper
210 W. Main
Jeff Halferty 980 Gibson
232 E. Main
541 Race Alley
208 E. Main
533 E. Main
303 E. Main
517 E. Hopkins
Roger Moyer 500 W. Main
223 E. Hallam
Richard Lai 122 W. Main
Scott Kendrick 533 E. Main
303 E. Main
517 E. Hopkins
Sheri Sanzone 135 E. Cooper
Need to assign:
134 W. Hopkins
422/434 E. Cooper
529-535 E. Cooper, Stein Building
420 E. Hyman
110 W. Main, Hotel Aspen
301 Lake
P5
II.F.
Page 1 of 7
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer
MEETING DATE: September 26, 2018
RE: 304 E. Hopkins Avenue- Demolition, Conceptual Major Development
Review, Conceptual Commercial Design Review, Transportation and Parking
Management, Growth Management, CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICANT /OWNER:
Hillstone Restaurant Group
REPRESENTATIVE:
BendonAdams
LOCATION:
Street Address:
304 E. Hopkins Avenue
Legal Description:
Units 1-5, the Seguin Building
Condominiums, City and
Townsite of Aspen, Colorado
Parcel Identification Number(s):
2737-073-75-001 to -005,
2737-073-75-800
CURRENT ZONING & USE
Commercial Core (CC)
Commercial space and 2 studio
affordable housing units
PROPOSED LAND USE:
Commercial
SUMMARY:
The Applicant requests HPC approval to demolish the
existing development, construct a new one story
commercial building with full basement, and mitigate for the
existing AH units with Affordable Housing Credits. The project
has been continued twice for restudy. The applicant has
provided a revised design to address this feedback.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval with conditions.
Figure 1. Site Locator Map
P6
III.A.
Page 2 of 7
BACKGROUND:
304 E. Hopkins is a 3,015 sq. ft. lot located in the Commercial Core (CC) zone district. The structure
currently on the property was originally built in the 1980s and is a two-story commercial building
with a basement. The building also contains two deed-restricted studio affordable housing units.
The property is not designated historic, but is located within the Commercial Core Historic District,
giving HPC purview over any development.
REQUEST OF HPC:
• Demolition of a structure within a historic district
Chapter 26.415.080, demolition of a structure in the Commercial Core Historic District
• Major Development - Conceptual
Chapter 26.415.070.D, new development on a property in the Commercial Core Historic
District
• Commercial Design Review - Conceptual
Chapter 26.412.040, commercial development requiring a building permit. Includes
review of Pedestrian Amenity and Second Tier Commercial Space.
• Growth Management- Demolition of multi-family housing
Chapter 26.470, demolition of two existing deed-restricted studio affordable housing units.
Please note that though the property sits within the Main Street view plane, the proposed
development occurs below the view plane, therefore review is not applicable.
HPC is the final authority on this land use review, however any Conceptual approval granted will
be subject notice and call-up by City Council.
PROJECT SUMMARY:
The Applicant is interested in demolishing the existing development on the site and constructing
a new one-story commercial building with a full basement. The new building will have an internal
connection to the White House Tavern (302 E. Hopkins) on the ground level. The Applicant
proposes to mitigate for the two existing affordable housing units with Affordable Housing Credits.
Gross Lot Size 3,015 sf
CC maximum Existing Proposed
Density (FAR) 2.25:1 TBD 0.9:1
Floor area 6,783 sq. ft. TBD 2,780 sq. ft.
Height 28 ft. 22 ft. 18 ft. 9 1/2 in.
P7
III.A.
Page 3 of 7
CC maximum Existing Proposed
Setbacks
None required Front: 14 ft. 8 in.
Rear: 0 ft.
Side: 0 ft.
Front: 13 ft. 7 1/2 in.
Rear: 0 ft.
Side: 0 ft.
Commercial Net
Leasable
No limit 4,782 sq. ft. 3,888 sq. ft.
Housing Units 2 Deed
Restricted
Studios
None proposed
(2.5 FTEs Housing Credits)
Parking
(varies by unit
configuration)
1 parking unit per
1,000 sq. ft. net
leasable space
0 parking units
(A deficit of 4.78
parking units)
0 parking units
(The 3.88 required parking units
to be mitigated with cash-in-
lieu)
Second Tier
Commercial
The greater of
equal to 50%
existing second
tier space or 20%
total net leasable
3,177 sq. ft. 1,807 sq. ft.
(57% of existing)
Pedestrian Amenity 25% of lot size,
equal to 754 sq.
ft.
833 sq. ft. 378 sq. ft. (50.1% of requirement,
with the balance as cash-in-lieu)
Table 1. Existing and Proposed Dimensions
At the two previous HPC reviews of this project, continuations resulted due to concerns about the
relationship of the new building to the street, and differing opinions about on-site, vs. off-site
affordable housing. At the July 25th meeting, HPC continued to identify conflicts with the design
guidelines, but determined that on-site housing was not feasible.
The applicant has re-visited the design of the façade and patio in front of the building in a number
of ways, including changing the proposed pitched roof porch on the front of the structure to a
flat canopy. This has increased the visibility of the street-facing windows improving the
relationship between the building and the pedestrian, as requested by staff and the board. The
detailing of the masonry façade has been restudied to reference historic structures in downtown
Aspen. The building has been moved forward as far as possible without being proud of the historic
building at 302 E. Hopkins. While staff had promoted an effort to align some portion of the façade
with the lot line, and to enclose the stair to the basement level space, the applicant has made
design adjustments, such as additional windows on the façade and design interest around the
stairwell, that have sufficiently addressed the staff concerns.
Attached to this memo are Exhibits A-C identifying the applicable review criteria and design
guidelines, and the staff responses.
P8
III.A.
Page 4 of 7
The following topics are addressed as conditions of approval and should be discussed by HPC:
1. Design Standard Variations. The proposed project requires variations from the following
Standards of the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Standards and
Guidelines. As a reminder to HPC, standards must be met unless a variation is allowed.
Guidelines have flexibility.
In order to grant a variation from a Standard, HPC must find that the variation, if granted,
would
PA1.5 This standard requires street level Pedestrian Amenity to be open to the sky. A
covering, like the proposed porch roof, requires HPC approval. Staff did not support
the previous pitched roof porch but does support the fixed canopy, which provides
some shelter to the front patio without hiding the storefront windows from view.
PA1.6 This standard requires meaningful street level space that is useful, versatile, and
accessible. Staff supports the front patio design finding that it will be an actively used
space and is of a reasonable depth in relationship to the setback of 302 E. Hopkins.
2.1: This standard requires a minimum of 50% of the first floor building façade to be placed
at the property line. The proposed design is a one-story building above grade, with the
entire façade set back 13’7”. from the property line. Staff had initially recommended
between 25-50% of the front façade be set at the property line, particularly on the
eastern portion of the building. Shifting the building forward and redesigning the porch
and windows will provide great interaction between pedestrians and the activity in the
restaurant, meeting the intent of this design standard.
2.9: This standard requires primary entrances to be recessed a minimum of 4 ft. from the
front façade. The proposed design places the primary entrance on the same plane as
the front façade. This standard is more relevant for larger buildings located on the
property line in order to help define the entry and reinforce an existing rhythm of
recessed entries. Staff is supportive of a variation from this standard. An additional
setback of the entry door is not appropriate.
1. Provide an alternative design approach that meets the overall intent of
the standard. The reviewing board shall consider the appropriateness of the
design features, building elements, and existing neighborhood context to
determine that the exception is appropriate; or
2. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-
specific constraints.
P9
III.A.
Page 5 of 7
2.11: This standard requires a floor-to-ceiling height of 12-15 ft. for the first floor, which may
be dropped to 9 ft. after the first 25 ft of building depth. The proposed design has a
floor-to-ceiling height of 12 ft. for the first 40 ft. of the building, then drops to 8 ft. 4 in.
The area where the height drops is primarily back of house operations where floor-to-
ceiling height is less important to the public experience of the commercial space. Staff
supports a variation from this standard. The variation is only necessary related to the
ceiling height at the rear of the structure, where there is limited public access and
visibility.
Previously, staff also identified a number of flexible design guidelines which did not appear
to be met. The conflicts involved the large planters once proposed at the front of the patio,
materials, fenestration and proportion of the façade. Staff finds the redesign has brought
the project into compliance with the flexible guidelines.
2. 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. New development requires that 25% of the lot area be provided as
public amenity space. This lot is 3,015 sq. ft., therefore requiring 754 sq. ft. of pedestrian
amenity space. The Applicant is proposing a combination of cash-in-lieu and a 378 square
feet open area on the south side of the property to meet the requirement. HPC may
approve any combination of methods to meet the requirement including on-site, off-site,
cash-in-lieu (not exceeding 50% of the requirement without Council approval), and other
alternative methods.
Staff supports the applicants amended proposal to provide a minimum amount of
Pedestrian Amenity on-site (378 square feet or 50.1%, with cash-in-lieu payment of the
balance of 376 square feet or 49.9%).
3. Second Tier Commercial Space. Second Tier Commercial Space is a newly defined type
of commercial space which, by virtue of its location in areas of a building without direct
access and street presence, has typically provided opportunities for a variety of
businesses. This type of space has been determined to be declining through
redevelopment and so a new requirement to preserve a certain amount of Second Tier
Spaces in any redevelopment was adopted. For this project, the application identifies the
existing Second Tier space in the basement and second floor and proposes to retain
approximately 57% that amount of net leasable area in the basement.
Street facing access to this space is required and staff had indicated at the earlier hearings
that the dark stairwell to the basement level was neither contributing to the streetscape
nor promoting the presence of the second business. The applicant’s restudy of
P10
III.A.
Page 6 of 7
fenestration, architectural details and future signage has improved the design and has staff
support.
4. Affordable Housing Mitigation. There are two deed-restricted studio units in the existing
development. The demolition of deed-restricted multi-family housing requires the
replacement of the same number of full-time equivalents (FTEs) housed by the existing
units. Each studio unit houses 1.25 FTEs for a total of 2.5 FTEs requiring replacement. The
Code requires these units to be replaced on site unless HPC determines that replacement
of the units on site would be in conflict with the parcel’s zoning or would be an
inappropriate solution due to the site’s physical constraints.
The potential for on-site housing has been analyzed by the applicant and discussed at
length by HPC. It has been accepted that an upper floor is challenging on this property
and has some undesirable effects on the massing of the building and the usability of the
ground floor. Affordable housing credits are recommended.
Because the existing building contains mandatory occupancy deed restricted units that
the applicant has chosen to take off-line due to their deteriorated condition, Community
Development requires that mitigation for the units be provided as soon as possible.
Typically credits are due at the time of building permit. Since permit application could be
delayed for years, depending on the applicant’s plans, the attached resolution includes a
condition that the credits be submitted within 6 months after the conclusion of Conceptual
Review and Call-up.
5. Trash Area. The Applicant proposes to combine the trash area of the new construction
with the existing trash area for 302 E. Hopkins.
The applicant has developed plans that are acceptable to Environmental Health. No
further discussion by HPC is needed.
REFERRAL COMMENTS:
The attached Exhibit D is a summary of the Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting held
to receive input from affected City Departments. The most impactful comments were from
Building and Environmental Health. It appears that these concerns have since been resolved
through internal adjustments to the project.
Engineering has a number of requirements related to the sidewalk in front of the property and
Stormwater management.
Staff has included a condition of approval that the applicant continue to resolve any referral
comments to the extent possible prior to Final Review. Ultimately, if project revisions are required
P11
III.A.
Page 7 of 7
during building permit review, the applicant could have to return to staff and monitor or HPC for
an Amendment.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval with conditions listed in the attached draft Resolution.
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution #___, Series of 2018
Exhibit A- Demolition Review Criteria/Staff Findings
Exhibit B- HPC Major Development and Commercial Design Review Criteria/Staff Findings
Exhibit C- Growth Management Review Criteria/Staff Findings
Exhibit D- Development Review Committee Referral Comments
Exhibit E- APCHA referral comment
Exhibit F- Updated Application
Exhibit G- Original Application
P12
III.A.
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVING
DEMOLITION, CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT, CONCEPTUAL COMMERCIAL DESIGN,
TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING MANAGEMENT, AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT FOR 304
E. HOPKINS AVENUE, UNITS 1-5, THE SEGUIN BUILDING CONDOMINIUMS, CITY AND
TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO
RESOLUTION #__, SERIES OF 2018
PARCEL ID: 2737-073-75-001 to -005,
2737-073-75-800
WHEREAS, the applicant, Hillstone Restaurant Group, represented by BendonAdams,
submitted an application requesting Demolition, Conceptual Major Development,
Conceptual Commercial Design, Transportation and Parking Management, and Growth
Management approval for 304 E. Hopkins Avenue, Units 1-5, The Seguin Building
Condominiums, City And Townsite Of Aspen, Colorado; and
WHEREAS, Community Development Department staff reviewed the application for
compliance with the applicable review criteria, considered the input of other City
Departments provided at a Development Review Committee meeting on May 9, 2018,
and recommended continuance of the project for restudy at HPC hearings held on June
13, 2018 and July 25, 2018. Applicant revisions provided for review at an HPC hearing on
September 26, 2018 were supported by staff with conditions of approval; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission reviewed and considered the
development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, reviewed
and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director and invited
public comment at duly noticed public hearings on June 13, 2018, July 25, 2018 and
September 26, 2018; and
WHEREAS, on September 26, 2018 the Historic Preservation Commission approved the
proposal with conditions by a vote of __ to __.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That HPC grants Demolition, Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial
Design, Transportation and Parking Management, and Growth Management as
represented in the application reviewed by HPC on September 26, 2018, with the
following conditions:
1. HPC approves variations from the following Commercial, Lodging and Historic
District Design Standards: PA1.6, 2.1, 2.9, and 2.11.
2. HPC approves the provision of 378 square feet of on-site Pedestrian Amenity
Space and cash-in-lieu mitigation of 376 square feet of Pedestrian Amenity Space
pursuant to Section 26.412.070.D. HPC approves the construction of a porch
overhang covering a portion of the Pedestrian Amenity Space, finding
Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Standard PA1.5 to be met.
3. Per Section 26.412.080.A of the Aspen Municipal Code, Second Tier Commercial
Space Applicability, no portion of Second Tier Commercial Space may be used
as storage, office, and the like, for another commercial space.
P13
III.A.
4. Per Section 26.412.080.B.3, Second Tier Commercial Space, Requirement, of the
Aspen Municipal Code, issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy or Letter of
Completion for ground floor commercial space is contingent upon the issuance
of the Certificate of Occupancy or Letter of Completion for all second tier space
located within the development. An agreement, acceptable to the City
Attorney, outlining the process for completion and occupancy of ground floor
and second tier commercial space, to be signed by the Community Development
Director, shall be required as part of the Development Documents, and shall be
required prior to issuance of a core and shell or tenant finish building permit.
5. Per Section 26.412.080.D of the Aspen Municipal Code, Second Tier Commercial
Space Auditing, the Community Development Director may require periodic
operational audits of Second Tier Commercial Space to ensure compliance with
the Land Use Code.
6. Mitigation for demolition of the existing deed-restricted affordable housing units
will be in the form of affordable housing credits equivalent to 2.5 FTEs at Category
1. Because the two mandatory occupancy deed restricted affordable housing
units located in the existing building have been taken out of use by the applicant
due to their deteriorated condition, the affordable housing credits replacing these
units shall be provided to the Community Development Department within 180
days of conclusion of notice to City Council and call up as described at Section
26.415.120 of the Municipal Code.
7. The applicant must secure a Special Review approval for the Trash and Recycling
area from Environmental Health, prior to Final HPC Review.
8. For Final HPC Review, demonstrate compliance or resolution of the conditions of
approval recommended by the Development Review Committee, found in Exhibit
D of the September 26, 2018 HPC packet. Identify conditions which cannot be
resolved before Building Permit review. Approval of the two required
Transportation Demand Management measures will be coordinated with the
Engineering Department during building permit review.
9. For Final HPC Review, demonstrate provisions for adequate drainage between the
historic structure at 302 E. Hopkins and the proposed new structure at 304 E.
Hopkins to ensure the historic resource will not be damaged.
10. For Final HPC Review, provide plans and elevations indicating the size and
placement of all exterior mechanical equipment and vents to the applicant’s best
estimation at that time.
11. All dimensional calculations will be verified at the time of Building Permit review.
12. A cash-in-lieu payment for mitigation of parking will be calculated and paid at
Building Permit review.
13. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within
one (1) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure
to file such an application within this time period shall render null and void the
approval of the Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation
Commission may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-
time extension of the expiration date for a Conceptual Development Plan
approval for up to six (6) months provided a written request for extension is
received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date.
P14
III.A.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 26th of September, 2018.
Approved as to form: Approved as to content:
_________________________________ ____________________________________
Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Gretchen Greenwood, Chair
Attest:
_________________________________
Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk
P15
III.A.
Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT A
STAFF FINDINGS
DEMOLITION
26.415.080. Demolition of designated historic properties or properties within a historic district.
It is the intent of this Chapter to preserve the historic and architectural resources that have
demonstrated significance to the community. Consequently, no demolition of properties
designated on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Site and Structures or properties within a
Historic District will be allowed unless approved by the HPC in accordance with the standards set
forth in this Section.
4. The HPC shall review the application, the staff report and hear evidence presented by the
property owners, parties of interest and members of the general public to determine if the
standards for demolition approval have been met. Demolition shall be approved if it is
demonstrated that the application meets any one of the following criteria:
a) The property has been determined by the City to be an imminent hazard to public
safety and the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely
manner,
b) The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to
properly maintain the structure,
c) The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in
Aspen or
d) No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic,
architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance and
Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met:
a) The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or Historic District
in which it is located and
b) The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity
of the Historic District or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent
designated properties and
c) Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs
of the area.
Staff Finding: The existing structure was built in the early 1980s. There is no documentation that
supports or demonstrates the historic importance of this structure. It does not contribute to the
significance of the Commercial Core Historic District. Additionally, demolition will be
inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of this area. The loss would not adversely
affect the integrity of the district or the adjacent designated property (302 E. Hopkins to the
west). Staff finds that criteria d) and a) – c) above are met.
P16
III.A.
Page 1 of 14
EXHIBIT B
STAFF FINDINGS
COMMERCIAL DESIGN
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.
Staff Finding: This property is located within the Commercial Core Historic District and is subject
to the Standards and Guidelines from that Chapter as well as the General Chapter and
Pedestrian Amenity Chapter. All relevant guidelines are listed at the end of this exhibit. Staff
evaluation of specific Standards and Guidelines can be found in sections 2. & 3. below.
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.
Staff Finding: The proposed project requires variations from the Standards identified below. In
order to grant a variation from a Standard, HPC must find that the variation, if granted, would
PA1.5 This standard requires street level Pedestrian Amenity to be open to the sky. A
covering, like the proposed porch roof, requires HPC approval. Staff did not support
the previous pitched roof porch but does support the fixed canopy, which provides
some shelter to the front patio without hiding the storefront windows from view.
1. Provide an alternative design approach that meets the
overall intent of the standard. The reviewing board shall
consider the appropriateness of the design features, building
elements, and existing neighborhood context to determine that
the exception is appropriate; or
2. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual
site-specific constraints.
P17
III.A.
Page 2 of 14
PA1.6 This standard requires meaningful street level space that is useful, versatile, and
accessible. Staff supports the front patio design finding that it will be an actively used
space and is of a reasonable depth in relationship to the setback of 302 E. Hopkins.
2.1: This standard requires a minimum of 50% of the first floor building façade to be placed
at the property line. The proposed design is a one-story building above grade, with the
entire façade set back 15 ft. 9 in. from the property line. Staff appreciates the effort to
respect the historic structure to the west. However, the redevelopment of this property
provides an opportunity to better relate to the development to the east, which is
primarily located at the property line. Staff had initially recommended between 25-50%
of the front façade be set at the property line, particularly on the eastern portion of the
building. Shifting the building forward and redesigning the porch and windows has will
provide great interaction between pedestrians and the activity in the restaurant,
meeting the intent of this design standard.
2.9: This standard requires primary entrances to be recessed a minimum of 4 ft. from the
front façade. The proposed design places the primary entrance on the same plane as
the front façade. This standard is more relevant for larger buildings located on the
property line in order to help define the entry and reinforce an existing rhythm of
recessed entries. Staff is supportive of a variation from this standard. An additional
setback of the entry door is not appropriate.
2.11: This standard requires a floor-to-ceiling height of 12-15 ft. for the first floor, which may
be dropped to 9 ft. after the first 25 ft of building depth. The proposed design has a
floor-to-ceiling height of 12 ft. for the first 40 ft. of the building, then drops to 8 ft. 4 in.
The area where the height drops is primarily back of house operations where floor-to-
ceiling height is less important to the public experience of the commercial space. Staff
supports a variation from this standard. The variation is only necessary related to the
ceiling height at the rear of the structure, where there is limited public access and
visibility.
Staff Finding: Staff finds that variations from the design standards listed above meet the intent
of the standards and are appropriate to the neighborhood context.
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.
Staff Finding: Previously, staff identified a number of flexible design guidelines which did not
appear to be met. The conflicts involved the large planters once proposed at the front of the
patio, materials, fenestration and proportion of the façade. Staff finds the redesign has
brought the project into compliance with the flexible guidelines.
P18
III.A.
Page 3 of 14
26.412.070.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.
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.
P19
III.A.
Page 4 of 14
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.
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.
Staff Finding: 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. New development requires that 25% of the lot area be provided as
public amenity space. This lot is 3,015 sq. ft., therefore requiring 754 sq. ft. of pedestrian
amenity space. The Applicant is proposing a combination of cash-in-lieu and a 378 square
feet open area on the south side of the property to meet the requirement. HPC may
approve any combination of methods to meet the requirement including on-site, off-site,
cash-in-lieu (not exceeding 50% of the requirement without Council approval), and other
alternative methods.
Staff supports the applicants amended proposal to provide a minimum amount of
Pedestrian Amenity on-site (378 square feet or 50.1%,) with cash-in-lieu payment of the
balance (376 square feet or 49.9%.)
P20
III.A.
Page 5 of 14
26.412.080. Second Tier Commercial Space
The Aspen Area Community Plan establishes policies to encourage a balanced, diverse and vital
commercial use mix that meets the needs of the year-round residents and visitors, and to facilitate
the sustainability of essential businesses that provide basic community needs. These design
standards ensure “second tier” space in commercial zones are maintained, allows for the
redevelopment of commercial properties, maintains a meaningful ratio of commercial space
that serves the day to day needs of residents and visitors, and allows for creative designs that
add variety and interest to the City’s commercial areas.
A. Applicability.
1. Development or redevelopment. This section applies to all new development and
redevelopment in the CC, C-1, S/C/I, NC, and MU districts. Proposals that are 100% lodge
projects shall be exempted from this requirement. Remodel and renovation activities that
do not trigger demolition, and which maintain 100% of the existing second tier space
present on the site are exempt from this Section. Changes to second tier space as a result
of required accessibility or building code compliance are exempt from compliance with
the section if demolition is not triggered.
2. Second Tier Commercial Space. See Section 26.104.100, Definitions.
3. Limitations. No portion of Second Tier Commercial Space may be used as storage, office,
and the like, for another commercial space. For instance, if a retail shop is located on the
ground floor, the basement Second Tier Commercial Space may not be used as the office
or storage for that business, and must instead be an entirely separate space.
B. Requirement.
1. The following minimum and maximum net leasable area shall be designed as second tier
commercial space:
Table 26.412.100-1
Zoning District Second tier commercial space
provided
Minimum Maximum
Commercial Core (CC) 20% 75%
Commercial (C-1) 25% 75%
Service Commercial Industrial (S/C/I) 35% --
Neighborhood Commercial (NC) 35% --
Mixed Use (MU) 25% 50%
P21
III.A.
Page 6 of 14
2. The redevelopment of any building that includes existing second tier commercial space
shall provide the greater of fifty-percent (50%) of the existing space or the minimums
outlined in Table 26.412.100-1.
3. In order to satisfy the requirements of this Section, issuance of the Certificate of
Occupancy or Letter of Completion for ground floor commercial space is contingent upon
the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy or Letter of Completion for all second tier
space located within the development. This includes the completion of all utilities,
structural assemblies and other building accessibility requirements, and life safety elements
necessary for the completion of inspections, to permit occupancy, and facilitate the
intended use of the space. This may include the installation of HVAC systems, as well as
grease traps, ventilation and fire suppression systems for restaurant, bar, bakery,
commercial kitchen and related uses. An agreement, acceptable to the City Attorney,
outlining the process for completion and occupancy of ground floor and second tier
commercial space, to be signed by the Community Development Director, shall be
required as part of the Development Documents, and shall be required prior to issuance
of a core and shell or tenant finish building permit.
4. Pedestrian amenity is encouraged to provide access to second tier commercial spaces
within a development. This access may be provided via a mid-block walkway accessing
commercial space off the primary street frontage, a sub-grade courtyard, an internal
enclosed courtyard, or access to upper level commercial areas.
Staff Finding: Second Tier Commercial Space is a newly defined type of commercial space
which, by virtue of its location in areas of a building without direct access and street
presence, has typically provided opportunities for a variety of businesses. This type of
space has been determined to be declining through redevelopment and so a new
requirement to preserve a certain amount of Second Tier Spaces in any redevelopment
was adopted. For this project, the application identifies the existing Second Tier space in
the basement and second floor and proposes to retain approximately 57% that amount
of net leasable area in the basement.
Street facing access to this space is required and staff had indicated at the earlier hearings
that the dark stairwell to the basement level was neither contributing to the streetscape
nor promoting the presence of the second business. The applicant’s restudy of
fenestration, architectural details and future signage has improved the design and has
staff support.
P22
III.A.
Page 7 of 14
Relevant Commercial, Lodging, and Historic District Design Standards and Guidelines
General
Site Planning and Streetscape
1.1 All projects shall provide a context study.
• The study should include the relationship to adjacent structures and streets through
photographs, streetscape elevations, historic maps, etc.
1.2 All projects shall respond to the traditional street grid.
• A building shall be oriented parallel to the street unless uncharacteristic of the area. Refer
to specific chapters for more information.
• Buildings on corners shall be parallel to both streets.
1.3 Landscape elements (both hardscape and softscape) should complement the
surrounding context, support the street scene, and enhance the architecture of the
building.
• This applies to landscape located both on-site and in the public right-of-way.
• High quality and durable materials should be used.
• Early in the design process, consider stormwater best management practices as an
integral part of the landscape design process.
1.4 Where there is open space on a site, reinforce the traditional transition from public space,
to semi-public space to private space.
• This may be achieved through a fence, a defined walkway, a front porch element,
covered walkway, or landscape.
1.5 Maintain alignment of building facades where appropriate.
• Consider the entire block of a neighborhood to determine appropriate building
placement. Carefully examine and respond to the variety of building alignments that are
present.
• Consider all four corners of an intersection and architectural context to determine
appropriate placement for buildings located on corners.
• Consider the appropriate location of street level Pedestrian Amenity when siting a new
building.
1.6 When a building facade is set back, define the property line. Review the context of the
block when selecting an appropriate technique. Examples include:
• A fence which is low in height and mostly transparent so as to maintain openness along
the street.
• Landscaping, though it may not block views of the architecture or a Pedestrian Amenity
space. Hedgerows over 42 inches are prohibited.
• Benches or other street furniture.
P23
III.A.
Page 8 of 14
Alleyways
1.7 Develop alley facades to create visual interest.
• Use varied building setbacks and/or changes in material to reduce perceived scale.
1.8 Consider small alley commercial spaces, especially on corner lots or lots with midblock
access from the street (See Pedestrian Amenity Section PA4).
• Maximize visibility and access to alley commercial spaces with large windows and
setbacks.
• Minimize adverse impacts of adjacent service and parking areas through materials,
setbacks, and/or landscaping.
Parking
1.9 Minimize the visual impacts of parking.
• All on-site parking shall be accessed off an alley where one is available.
• Break up the massing of the alley facade, especially when garage doors are present.
• Consider the potential for future retail use accessed from alleys and the desire to create a
safe and attractive environment for cars and people.
• If no alley access exists, access should be from the shortest block length.
• Screen surface parking and avoid locating it at the front of a building. Landscaping and
fences are recommended.
• Consider a paving material change to define surface parking areas and to create visual
interest.
• Design any street-facing entry to underground parking to reduce visibility. Use high quality
materials for doors and ramps and integrate the parking area into the architecture.
Building Mass, Height, and Scale
1.10 A new building should appear similar in scale and proportion with buildings on the block.
1.11 A minimum building height difference of 2 feet from immediately adjacent buildings is
required.
• The height difference shall be a minimum of 15 feet wide.
• The height difference should reflect the range and variation in building height in the block.
• This may be achieved through the use of a cornice, parapet or other architectural
articulation.
1.13 Development adjacent to a historic landmark should respond to the historic resource.
• A new building should not obscure historic features of the landmark.
• A new large building should avoid negative impacts on historic resources by stepping
down in scale toward a smaller landmark.
• Consider these three aspects of a new building adjacent to a landmark: form, materials
and fenestration.
• When choosing to relate to building form, use forms that are similar to the historic resource.
P24
III.A.
Page 9 of 14
• When choosing to relate to materials, use materials that appear similar in scale and finish
to those used historically on the site, and use building materials that contribute to a
traditional sense of pedestrian scale.
• When choosing to relate to fenestration, use windows and doors that are similar in size,
shape, and proportion to those of the historic resource.
Street Level Design
1.14 Commercial entrances shall be at the sidewalk level and oriented to the street.
• Finished floor and sidewalk level shall align for at least 1/2 the depth of the ground floor
where possible. If significant grade changes exist on property, then the project will be
reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
• All buildings shall have at least one clearly defined primary entrance facing the front lot
line, as defined in the Land Use Code. An entrance located within a chamfered corner is
an alternative. (See Commercial Core Historic District).
• If a building is located on a corner lot, two entrances shall be provided; a primary entrance
facing the longest block length and a secondary entrance facing the shortest block
length.
1.15 Incorporate an internal airlock or air curtain into first floor commercial space.
• An airlock or air curtain shall be integrated into the architecture.
• Adding a temporary exterior airlock of any material to an existing building not allowed.
1.16 Entries that are significantly taller or shorter than those seen historically or that conflict
with the established scale are highly discouraged.
• Transom windows above an entry are a traditional element that may be appropriate in
neighborhoods with 19th century commercial buildings.
• Entries should reflect the established range of sizes within the context of the block. Analyze
surrounding buildings to determine appropriate height for entry doors.
Roofscape
1.18 The roofscape should be designed with the same attention as the elevations of the
building.
• Consolidate mechanical equipment, including solar panels, and screen from view.
• Locate mechanical equipment toward the alley, or rear of a building if there is no alley
access.
• Use varied roof forms or parapet heights to break up the roof plane mass and add visual
interest.
1.19 Use materials that complement the design of the building facade.
• Minimize the visual impact of elevator shafts and stairway corridors through material
selection and placement of elements.
1.20 Incorporate green roofs and low landscape elements into rooftop design where feasible.
P25
III.A.
Page 10 of 14
1.21 Minimize visibility of rooftops railings.
• Mostly transparent railings are preferred.
• Integrating the rooftop railing into the architecture as a parapet or other feature, may be
appropriate considering the neighborhood context and proposed building style.
• Set back the railing a distance that equals or exceeds the height of the railing.
Materials and Details
1.22 Complete and accurate identification of materials is required.
• Provide drawings that identify the palette of materials, specifications for the materials, and
location on the proposed building as part of the application.
• Physical material samples shall be presented to the review body. An onsite mock-up prior
to installation may be required.
1.23 Building materials shall have these features:
• Convey the quality and range of materials found in the current block context or seen
historically in the Character Area.
• Convey pedestrian scale.
• Enhance visual interest through texture, application, and/or dimension.
• Be non-reflective. Shiny or glossy materials are not appropriate as a primary material.
• Have proven durability and weathering characteristics within Aspen’s climate.
• A material with an integral color shall be a neutral color. Some variation is allowed for
secondary materials.
1.24 Introducing a new material, material application, or material finish to the existing
streetscape may be approved by HPC or P&Z if the following criteria are met:
• Innovative building design.
• Creative material application that positively contributes to the streetscape.
• Environmentally sustainable building practice.
• Proven durability.
1.25 Architecture that reflects corporate branding of the tenant is not permitted.
Lighting, Service, and Mechanical Areas
1.26 The design of light fixtures should be appropriate to the form, materials, scale, and style
of the building.
1.27 Trash and recycle service areas shall be co-located along an alleyway where one exists,
and screened from view with a fence or door.
• Screening fences shall be 6 feet high from grade (unless prohibited by the Land Use Code),
shall be of sound construction, and shall be no less than 90% opaque, unless otherwise
varied based on a recommendation from the Environmental Health Department.
1.28 Design trash and recycle areas thoughtfully and within the style of the building, with the
goal of enhancing pedestrian and commercial uses along alleys.
P26
III.A.
Page 11 of 14
1.29 Delivery areas shall be located along an alleyway where one exists.
• Shared facilities are highly encouraged.
1.30 Mechanical equipment, ducts, and vents shall be accommodated internally within the
building and/or co-located on the roof.
• Screen rooftop mechanical equipment and venting with a low fence or recess behind a
parapet wall to minimize visual impacts.
1.31 Minimize the visual impacts of utility connections and service boxes.
• Group and discreetly locate these features.
• Use screening and materials that compliment the architecture.
1.32 Transformer location and size are dictated by City and utility company standards and
codes.
• Place a transformer on an alley where possible.
• Provide screening for any non-alley location.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Pedestrian Amenity
Street Level Pedestrian Amenity
PA1.1 Maximize solar access to Pedestrian Amenity space on the subject property.
• At grade Pedestrian Amenity on the north side of the street is discouraged, except when
providing a front yard along Main Street.
PA1.3 Street level Pedestrian Amenity spaces should be equal to a minimum of 1/3 of the total
Pedestrian Amenity requirement.
• For example, a requirement of 300 square feet of Pedestrian Amenity can be comprised
of three 100 square feet spaces; but cannot be comprised of one 275 square feet space
and one 25 square feet space.
PA1.4 Street level Pedestrian Amenity shall be within 18 inches above or below the existing
grade of the street or sidewalk which abuts the space.
PA1.5 Street level Pedestrian Amenity areas shall be open to the sky.
• Direct access to the Pedestrian Amenity from the street is required.
• A street level Pedestrian Amenity space may be covered, subject to HPC or P&Z approval.
If the space is covered, the street-facing portion shall be entirely open.
PA1.6 Design meaningful street level space that is useful, versatile, and accessible.
• Small unusable spaces are inappropriate.
• Consider providing space for future outdoor merchandising or restaurant seating
opportunities when designing the space.
P27
III.A.
Page 12 of 14
• Providing good solar access, capturing mountain views, and providing seating is
recommended.
• Do not duplicate existing nearby open space.
• Storage areas, delivery areas, parking areas, or trash areas are not allowed uses within
Pedestrian Amenity space.
PA1.7 Design amenity space that enhances the pedestrian experience and faces the street.
• On corner lots, Pedestrian Amenity space may be considered on side streets or adjacent
to the alley rather than facing primary streets.
PA1.8 Street level Pedestrian Amenity space should reinforce the property line. Consider the
context of the block when selecting an appropriate technique. Examples include:
• Overhangs: A cantilevered roof or retractable awning that stretches to the property line.
• Fences: A low fence, mostly transparent, that allows views into the Pedestrian Amenity
space.
• Landscape: Low planter boxes. If including trees, the mature tree canopy size should not
prohibit views into the amenity space. Hedgerows over 42 inches are prohibited.
• Street Furniture: Permanent, fixed benches or other pedestrian-related elements may be
considered to establish property lines.
• Surface Material: A change in hardscape material to differientiate between Pedestrian
Amenity and right-of-way.
PA1.9 Street level Pedestrian Amenity may be appropriate on a case-by-case basis within the
Commercial Core Historic District.
• Consider the existing context of the block .
• Clearly define the property line as defined in PA1.8.
• In this District, street level Pedestrian Amenity should be subordinate to the line of building
fronts.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Commercial Core Historic District
Building Placement
2.1 Maintain the alignment of facades at the property line.
• Place as much of a building at the property line as possible to reinforce historic
development patterns.
• A minimum of 50% of the first floor building façade shall be at the property line. This
requirement may be varied by the Historic Preservation Commission based on historic
context or in order to accommodate Pedestrian Amenity (See Pedestrian Amenity
Chapter).
• A minimum of 70% of the first floor building facade shall be at the property line for
properties on a pedestrian mall.
P28
III.A.
Page 13 of 14
Architecture
2.3 Development should be inspired by traditional late 19th-century commercial buildings
to reinforce continuity in architectural language within the Historic District. Consider the
following design elements: form, materials, and fenestration. Pick two areas to relate
strongly to the context.
• When relating to materials, use traditional application of materials commonly found in the
Historic District, such as wood, brick and stone, and use similar texture and color to the
historic context.
• When relating to fenestration, large vertical windows on the ground level and punched
vertical openings on upper levels, with a similar solid to void ratio, are appropriate.
• When relating to form, note that rectangular forms are predominant with limited projecting
or setback elements. Most roofs are flat, but some gables are present and these may be
a reference for new design.
Architecture
2.4 Respect adjacent iconic historic structures.
• Development near historic landmarks may use Pedestrian Amenity design as a transition
or buffer to highlight the importance of adjacent historic structures.
• Use simple architectural details, materials and massing that do not detract from nearby
historic landmarks.
2.5 The massing and proportions of a new building or addition should respond to the historic
context.
• Two-story buildings are encouraged. A two-story high one-story element should be used
with finesse and discretion.
• On larger buildings, stepping down to a one-story element within the composition is
appropriate and consistent with the historic pattern of the district.
• Building modules or individual features should generally be tall and narrow in proportion.
2.8 Composition of the façade, including choices related to symmetry and asymmetry,
should reflect the close readings of patterns established by the 19th-century structures.
• The pattern of building widths or bays within a building varies from 20 to 30 feet. Variety is
preferred.
• Provide historic precedent using historic maps and adjacent landmarks to determine
appropriate building width, height, and form. Photographs, dimensional drawings, figure-
ground diagrams, are all examples of tools that can be used to illustrate precedent.
• Align architectural details and features with the surrounding context.
First Floor
2.9 Recessed entries are required.
• Set a primary entrance back from the front façade a minimum of 4 feet.
P29
III.A.
Page 14 of 14
• Alternative options that define an entry and reinforce the rhythm of recessed entryways
may be considered.
• For corner lots, primary entries must face front lot line as determined by the Land Use Code
and/or be located in the chamfered corner where applicable.
2.11 Maintain a floor to ceiling height of 12 to 15 feet for the first floor and 9 feet for the second
floor.
• The ability to vary this requirement shall be based on demonstration of historic precedent
amongst adjacent landmarks. Storefronts should be taller than the upper floors.
• The floor to ceiling height of the first floor may be dropped to 9 feet after the first 25 feet of
building depth from a street facing facade.
2.13 Street level commercial storefronts should be predominately transparent glass.
• Window design, including the presence or absence of mullions, has a significant influence
on architectural expression. Avoid windows which suggest historic styles or building types
that are not part of Aspen’s story.
Details and Materials
2.14 Architectural details should reinforce historic context and meet at least two of the
following qualities.
• Color or finish traditionally found downtown.
• Texture to create visual interest, especially for larger buildings.
• Traditional material: Brick, stone, metal and wood.
• Traditional application: for example, a running bond for masonry.
P30
III.A.
Page 1 of 6
EXHIBIT C
STAFF FINDINGS
GROWTH MANAGEMENT
26.470.080 General Review Standards
All Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council applications for growth management
review shall comply with the following standards.
A. Sufficient Allotments. Sufficient growth management allotments are available to
accommodate the proposed development, pursuant to Subsection 26.470.040.B. Applications
for multi-year development allotment, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.110.A shall be required to
meet this standard for the growth management years form which the allotments are requested.
Staff Finding: The proposed project is 100% commercial net leasable area and represents a
reduction from the existing development. Therefore, no development allotments are required for
this project. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable.
B. Development Conformance. The proposed development conforms to the requirements and
limitations of this Title, of the zone district for site specific development plan, any adopted
regulatory master plan, as well as any previous approvals, including the Conceptual Historic
Preservation Commission approval, the Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval and
the Planned Development – Project Review approval, as applicable.
Staff Finding: The project conforms to the requirements of the Commercial Core zone district.
There are no other site specific plans or regulatory plans that apply to this development. Staff
finds this criterion is met.
C. Public Infrastructure and Facilities. The proposed development shall upgrade public
infrastructure and facilities necessary to serve the project. Improvements shall be at the sole costs
of the developer. Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage
treatment, energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid
waste disposal, parking and road and transit services.
Staff Finding: The proposed development represents a reduction in commercial net leasable
space and the elimination of two residential units. Upgraded infrastructure will be provided where
existing infrastructure is not adequate for the proposed development. Staff finds this criterion is
met.
D. Affordable Housing Mitigation.
1) For commercial development, sixty-five percent (65%) of the employees generated by the
additional commercial net leasable space, according to Section 26. 470.050.B, Employee
generation rates, shall be mitigated through the provision of affordable housing.
P31
III.A.
Page 2 of 6
Staff Finding: The proposed development does not increase commercial net leasable
space. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable.
2) For lodge development, sixty-five percent (65%) of the employees generated by the
additional lodge pillows, according to Section 26.470.050.B, Employee generation rates,
shall be mitigated through the provision of affordable housing.
Staff Finding: There is no proposed lodge development. Staff finds this criterion is not
applicable.
3) For the redevelopment of existing commercial net leasable space that did not previously
mitigate (see Section 26. 470.070.F), the mitigation requirements for affordable housing
shall be phased at 15% beginning in 201, and by 3% each year thereafter until 65% is
reached.
Staff Finding: The existing commercial space was mitigated through the on-site affordable
housing units. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable.
4) Unless otherwise exempted in this chapter, when a change in use between development
categories is proposed, the employee mitigation shall be based on the use the
development is converting to. For instance, if a commercial space is being converted to
lodge units, the mitigation shall be based on the requirements for lodge space, outlined in
subsection 2, above. Conversely, if lodge units are being converted to commercial space,
the mitigation shall be based on the requirements for commercial space, outlined in
subsections 1 and 3.
Staff Finding: No change in use is proposed. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable.
For free market residential development, affordable housing net livable area shall be
provided in an amount equal to at least thirty percent (30%) of the additional free market
residential net livable area.
Staff Finding: There is no proposed free market residential development. Staff finds this
criterion is not applicable.
5) For essential public facility development, mitigation shall be determined based on Section
26.470.110.D.
Staff Finding: This is not an essential public facility. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable.
6) For all affordable housing provided as mitigation pursuant to this chapter or for the
creation of a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit pursuant to Chapter 26. 540.
P32
III.A.
Page 3 of 6
Staff Finding: No affordable housing is provided on site. Staff finds this criterion is not
applicable.
7) Affordable housing units that are being provided absent a requirement (“voluntary units”)
may be deed restricted at any level of affordability, including residential occupied (RO).
Staff Finding: No units are being provided absent a requirement. Staff finds this criterion is
not applicable.
26.470.100.E Demolition or redevelopment of multi-family housing. The City's neighborhoods have
traditionally been comprised of a mix of housing types, including those affordable by its working
residents. However, because of Aspen's attractiveness as a resort environment and because of
the physical constraints of the upper Roaring Fork Valley, there is constant pressure for the
redevelopment of dwellings currently providing resident housing for tourist and second-home use.
Such redevelopment results in the displacement of individuals and families who are an integral
part of the Aspen work force. Given the extremely high cost of and demand for market-rate
housing, resident housing opportunities for displaced working residents, which are now minimal,
will continue to decrease.
Preservation of the housing inventory and provision of dispersed housing opportunities in Aspen
have been long-standing planning goals of the community. Achievement of these goals will
serve to promote a socially and economically balanced community, limit the number of
individuals who face a long and sometimes dangerous commute on State Highway 82, reduce
the air pollution effects of commuting and prevent exclusion of working residents from the City's
neighborhoods.
The Aspen Area Community Plan established a goal that affordable housing for working residents
be provided by both the public and private sectors. The City and the Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Authority have provided affordable housing both within and adjacent to the City limits.
The private sector has also provided affordable housing. Nevertheless, as a result of the
replacement of resident housing with second homes and tourist accommodations and the
steady increase in the size of the workforce required to assure the continued viability of Aspen
area businesses and the City's tourist-based economy, the City has found it necessary, in concert
with other regulations, to adopt limitations on the combining, demolition or conversion of existing
multi-family housing in order to minimize the displacement of working residents, to ensure that the
private sector maintains its role in the provision of resident housing and to prevent a housing
shortfall from occurring.
The combining, demolition, conversion or redevelopment of multi-family housing shall be
approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based
on compliance with the following requirements (see definition of demolition.):
1. Requirements for combining, demolishing, converting or redeveloping free-market multi-
family housing units.
P33
III.A.
Page 4 of 6
Staff Finding: There are no existing free-market residential units on site. Staff finds this
criterion is not applicable.
2. Requirements for demolishing affordable multi-family housing units: In the event a project
proposes to demolish or replace existing deed-restricted affordable housing units, the
redevelopment may increase or decrease the number of units, bedrooms or net livable
area such that there is no decrease in the total number of employees housed by the
existing units. The overall number of replacement units, unit sizes, bedrooms and category
of the units shall be reviewed by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority and a
recommendation forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Staff Finding: There are two deed-restricted Category 1 studio units located on the second
floor of the existing development. These existing units each house 1.25 full-time equivalents
(FTEs) for a total of 2.5 Category 1 FTEs on site. The Applicant is proposing to extinguish
Affordable Housing Credits for 2.5 Category 2 FTE to replace the demolished units. The
APCHA Board reviewed the application on May 16 and recommended approval of using
Affordable Housing Credits, provided they are 2.5 Category 1 FTEs. Full consideration has
been given to the possibility of providing mitigation onsite, which was staff’s original
preference. Staff supports the conclusion that credits are more appropriate in this case.
3. Fractional unit requirement. When the affordable housing replacement requirement of
this Section involves a fraction of a unit, fee-in-lieu may be provided only upon the review
and approval of the City Council, to meet the fractional requirement only, pursuant to
Paragraph 26.470.110.C, Provision of required affordable housing via a fee-in-lieu
payment.
Staff Finding: The Applicant has stated that they will satisfy the entire mitigation amount
through the extinguishment of Affordable Housing Credits. Staff finds this criterion is not
applicable.
4. Location requirement. Multi-family replacement units, both free-market and affordable,
shall be developed on the same site on which demolition has occurred, unless the owner
shall demonstrate and the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that replacement
of the units on site would be in conflict with the parcel's zoning or would be an
inappropriate solution due to the site's physical constraints.
When either of the above circumstances result, the owner shall replace the maximum
number of units on site which the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that the site
can accommodate and may replace the remaining units off site, at a location
determined acceptable to the Planning and Zoning Commission, or may replace the units
by extinguishing the requisite number of affordable housing credits, pursuant to Sec.
26.540, Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit. A recommendation from the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be considered for this standard.
P34
III.A.
Page 5 of 6
When calculating the number of credits that must be extinguished, the most restrictive
replacement measure shall apply. So, for example, for an applicant proposing to
replace one 1,000 square foot three-bedroom unit at the 50% rate using credits, the
following calculations shall be used:
• 50% of 1,000 square feet = 500 square feet to be replaced. At the Code mandated rate
of 1 FTE per 400 square feet of net livable area, this requires 1.25 credits to be extinguished;
or
• A three-bedroom unit = 3.0 FTE’s. 50% of 3.0 FTE’s = 1.50 credits to be extinguished.
Therefore, the applicant must extinguish 1.50 credits to replace a three-bedroom unit at
the 50% rate. The credits to be extinguished would be Category 4 credits.
Staff Finding: There are two deed-restricted studio units in the existing development.
Each studio unit houses 1.25 FTEs for a total of 2.5 FTEs requiring replacement. Full
consideration has been given to the possibility of providing mitigation onsite, which was
staff’s original preference. Staff supports the conclusion that credits are more appropriate
in this case.
Timing requirement. Any replacement units required to be deed-restricted as affordable
housing shall be issued a certificate of occupancy, according to the Building Department,
and be available for occupancy at the same time as, or prior to, any redeveloped free-
market units, regardless of whether the replacement units are built on site or off site.
Staff Finding: Because the existing units have been taken off line in advance of application
for a building permit, Community Development requires mitigation to be provided in the
near term, as described in the HPC resolution. Staff finds this criterion is met.
5. Redevelopment agreement. The applicant and the City shall enter into a redevelopment
agreement that specifies the manner in which the applicant shall adhere to the approvals
granted pursuant to this Section and penalties for noncompliance. The agreement shall
be recorded before an application for a demolition permit may be accepted by the City.
Staff Finding: The requirement to provide Affordable Housing Credits to satisfy the
mitigation is included as a condition in the adopted resolution. An additional agreement
would not be necessary. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable.
6. Growth management allotments. The existing number of free-market residential units, prior
to demolition, may be replaced exempt from growth management, provided that the
units conform to the provisions of this Section. The redevelopment credits shall not be
P35
III.A.
Page 6 of 6
transferable separate from the property unless permitted as described above in
Subparagraph 4, Location requirement.
Staff Finding: The proposed project does not include free-market residential units. Staff finds
this criterion is not applicable.
7. Exemptions.
Staff Finding: The proposed application does not meet any of the available exemptions.
Staff finds this criterion is not applicable.
P36
III.A.
Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT D
DRC COMMENTS
Engineering
These comments are not intended to be exclusive, but an initial response to the project packet
submitted for purpose of the DRC meeting and are required at building permit submittal.
Public Improvements:
1. Sidewalk along Hopkins Ave must be 8’ in width. The concrete portion of sidewalk may
match the existing width of neighboring sidewalks, but the entire 8’ width must be walkable
and ADA compliant. The tree wells must be located outside the 8’ walkable area.
2. All adjacent curb and gutter must be replaced as part of project.
Stormwater
1. Site will be required to treat the water quality capture volume and release to the City storm
water system per Table 1.1 of URMP. Conveyance and capacity to City system must be
verified.
2. URMP states that drywells are a last resort BMP. Please provide evidence of how other BMP’s
are not applicable for the site.
3. Stormwater infrastructure exists nearby for possible tie-in. A Contech vault exists within
nearby sidewalk for a possible connection. Capacity and neighbor approval would have to
be verified. Maintenance plan would also have to be resolved.
4. Depending on timing of mudflow regulation changes, property may to be required to
perform a mudflow study due to depth of debris on site.
Utilities
1. Existing material, size and condition of water service must be investigated. Fire calculations
will be required to verify necessity of line size. Testing and disinfection will be required for
service line. Plans must demonstrate how service line reaches mechanical room in back of
building.
2. The report states the neighboring transformer will be updated and upsized. An agreement
from the neighboring owner must be included at building permit for permission to perform
work. Clearances for the upsized transformer must meet standards. An easement will also be
required for new transformer.
Parks
1. A tree removal/dripline excavation permit will be required.
2. If trees are removed, Silva Cells will be required.
3. City Forester to determine species of replacement trees.
4. Irrigation to trees will be required.
5. If trees are to remain, tree protection fencing will be required along with verification of
existing irrigation.
P37
III.A.
Page 2 of 4
6. Will tree grates be allowed for part of the 8’ walking surface that ENG is dictating?
Building
1. Lower level
a. Bathrooms are required to be separate sex or if uni-sex the lavatories shall be in the same
room as the toilet not in a common hall.
b. The lower 2nd tier tenant space exceeds the max travel distance allowed for a single exit,
they cannot exit through the other tenant’s space for their second exit.
c. The exterior access stair from the lower level is less than 10’ from the property line and is
required to be enclosed and protected. They have discussed alternate methods of
compliance with Stephen regarding this but must submit a formal proposal of alternate
method of compliance to request relief from this code provision.
d. The second tier tenant space cannot share the restroom on the lower level with the
restaurant as they have shown it. If that is to be a common element for both tenants
there needs to be doors separating spaces and defining the common space.
2. Main level
a. They need an accessible route between spaces where the two buildings are connected
in the kitchen, that stair needs to be replaced with a ramp or a ramp provided adjacent
to it. They size of the employee work area does not meet the exception to this IBC
1104.3.1 for employee work area accessibility.
b. Accessible route to the trash enclosure shall be provided from the interior of the
building. Use of the alley is not allowed for an accessible route as it is a vehicular way.
c. As openings on a building are not permitted on a property line they must submit a
proposal for an alternate method to allow the connection between buildings in the
kitchen. This has been discussed with Stephen as well and they will need to propose a
deluge sprinkler system and obtain a recorded easement for this access across property
lines.
d. Dimension the distance to the center of the alley from the rear of the building to show
that they comply with the allowed percentage of openings on that façade of the
building. The distance needs to be shown on plan and they should show calculations of
wall opening percentage to demonstrate compliance.
3. Roof
a. Snow guards are required on the sloped roof over the entry
b. Guards are required at the access hatch on the roof
4. General
a. Blower door tests will be required per our 2015 code adoption
b. All proposals for alternate methods shall be in writing, addressed to the chief building
official, and be stamped and signed by their architect or engineer. They shall show how
what is proposed is of equivalent results as what is prescribed by code.
Environmental Health
1. The dimensions required for a commercial building and with service is 300 square feet (20’l x
15’w with 10’ height clearance) for trash and recycling storage (Municipal Code 12.10.030
A. b.). The current application would not be approved.
P38
III.A.
Page 3 of 4
a. Applicant has proposed a total of 75 square feet for trash and recycling. Applicant was
informed that although this restaurant may qualify under Special Review for a smaller
space, any space less than a total of 150 square feet will not be considered for approval.
b. Applicant was informed that composting may required by the time this restaurant is
operational, so there must be room to collect trash, recycling and compost, each in a
2yd yard dumpster.
c. The current drawings show a door of less than 8’ in width. Applicant was informed that
the door to access the waste containers must be at least 8’ wide.
2. Applicant indicated they would investigate the possibility of working with the neighboring
restaurant (currently White House Tavern) to determine if the waste space could be
combined to get to adequate space for both facilities.
a. City staff indicated that HPC may have to approve on any combination of waste areas
with the adjoining historical structure.
3. Environmental Health staff offered to work with the applicant to find an acceptable
configuration prior to submission for permit.
Zoning
Comments attached.
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
1. Service is contingent upon compliance with the District’s rules, regulations, and
specifications which are on file at the District office at the time of construction.
2. All clear water connections are prohibited (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains).
3. On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD.
4. On-site drainage and landscaping plans must accommodate ACSD service requirements
and comply with regulations.
5. Oil and Grease interceptors are required for all new and remodeled food processing
establishment.
6. Oil and Sand separators are required for garages and vehicle maintenance establishments.
7. When new service lines are required for existing development the old service line must be
abandoned according to specific ACSD requirements.
8. Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system.
9. Generally one tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements may be
required where more than one unit is served by a single service line.
10. Permanent improvements are prohibited in areas covered by sewer easements or right of
ways to the lot line of each development.
11. All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a foundation and/or building permit.
12. Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the planned
reserve capacity of the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an
additional proportionate fee will be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection system
or treatment capacity constraint. Additional proportionate fees would be collected over
time from all development in the area of concern in order to fund the improvements
needed.
P39
III.A.
Page 4 of 4
13. Where additional development would produce flows that would overwhelm the planned
capacity of the existing collection system and or treatment facility, the development will be
assessed fees to cover the costs of replacing the entire portion of the system that would be
overwhelmed. The District would fund the costs of constructing reserve capacity in the area
of concern (only for the material cost difference for larger line)
14. Where main lines are not available to serve new development, a line extension request and
collection system agreement are required.
15. Glycol snowmelt and heating systems must have containment provisions and must preclude
discharge to the public sanitary sewer system.
P40
III.A.
Strengthening Community Through Workforce Housing
Page | 1
LAND USE RECOMMENDATION
TO: APCHA Board of Directors
FROM: APCHA Board of Directors
THRU: Cindy Christensen, Deputy Director
Mike Kosdrosky, Executive Director
DATE: May 17, 2018
RE: Recommendation for Redevelopment of 304 East Hopkins
PROJECT: The applicant for the property located at 304 E. Hopkins Avenue, Hillstone Restaurant
Group, Inc., requests approval for redevelopment.
EXISTING CONDITIONS: The existing structure contains a two-story above grade mixed use
building with a large sunken courtyard. The below grade commercial space within the two-
story building creates three levels of commercial space, along with two deed-restricted “low
income” studio units located on the upper floor.
PROPOSAL: To replace existing two-story structure with a one-story flat roof building. The
applicant is proposing to remove the existing studio units. Under Growth Management,
affordable housing credits are proposed to mitigate for the two studio units located at the rear
of the existing building, reducing net commercial space by 1,402 square feet.
The existing units are categorized as “low income.” The Aspen/Pitkin County Employee Housing
Guidelines define “low income” as Category 1. The required mitigation is 2.5 FTE’s at Category
1.
DISCUSSION:
Under Growth Management, Section 26.470.080.D(1), Affordable Housing Mitigation:
1) For commercial development, sixty-five percent (65%) of the employees generated by
the additional commercial net leasable space, according to Section 26.470.050.B,
Employee generation rates, shall be mitigated through the provision of affordable
housing.
There is no new commercial net leasable space added to the redevelopment of the property.
The table below shows a reduction in net leasable area:
P41
III.A.
Page | 2
Existing Commercial net leasable
Net Leasable FTEs
Basement 2,647 9.34
Main floor 1,631 7.67
Upper Floor 901 3.18
TOTAL 5,179 20.19
Proposed Project
Net Leasable area FTE's
Basement 1,774 6.26
Main floor 2,003 9.41
TOTAL 3,777 15.67
Section 26.470.100.E.2, Requirements for demolishing affordable multi-family housing units,
states:
In the event a project proposes to demolish or replace existing deed-restricted affordable
housing units, the redevelopment may increase or decrease the number of units,
bedrooms or net livable area such that there is no decrease in the total number of
employees housed by the existing units. The overall number of replacement units, unit
sizes, bedrooms and category of the units shall be reviewed by the Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Authority and a recommendation forwarded to the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
Removal of the two existing studio units is considered demolition and to be replaced under
the Housing Credits program. The units are substandard in size (less than 500 square feet),
deed restricted as “low income,” and currently defined as Category 1 under the Employee
Housing Guidelines. The applicant proposes providing housing credits for 2.5 FTE’s at
Category 2 due to the site constraints, and the history of complaints between residences
above restaurants. The requirement would be at Category 1.
Although the preferred method of mitigation is to replace the units on site, the applicant
proposes a one-story structure not only to respect the adjacent landmark at 302 East
Hopkins, but to reflect development patterns in the block, both historic and current. They
also want to minimize the complaints of having residential units located above a restaurant.
Therefore, the use of the affordable housing credit program would be acceptable to mitigate
for the existing units creating the need for 2.5 FTE’s at Category 1 prior to building permit
approval.
Existing Compliance Concerns
The two existing “low income” units were approved by City Council in July of 1982, prior to the
establishment of APCHA, and are currently unoccupied creating a potential noncompliant
issue. Bringing the units back into compliance prior to any approval would be a requirement by
P42
III.A.
Page | 3
APCHA staff. However, documentation provided to APCHA on the nature of the condition of
the property, along with a site visit conducted by APCHA Staff, substantiated the
uninhabitability of the units. Concerns have been raised by the City Attorney that any future
developer could say “my building is uninhabitable, so I’m just going to take my units out of the
rental inventory indefinitely.” Staff recognizes this broader policy concern for allowing existing
affordable housing units to remain unoccupied for an unspecified period of time during
development/entitlement review, which depends on the length of the entitlement process and
the vesting rights period prior to permit. This raises another issue for this applicant or any
other responsible for maintaining and renting out units until such time a new building permit is
issued. Maintenance, inspections, upkeep of the rental inventory is a major concern, but is not
for the APCHA Board to resolve at this time.
RECOMMENDATION:
The APCHA Board reviewed the application at their regular meeting held May 16, 2018 and
recommend approval with the following conditions:
1. The non-compliance issue for the two studio units remains; however, documentation
has been provided, reviewed by APCHA Staff and the City’s Building Department to
the extent of the inhabitability conditions of the units.
2. As stated above, the preferred method of mitigation is to replace the units on site.
The proposal for a one-story structure is not only to respect the adjacent landmark at
302 East Hopkins, but to reflect development patterns in the block, both historic and
current. Removal of the onsite units also minimizes the complaints of having
residential units located above a restaurant. Therefore, the use of the affordable
housing credit program is acceptable to the APCHA Board to mitigate for the existing
units creating the requirement to extinguish 2.5 Category 1 FTE housing credits prior
to building permit approval.
3. A release of the restriction shall be completed at the time the 2.5 Category 1 FTE
housing credits have been extinguished.
P43
III.A.
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
September 26, 2018
City of Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
c/o Amy Simon
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Revised 304 E. Hopkins design
Dear Historic Preservation Commission and Ms. Simon:
In response to HPC comments, we have revised the one story design to better relate to the Historic
District.
Overall Design
The front façade is further refined to better relate to the Historic District. A more decorative parapet with
cap stone is proposed. The awning is revised to project directly out from the building to open up the front
façade. Rotating louvers are proposed along the east property line to address the windows on the 308 E.
Hopkins Avenue building that face the pedestrian amenity space and the second tier commercial space
stairway. The sidewall was lowered and windows were added to bring more light into the second tier
stairway, and vertical louvers and signage further define the basement level entry. As noted below the
building was brought closer to the street to directly address HPC comments.
Figure 1: Revised design
P44
III.A.
Page 2 of 7
2.3 – Development should be inspired by traditional late 19th-century commercial buildings to reinforce
continuity in architectural language within the Historic District. Consider the following design elements:
form, materials, and fenestration. Pick two areas to related strongly to the context.
• When relating to materials, use traditional application of materials commonly found in the
Historic District, such as wood, brick and stone, and use similar texture and color to the historic
context.
• When relating to fenestration, large vertical windows on the ground level and punches vertical
openings on upper levels, with a similar solid to void ratio are appropriate.
• When relating to form, note that rectangular forms are predominant with limited projecting or
setback elements. Most roofs are flat, but some gables are present and these may be a
reference for new design.
The architecture relates to materials through the use of traditional brick, wood, and stone in a neutral
color palette. The rectangular form is consistent with typical commercial buildings. The proposed setback
relates to surrounding historic context and the awning is reminiscent of commercial awnings historically
found throughout the Historic District while remaining authentic to the building as a product of its own
time and not recreating history.
2.9 – Recessed entries are required.
• Set a primary entrance back from the front façade a minimum of 4 feet.
• Alternative options that define an entryway and reinforce the rhythm of recessed entryways
may be considered.
The prominent awning element defines the entryway and relates better to the rhythm of front porch
elements in the block than recessed entryways, which are not typical in this block of Hopkins Avenue. The
Figure 2: July 25, 2018 design.
P45
III.A.
Page 3 of 7
design intent of using context to drive an appropriate and identifiable entryway is met through this
proposal. A recessed entryway would be appropriate on a commercial building built to the property line,
but is not appropriate for this type of building.
2.11 – Maintain a floor to ceiling height of 12 to 15 feet for the first floor and 9 feet for the second floor.
A one story building is proposed; therefore there is no relationship between the first and second floor. A
floor to ceiling interior height of 8’-6” to the wood beam ceiling and 12’ to the nominal structure is
proposed. On the exterior the one story building reads as having a 12’ first floor measured from grade to
the top of the clerestory windows.
2.13 – Street level commercial storefronts should be predominately transparent glass.
• Window design, including the presence of mullions, has a significant influence on architectural
expression. Avoid windows which suggest historic styles or building types that are not part of
Aspen’s story.
Large storefront and clerestory windows are proposed. Windows are added above the second tier
commercial entry stair. In addition, revisions to the awning create a more transparent feel along the front
façade. These windows show an architectural rhythm and a contemporary expression that represents
this building as a product of its own time.
2.14 – Architectural details should reinforce historic context and meet at least two of the following
qualities.
• Color or finish traditionally found downtown.
• Texture to create visual interest, especially for larger buildings.
• Traditional material: Brick, stone, metal and wood.
• Traditional application: for example, a running bond for masonry.
The proposed details and materials meet the four qualities listed above. The primary material is brick
running bond. A detailed brick parapet with precast concrete cap adds a modern interpretation of existing
brick and stone facade details in Aspen (see example below). Brass handrails with a bronze finish are
proposed for the exterior stair that accesses the basement commercial space.
P46
III.A.
Page 4 of 7
Second Tier Commerical Space
Signage and lighting intent is shown in the renderings to define the second tier commercial space. The
side wall was lowered to allow more light in the stairway and to highlight the space. These elements will
be further refined for review during Final Design Review. The size of the space is larger than required by
the Land Use Code.
Pedesrian Amenity
Pedestrian amenity is located at grade in front of the building as previously discussed and supported by
HPC. Proposed pedestrian amenity is just over 50% of the requirement, with the remainder requested as
cash in lieu.
Figure 3: Aspen Arcade building with decorative
brick parapet.
P47
III.A.
Page 5 of 7
2.1 – Maintain the alignment of facades at the property line.
• Place as much of a building at the property line as possible to reinforce
historic development patterns.
• A minimum of 50% of the first floor building façade shall be at the property
line. This requirement may be varied by the Historic Preservation
Commission based on historic context of in order to accommodate
Pedestrian Amenity.
• A minimum of 70% of the first floor building façade shall be at the property
line for properties on a pedestrian mall.
The building setback is reduced to about 13’ 7” which defers to the adjacent landmark
at 302 by revealing the building corner and also addresses HPC comments about the
setback being too large. Consistent with subpoint two above, the building is aligned
with historic context to support and highlight the adjacent 302 East Hopkins landmark
that has a significant front yard setback and to accommodate street level Amenity
space. 304 East Hopkins has 30 feet of street frontage, so in addition to revealing the
historic corner of 302, a setback allows at grade pedestrian amenity for outdoor
dining. The proposed setback creates a softer transition between the three story 308
East Hopkins building that sits on the property line and the setback of the historic 302
East Hopkins building.
PA1.5 Street level Pedestrian Amenity areas shall be open to the sky.
• Direct access to the Pedestrian Amenity from the street is required.
• A street level Pedestrian Amenity space may be covered, subject to HPC or P&Z
approval. If the space is covered, the street-facing portion shall be entirely open.
The awning is shortened to 8’ 5” (from about 10’8)” to address HPC comments that the awning was too
generous. The slope of the awning is revised to be at a 90 degree angle to address HPC comments about
the awning covering the windows. The awning does not cover the entire Amenity space and provides solar
protection that encourages year round use of the space.
Allowing HPC or P&Z to approve covered Pedestrian Amenity space was in response to community
concerns about uncovered pedestrian amenity space and sun exposure. There were also concerns about
cluttering pedestrian amenity spaces with haphazard umbrellas rather than a more permanent solution
that relates to the architecture and promotes year round use of the space.
PA1.6 Design meaningful street level space that is useful, versatile, and accessible.
• Small unusable spaces are inappropriate.
• Consider providing space for future outdoor merchandising or restaurant seating
opportunities when designing the space.
• Providing good solar access, capturing mountain views, and providing seating is
recommended.
Figure 4: Sanborn Map
showing original setback from
property line and front porch.
P48
III.A.
Page 6 of 7
• Do not duplicate existing nearby open space.
• Storage areas, delivery areas, parking areas, or trash areas are not allowed uses within
Pedestrian Amenity space.
Commercial Design Standard PA1.6 describes meaningful street level space that is versatile. Different
movable elements and seating configurations are shown to define the front property line and to show the
versatility of the space. The proposed space provides good solar access that is partially protected beneath
the awning and prominent views of Aspen Mountain.
Updated net leasable calculations
Table 1. Existing commercial net leasable
Net leasable area FTEs
Basement 2,290 8.08
Main floor 1,605 7.54
Upper floor 887 3.13
Total 4,782 18.75
Table 2. Proposed project commercial net leasable
Net leasable area FTEs
Basement 1,807 6.38
Main floor 2,081 9.78
Total 3,888 16.16
There is no increase in FTEs associated with the project. Affordable housing credits are proposed to
mitigate for the existing onsite units as previously represented as supported by HPC on July 25, 2018.
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
Exhibits:
A – Commercial Design Review (Conceptual) + Demolition of Property within Historic District
B – Growth Management
C – Transportation and Parking Management
P49
III.A.
Page 7 of 7
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
Z – Meeting minutes from July 25, 2018
Z.1 - Updated submittal September 26, 2018
P50
III.A.
1
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 25, 2018
Commissioners in attendance: Gretchen Greenwood, Jeffrey Halferty, Nora Berko, Scott Kendrick, Bob
Blaich, Roger Moyer, Richard Lai, Sheri Sanzone and Willis Pember.
Staff present:
Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk
Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney
Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Planner
Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner
Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mr. Kendrick moved to approve the draft minutes of June 20th, Mr. Lai
seconded. All in favor, motion carried.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: None.
DISCLOSURES OF CONFLICT: Ms. Sanzone will be stepping out for 304 E. Hopkins.
PROJECT MONITORING: Ms. Simon will follow up with a couple people outside of the meeting.
Mr. Halferty joined the meeting.
STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon mentioned the special meeting on August 1st, as well as the regular
meetings on August 8th and August 22nd. September will now be devoted to Lift 1A. Ms. Yoon will be
absent next week on August 1st.
CERTIFICATES OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: None.
CALL UPS: None.
PUBLIC NOTICE: Ms. Bryan said she has all required notices.
Mr. Halferty apologized for being tardy and said he will be stepping down for 500 W. Main.
Mr. Pember joined the meeting.
Ms. Simon mentioned there are no estimated time frames on the agenda so she recapped the time
frames for each item in order to stay on time and end by 7:00 p.m.
OLD BUSINESS: 304 E. Hopkins Ave.
Amy Simon
Ms. Simon said this is a continued public hearing for a demolition of a non-historic building located in
the historic downtown commercial area. The proposal is to build a one-story building with a basement.
The main floor will be occupied by a restaurant and the lower floor will be required second-tier
commercial space and cannot be directly connected to the restaurant and main floor. The project
requires mitigation for affordable housing. We are asking for the project to be continued tonight for
restudy. Staff finds the most restudy incomplete regarding the design guidelines. We have confirmed
exhibit Z
P51
III.A.
2
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 25, 2018
that accessible circulation is required, such as an elevator or ramping to the second floor. The applicant
showed some massing studies and they are not proposing any changes to the front elements or to the
affordable housing or pedestrian amenity. Some prioritization is needed and staff still feels that these
items are important. Perhaps the pedestrian amenity isn’t as important as accommodating the second
floor or balancing out various issues that are regulating development on this property in a different way.
Staff is recommending continuation again. We feel this building is an odd fit for this area of downtown
and stature is lacking here. The planters have been deleted and some additional windows have been
addended, but the pedestrian amenity dimensions haven’t changed. Much of what they’re providing is
underneath that roof, but should be open to the sky.
Mr. Halferty asked for clarification on the view plane. Ms. Simon said they are under the view plane and
we are not recommending they pierce the view plane.
Mr. Kendrick asked about staff reaching out to APCHA and said he is unclear what their
recommendation was. Ms. Simon said the applicant has proposed offsite credits and APCHA supported
it and agreed with it, but they are not opposed to onsite either. This is evaluated on a case by case
basis.
Ms. Berko asked what the motivation is for one floor and Ms. Simon said the applicant can explain
further.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Chris Bendon of Bendon Adams, Bryce Johnson, advisor with Hillstone,
Mathias Lentz, Senior Architect with Hillstone
Mr. Bendon spoke about them wanting to do one thing and doing it really well. He covered the issues
from the last meeting and summarized for the board regarding the planters, standards and guidelines,
transparency and proportions, restudy of the second floor, trash, etc. We got rid of the “hot tubs” out
front (planters). They still have a desire to pull the building back off the property line and they feel it is
consistent with the character of the block. Our setback helps establish the prominence of White House
and not take away from it. We think there is a historic precedence and it also accommodates the street
level amenity. We did study enclosing the pedestrian amenity and showed plans on screen of ideas. We
think this is a bit disruptive and clumsy and looks terrible. The applicants want to remain restaurateurs.
The guidelines do allow HPC to consider the historic context of the pedestrian amenity space. We think
this is a nice context and massing between the two buildings. We were asked to look at the main floor
ceiling height and it is just shy of 10 ft. 11. White house is about 9 ft. The 308 building is a little taller on
the inside. We are comfortable with the height we’re at, otherwise, it starts to feel like a vault when it’s
too high. Regarding the pedestrian amenity space, HPC can allow this space and allow it to be covered
and this would be a year-round covering. There are a couple ways to situate this space. It is a well-
designed and versatile space. There was a request from staff to look at variance, but we’re pleased by
the way this space works. It is a variance free project and the code is new so we don’t want to pursue a
variance. They don’t want to stumble into the new space with headlines of a variance. We looked at the
window heights and have made them higher and the sill has been lowered. The sill is about 30 inches or
so and very comfortable. We are not taking it all the way down to the ground. Regarding the discussion
of adding a second floor; there is complexity that comes with this. Massing is an issue so that it doesn’t
look clumsy and overstuffed and there is an exiting requirement with two egress points. The restaurant
is compromised on the ground floor and the affordable housing space doesn’t provide a great living
situation for someone. We’re not interested in pursuing a public vote. Mr. Bendon showed plans for a
P52
III.A.
3
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 25, 2018
two-bedroom unit upstairs and showed how the restaurant becomes severely compromised. It starts to
become a building that is purely comprised of mitigation and not much of a restaurant. There would
also be some view plane challenges. The last time we met, you guys wanted to see the recon, so we are
showing you the background work that we’ve done. We’ve had a good on-going conversation with the
environmental health department, which handles the trash for both locations, so this box has been
checked. We are very comfortable with this proposal and the board was close to supporting it last time.
The land use code prefers on site housing and we think the code is agnostic. The affordable housing
program is award winning so we feel this should be used. Mr. Bendon read some of the code regarding
affordable housing and replacement units to the board. The Hillstone family is looking at this with a
long view. They want this to be here for the next 30-50 years.
Mr. Halferty referred to the plans and noted the unit upstairs is large and asked if it would need a
variance for the view plane and Mr. Bendon said yes, for the mechanicals and vertical circulation and we
aren’t interested in pursuing public votes. Mr. Halferty asked about combining the trash area for both
restaurants and asked if they have a plan for down the road in case one space sells and leaves. Mr.
Bendon they will create an operating agreement regarding this and the easements. We’re not opposed
to any cross agreements. Mr. Lentz agreed and said they would get the proper documentation to
protect this area. Mr. Halferty asked about the front entry and if the design team looked into a
retractable awning. Mr. Bendon said they didn’t touch on that. Mr. Lentz said they studied different
types of awnings. We need protection all year round and the retractable awning would only extend 6
feet which wasn’t much. We also looked at the ability to have snow guards, gutters, etc. We feel this
would not provide the level of detail and comfort for guests. Mr. Bendon said what they have presented
provides a level of permanence.
Mr. Blaich noted the drawing on page 177 representing the affordable unit and said he doesn’t see any
evidence of access to that. Mr. Lentz said It’s schematic and just shows the space. It’s a detail that
would be added. Mr. Bendon said we’d have to have a long hallway. Is it conceivable? Sure, but we
wouldn’t pursue this.
Ms. Berko asked if there is potential massing that could be compatible and Mr. Bendon said not in our
estimation. We aren’t happy with how the plans look.
Mr. Pember asked them to explain the public amenity presentation from last time to now. Mr. Bendon
said they discussed with Hillstone and asked them if they’re interested in reducing it and they said no.
Mr. Johnson has been coming here for 40 years so he knows the sensitivity around view planes, etc.
White House has a comfortable space out front and so the answer to the question is no and no. Mr.
Lentz said they have to strike a balance with size. Aspen likes vitality on the street so we want to
contribute to that. We studied all options using different percentages and the function falls apart and
the process becomes unpleasant.
Ms. Greenwood said it looks like they’ve come back with the same presentation. Mr. Bendon said the
conversation has been around affordable housing. We had explored onsite, but we didn’t bring studies
last time so this time we’ve come back with the studies that we have done. By not providing the
affordable housing onsite, we are providing offsite through the program. Ms. Greenwood asked if they
have had any conversations with their neighbor to the east and Mr. Lentz said they’ve had some brief
conversations to avoid issues in the future. We will continue speaking with them and haven’t heard
anything negative to this point.
P53
III.A.
4
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 25, 2018
Ms. Simon recommend they don’t get drawn too deep into what is required by code. It’s complicated so
just keep it to the guidelines. This project will be going to city council due to a call up notice. You’ll see in
resolution, you have to grant four variations on design standards so it’s not really variance free and
there are exceptions being requested.
PUBLIC COMMENT: Peter Fornell – he said he can’t state enough how important the housing credit
program is and he feels this didn’t get the level of importance last time. The housing board has a full
staff which live and breathe the housing credit program on a daily basis. They made a unanimous
recommendation to use the housing credits for this project and they did this because the program
creates credits in residential zone districts and this is what we want. The notion that onsite is preferred
predates the program. This is a much better option and living in the alley downtown is not preferred.
Public comment closed.
Ms. Greenwood referred to page 14 as issues to be discuss. The focus of the project has been the
affordable housing issue, for the most part. We are here to focus on the building and whether it fits into
our commercial core and if it is appropriate for Aspen. We should look at the design considerations to
see if the building fits in.
Mr. Halferty said he appreciates the massing studies. The view plane is important and the massing is a
challenging aspect. There is a conflict architecturally with the proposed awning. The pedestrian amenity
could still use some study because we want that open to the sky aspect. The snow loads and drainage
are important, so he understands. The setback is encouraged because it sits back from the resource to
the west. That standard is a challenging one. He appreciates the heights. If you can get a unit up there,
that would be fantastic, but watching what happened next door, that wasn’t very pleasant. He’s a big
fan of the affordable housing credit program and thinks that is a good option due to the way this
building is laid out. He is in support of some of the variations and reductions and he likes that they don’t
want to ask for a lot. With some fine tuning, he thinks it’s moving forward and although the changes are
subtle, he likes them.
Mr. Blaich said that Mr. Halferty covered most of his thoughts, but he doesn’t support affordable
housing on this site and feels that it’s a huge mistake. A lot of the issues will be resolved if affordable
housing isn’t on this site.
Mr. Kendrick is in favor of the affordable housing credits on this project as there are too many
constraints. He likes that the building is trying to respect the historic property, but he’s not in favor of
the front porch and feels the windows are covered by the front porch. He does appreciate the planters
being removed. It’s getting closer.
Mr. Lai said his thoughts are a repeat from last time. He likes the idea of affordable housing downtown
and feels it’s good to have a mix, but he agrees that affordable housing on this site is a mistake. There
are too many impediments regarding the view plane and feels the cost is too great. He thinks the intent
of having a housing requirement in the downtown area is asking the restauranteur to spend too much
time, effort and money to meet this requirement. He agrees with having a minimalist approach in the
front façade. He wishes you didn’t have to have the stairs going down. He respects the fact that the
applicant identifies their intent to remain a restauranteur instead of a developer. He doesn’t mind the
P54
III.A.
5
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 25, 2018
solid awning, but sees the advantage of a retractable awning. Maybe it could be designed to be a
combo of both. Generally, he in favor as presented.
Mr. Moyer said there are two main issues here. The first one being housing and secondly, he doesn’t
see this as meeting any requirements for messy vitality in downtown and feels it doesn’t fit in. He thinks
it’s a no. He also thinks we need the downtown unit for a bachelor living downtown who can stumble
home at night. It’s a piece of crap. There was some bad press about this too.
Mr. Pember said he felt the affordable housing and massing studies were a little feigned in seriousness.
It’s a confused combination of elements and seems to be conflicted with itself. The setback is
extraordinary and that is part of the problem for him along with the awning. An awning that extends 6
feet, is a pretty generous awning. He thinks the building lacks stature. He read an excerpt from the staff
memo regarding the design guidelines.
Ms. Berko said she agrees with Mr. Moyer that the affordable housing be in town, but she understands
what APCHA is saying too. She’s having a hard time seeing how this western saloon front enhances and
respects and celebrates the white house. What you have on the east is challenging, but you could put
some energy into the staff recommendations of other items if the affordable housing is off the table
now. She feels that it deserves better.
Ms. Greenwood said we are almost unanimous that this isn’t a site for affordable housing. The credits
program is always a better choice, but as for the project, as a whole, you need to start over. You have
problems you’ve created yourself with the large setback and it doesn’t meet plate heights that are
consistent around Aspen. The façade doesn’t fit with the historic store fronts. The overhang over the
stairs doesn’t provide anything and we encourage you to come back with a different building. Create a
building which is a piece of Aspen. I don’t know where this belongs, but it’s not in Aspen.
Mr. Bendon summarized the suggestions and recommendations to make sure he was clear on all
aspects.
MOTION: Mr. Moyer motioned to continue, seconded by Mr. Blaich.
Mr. Moyer amended to add the date of September 12th, Mr. Blaich seconded.
Roll call vote: Mr. Pember, yes; Mr. Kendrick, yes; Mr. Blaich, yes; Ms. Berko, yes; Ms. Greenwood, yes;
Mr. Moyer, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes. 7-0, motion carried.
Mr. Bendon asked for a vote on affordable housing, but Ms. Bryan said that is not appropriate.
Ms. Sanzone reentered the meeting
NEW BUSINESS: 135 E. Cooper Avenue
Ms. Simon
Ms. Simon said this is a minor review with variations. In March, the board reviewed a connector that
links the historic house to a 2003 addition. There have been many conversations over the years and a
solution was found for a two-story link and this is in for a building permit right now. Now, we have a
separate proposal to expand the addition to the building. This must be reviewed under the new
guidelines. It was required that the two discussions be had separately because the connector came in
under the old code. In analyzing this application, we realized the property is over allowed in floor area.
P55
III.A.
STREET VIEW 1
SEPTEMBER 10, 2018
HILLSTONE ASPEN
FLEETWOOD FERNANDEZ
ARCHITECTSP56 III.A.
STREET VIEW 2
SEPTEMBER 10, 2018
HILLSTONE ASPEN
FLEETWOOD FERNANDEZ
ARCHITECTSP57 III.A.
ENTRY VIEW
SEPTEMBER 10, 2018
HILLSTONE ASPEN
FLEETWOOD FERNANDEZ
ARCHITECTSP58 III.A.
COVER SHEET &
PROJECT INFORMATION
A-0.00HILLSTONE - ASPEN304 EAST HOPKINS AVENUEASPEN, CO 81611ISSUE DATE AND DESCRIPTION
fleetwood fernandez reserves its common law copyright and other property rights in these drawings. these drawings are not to be reproduced in any manner or assigned to any third party without first obtaining the written consent of fleetwood fernandez.F
S
T
G
U
V
W
J
I
H
A
K
L
MB
C
N
O
D
P
RE
ABBREVIATIONS GRAPHIC SYMBOLS VICINITY MAP
LOCATION MAP
GRAPHIC SYMBOLS DRAWING INDEX
PROJECT DIRECTORYPROJECT STATISTICS AND ZONING ANALYSIS
EAST
M
A
I
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
EAST
H
O
P
K
I
N
S
A
V
E
N
U
E SOUTH MILL STREETSOUTH MONARCH STREETSITE
NN
SITE
MAIN
S
T
E CO
O
P
E
R
A
V
ES ORIGINAL STE HO
P
K
I
N
S
A
V
E
S MONARCH STE DU
R
A
N
T
A
V
E
P59III.A.
EAST HOPKINS AVESOUTH MONARCH STREET
304 E HOPKINS
AVENUE
302 E HOPKINS
AVENUE
EXISTING
BUILDING
3/16" = 1'-0"
A-0.10HILLSTONE - ASPEN304 EAST HOPKINS AVENUEASPEN, CO 81611ISSUE DATE AND DESCRIPTION
fleetwood fernandez reserves its common law copyright and other property rights in these drawings. these drawings are not to be reproduced in any manner or assigned to any third party without first obtaining the written consent of fleetwood fernandez.LEGEND
SHEET NOTES
KEY NOTES
1(E) N Elevation2(E) S Elevation
4(E) Site Plan
EXISTING FAR
PERCENTAGE OF PUBLIC AMENITY
(E) AREA CALCULATIONSP60 III.A.
EXISTING PLANS
N.T.S.
A-0.11HILLSTONE - ASPEN304 EAST HOPKINS AVENUEASPEN, CO 81611ISSUE DATE AND DESCRIPTION
fleetwood fernandez reserves its common law copyright and other property rights in these drawings. these drawings are not to be reproduced in any manner or assigned to any third party without first obtaining the written consent of fleetwood fernandez.LEGEND
SHEET NOTES
KEY NOTES
1(E) UPPER FLOOR3(E) LOWER LEVEL4(E) SITE PLAN
NET LEASABLE / LIVABLE
(E) AREA CALCULATIONS
2(E) MIDDLE FLOORP61 III.A.
M1K1P1APTLPPROPOSED PLANS
AREA DIAGRAMS
3/16" = 1'-0"
A-0.12HILLSTONE - ASPEN304 EAST HOPKINS AVENUEASPEN, CO 81611ISSUE DATE AND DESCRIPTION
fleetwood fernandez reserves its common law copyright and other property rights in these drawings. these drawings are not to be reproduced in any manner or assigned to any third party without first obtaining the written consent of fleetwood fernandez.LEGEND
SHEET NOTES
KEY NOTES
1PROPOSED BASEMENT LEVEL2PROPOSED STREET LEVEL
AREA CALCULATIONS
GROSS FLOOR AREA
NET LEASABLE AREA
PEDESTRIAN AMENITY
SECOND TIER COMMERCIALP62 III.A.
M1K1P1APTLPPROPOSED PLANS
AREA DIAGRAMS
3/16" = 1'-0"
A-0.13HILLSTONE - ASPEN304 EAST HOPKINS AVENUEASPEN, CO 81611ISSUE DATE AND DESCRIPTION
fleetwood fernandez reserves its common law copyright and other property rights in these drawings. these drawings are not to be reproduced in any manner or assigned to any third party without first obtaining the written consent of fleetwood fernandez.LEGEND
SHEET NOTES
KEY NOTES
1SUBGRADE CALCULATIONS
2PROPOSED BASEMENT LEVEL3FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS
FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS
P63III.A.
SOUTH MONARCH STREET
EAST HOPKINS AVENUESITE / ROOF PLAN
3/16" = 1'-0"
A-1.00HILLSTONE - ASPEN304 EAST HOPKINS AVENUEASPEN, CO 81611ISSUE DATE AND DESCRIPTION
fleetwood fernandez reserves its common law copyright and other property rights in these drawings. these drawings are not to be reproduced in any manner or assigned to any third party without first obtaining the written consent of fleetwood fernandez.LEGEND
SHEET NOTES
KEY NOTES
P64III.A.
GROUND FLOOR PLAN
1/4" = 1'-0"
A-2.00HILLSTONE - ASPEN304 EAST HOPKINS AVENUEASPEN, CO 81611ISSUE DATE AND DESCRIPTION
fleetwood fernandez reserves its common law copyright and other property rights in these drawings. these drawings are not to be reproduced in any manner or assigned to any third party without first obtaining the written consent of fleetwood fernandez.LEGEND
SHEET NOTES
KEY NOTES
P65III.A.
MSB1M1K1P1APTLPBASEMENT FLOOR PLAN
1/4" = 1'-0"
A-2.01HILLSTONE - ASPEN304 EAST HOPKINS AVENUEASPEN, CO 81611ISSUE DATE AND DESCRIPTION
fleetwood fernandez reserves its common law copyright and other property rights in these drawings. these drawings are not to be reproduced in any manner or assigned to any third party without first obtaining the written consent of fleetwood fernandez.LEGEND
SHEET NOTES
KEY NOTES
P66III.A.
HILLSTONE - ASPEN304 EAST HOPKINS AVENUEASPEN, CO 81611ISSUE DATE AND DESCRIPTION
fleetwood fernandez reserves its common law copyright and other property rights in these drawings. these drawings are not to be reproduced in any manner or assigned to any third party without first obtaining the written consent of fleetwood fernandez.1South Elevation
2North Elevation
EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
1/4" = 1'-0"
A-10.00
KEY NOTES
SHEET NOTES
P67III.A.
HILLSTONE - ASPEN304 EAST HOPKINS AVENUEASPEN, CO 81611ISSUE DATE AND DESCRIPTION
fleetwood fernandez reserves its common law copyright and other property rights in these drawings. these drawings are not to be reproduced in any manner or assigned to any third party without first obtaining the written consent of fleetwood fernandez.1Section
BUILDING SECTIONS
1/4" = 1'-0"
A-11.00
KEY NOTES
SHEET NOTES
P68III.A.
HILLSTONE - ASPEN304 EAST HOPKINS AVENUEASPEN, CO 81611ISSUE DATE AND DESCRIPTION
fleetwood fernandez reserves its common law copyright and other property rights in these drawings. these drawings are not to be reproduced in any manner or assigned to any third party without first obtaining the written consent of fleetwood fernandez.1Section
2Section
BUILDING SECTIONS
1/4" = 1'-0"
A-11.01
KEY NOTES
SHEET NOTES
P69III.A.
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
March 19, 2018
City of Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
c/o Justin Barker and Sarah Yoon
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Demolition, Major HPC Conceptual, Commercial Design Review Conceptual including
second tier commercial and pedestrian amenity, View plane Exemption, Transportation, Trash and
GMQS Application for 304 East Hopkins Street, Aspen, Colorado
Dear Historic Preservation Commission, Mr. Barker, and Ms. Yoon:
We submit this application on behalf of Hillstone Restaurant Group, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, the
owner of 304 East Hopkins Avenue in its entirety, to request Conceptual Design Reviews, Demolition,
Growth Management, Transportation and associated reviews for the redevelopment of the property. The
subject property is located at 304 East Hopkins Avenue, Parcel IDs #2737-073-75-001 to -005, and 2737-
073-75-800.
304 East Hopkins Street is not historic; however, it is located within the Commercial Core Historic District
and is under the purview of the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). Zoning for the property is
Commercial Core (CC). The CC Zone District allows limited land uses including commercial, lodging and
some affordable housing residential. The owner of 304 would like to demolish the existing two story
1980s building and to construct a one story restaurant with a basement that satisfies the second tier
commercial requirement. The building is located in the foreground of the Main Street viewplane that
originates from the J-Bar at the Hotel Jerome; however the view plane is not intersected by the proposed
development.
Existing Conditions
The 3,015 square foot (sf) lot contains a two story above grade
mixed use building with a large sunken courtyard that provides
access to a basement level commercial space. In total there are
three levels of commercial space within the two-story building,
and two deed restricted “low income” studio units located on
the upper floor. The recorded condominium plat (the Seguin
Condominium) assigned Units 1, 2 and 5 to commercial use; and
Units 3 and 4 are assigned to the deed restricted studio units.
The building received a Certificate of Occupancy in 1982.
Figure 1: Current building at 304 E. Hopkins.
P70
III.A.
Page 2 of 3
There is no onsite parking associated with this property. Trash and deliveries are located along the
alleyway.
Proposal
A one story flat roof building that is setback from Hopkins Avenue to respect the adjacent landmark at
302 East Hopkins and to reflect development patterns in the block both historic and current. The
proposed architecture relates to typical one story commercial buildings with false fronts and large
projecting awnings while balancing the existing context of the block by providing a generous setback for
outdoor dining and in deference to the setback and architecture of 302. The original 19th century building
on the site (bottom right) provided design inspiration for the proposed front porch design.
Summary of Reviews
Major Development Conceptual/Commercial Design/Demolition (Exhibit A)
Exhibit A describes in detail the design guidelines and standards in comparison to the proposed project.
Pedestrian Amenity is proposed both onsite in the form of a street level outdoor dining area on the front
porch and in the form of cash in lieu to meet the requirement of 25%. Second tier commercial space is
met in the basement, accessed directly from Hopkins Avenue. A tenant is not contemplated for the
second tier commercial space.
Growth Management (Exhibit B)
Affordable housing credits are proposed to mitigate for the two deed restricted studio units located at
the rear of the existing building on the second floor. A decrease of 1,402 sf of net leasable commercial
space is proposed compared to the existing building.
Parking and Transportation (Exhibit C and D)
Cash in lieu is proposed to meet parking requirements. Trips are significantly reduced by eliminating the
2 existing residential units and by decreasing the net leasable commercial space; however a TIA is included
as Exhibit D for review and discussion with the Engineering Department to ensure compliance.
Figure 2: Circa 1920s Galena Street. Note the one story
building at left with large projecting awning.
Figure 3: Circa 1970. One story building with prominent gable roof form at 304 E.
Hopkins.
P71
III.A.
Page 3 of 3
View plane (Exhibit E)
The one story building does not intersection the Main Street view plane (originating from the J-bar);
therefore the project is not subject to view plane review.
Trash/Recycle/Utility (Exhibit F)
Special Review by the Environmental Health Department is requested for the trash/recyle area located
along the alley. We look forward to discussing the proposal with Environmental Health to ensure
compliance with City Codes.
We look forward to presenting the concept behind this project and are happy to provide more information
or to answer any questions.
Sincerely,
Sara Adams, AICP
BendonAdams LLC
sara@bendonadams.com
970.925.2855
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 – Materials Board
T – Engineering Report
P72
III.A.
Exhibit A – Commercial Design + Demolition
304 East Hopkins
Exhibit A
HPC Major Development/Commercial Design Review Conceptual Review
26.415.060.B.2 The City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, as amended, which are on file
with the Community Development Department, will be used in the review of requests of certificates of no
negative effect or certificates of appropriateness. Conformance with the applicable guidelines and the
common development review procedures set forth in Chapter 26.304 will be necessary for the approval of
any proposed work.
Please find an analysis of the Commercial Core Historic District Design Standards and Guidelines.
Commercial Design Standard Review uses the same design guidelines for the Commercial Core
Historic District and the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. As described below, the project
conforms with the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines/ Commercial, Lodging and Historic
District Design Standards and Guidelines.
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.
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. weight the applicable guidelines with the practicality of the measure.
General Design Standards and Guidelines
1.1 All projects shall provide a context study.
Please reference Exhibit Q and the figures below for context studies.
1.2 All projects shall respond to the traditional street grid.
The proposed building is oriented parallel to the street.
P73
III.A.
Exhibit A – Commercial Design + Demolition
304 East Hopkins
1.3 Landscape elements [both hardscape and softscape] should complement the surrounding context,
support the street scene and enhance the architecture of the building.
Proposed landscape elements include planter boxes to enhance the street scene along Restaurant
Row and to create a defined area for outdoor dining. An engineering report is included as Exhibit
T which provides preliminary direction on storm water management for this small site.
1.4 Where there is open space on a site, reinforce the traditional transition from public space to semi-
public space to private space.
The proposed planters, covered front porch, and the perpendicular walkway from the sidewalk to
the restaurant entrance and to the basement commercial space delineate a transition from public
to semi-public to private space.
1.5 Maintain alignment of building facades where appropriate.
The proposed building is setback from the front property line, in a location similar to the existing
building, to respect the landmark at 302 W. Hopkins and to reveal the corner of the historic asset.
The setback also facilitates at grade pedestrian amenity which is consistent with outdoor dining
spaces along this block of Hopkins also known as Restaurant Row.
Figure 1: Existing setbacks within the block. Orange outline indicates landmark property. Black rectangle is basic outline of
proposed 304 building location and dotted line is porch roof. Refer to Sheet A-0.12 for specific setbacks.
P74
III.A.
Exhibit A – Commercial Design + Demolition
304 East Hopkins
1.6 When a building façade is setback, define the property line. Review the context of the block when
selecting an appropriate technique.
The property line is defined by the planter boxes. The context of the block including adjacent
landmarks that are setback from the street, shown in Figure 1, and the location of the existing
building informed the proposed setback.
1.7 Develop alley facades to create visual interest.
The alley façade is 30 ft. wide, and is designed consistent with the rest of the proposed brick
building. The limited width of the lot does not provide much opportunity to create visual interest
considering trash/recycle and delivery requirements. Using a high quality brick material creates
visual interest and is contextual with the adjacent alley façade at 302.
1.8 – not applicable.
1.9 Minimize the visual impacts of parking.
Onsite parking is not proposed. Mitigation is proposed through cash-in-lieu payment.
1.10 A new building should appear similar in scale and proportion with buildings on the block.
A one story building with a parapet is proposed. The parapet creates the illusion of a vertical
building and is indicative of a commercial building within the Commercial Core Historic District.
The proposed front porch relates to the pedestrian and to the surrounding landmarks that all
feature front porches.
1.11 A minimum building height difference of 2 feet from immediately adjacent buildings is required.
The building to the east (308 Hopkins) is three stories and the building to the west (302 Hopkins)
is about 2 feet taller to the apex. The proposed height of 304 is 17 ft. 6 in. to the top of the parapet.
P75
III.A.
Exhibit A – Commercial Design + Demolition
304 East Hopkins
Figure 2: Height comparison.
1.12 – not applicable.
1.13 Development adjacent to a historic landmark should respond to the historic resource.
• A new building should not obscure historic features of the landmark.
• A new large building should avoid negative impacts on historic resources by stepping down in
scale toward a smaller landmark.
• Consider these three aspects of a new building adjacent to a landmark: form, materials and
fenestration.
o When choosing to relate to building form, use forms that are similar to the historic
resource.
o When choosing to relate to materials, use materials that appear similar in scale and
finish to those used historically on the site, and use building materials that contribute
to a traditional sense of pedestrian scale.
o When choosing to relate to fenestration, use windows and doors that are similar in size,
shape and proportion to those of the historic resource.
The proposed location of the new building is setback from the façade of the white house by about
5 ft. 11in. The rectangular building form is similar to traditional 19th century commercial buildings
with false fronts, and the front porch roof relates to traditional awnings used downtown during
the 19th century. Materials are primarily traditional brick with wood posts and a metal porch roof.
The proposed windows and doors distinguish the front façade as new construction and as a
product of its own time. Historic photos used as inspiration for this design are below. These
photographs of Aspen illustrate false front buildings, large awnings on one story buildings and
some historic photographs of the subject block.
P76
III.A.
Exhibit A – Commercial Design + Demolition
304 East Hopkins
Figure 3: Circa 1900. Store at Hopkins and Galena Streets.
Figure 4: 1934. One story building at Hopkins and Galena Streets where Theory is now.
P77
III.A.
Exhibit A – Commercial Design + Demolition
304 East Hopkins
Figure 5: 1920. Awning on one story building at left.
Figure 6: 1970. One story building next to White House Tavern. Note the prominent roof at 304 Hopkins.
P78
III.A.
Exhibit A – Commercial Design + Demolition
304 East Hopkins
Figure 7: Circa 1965. Buildings within the 300 E. Hopkins block, next to Wells Fargo.
Figure 8: 1963. Corner of Monarch and Main Street. One story brick building.
P79
III.A.
Exhibit A – Commercial Design + Demolition
304 East Hopkins
1.14 Commercial entrances shall be at the sidewalk level and oriented to the street.
The entrance aligns with the sidewalk level and is clearly defined as the primary entrance. A
second entrance is clearly delineated by the exterior stairway that leads to the basement
commercial space.
1.15 Incorporate an internal airlock or air curtain into first floor commercial space.
A seasonal airlock is incorporated into the front porch as shown on the floor plans. The airlock
will be removed during the warmer months and used only during the winter. The airlock is built
of very high quality materials, is integral to the building, and allows the front porch to be
completely open during seasonal months.
1.16 Entries that are significantly taller or shorter than those seen historically or that conflict with the
established scale are highly discouraged.
The proposed entry door is 8 ft. tall which reflects the established range of sizes within the context
of the block.
1.17 - not applicable.
1.18 – The roofscape should be designed with the same attention as the elevations of the building.
This property is subject to the Main Street Mountain Viewplane; however the proposed
mechanical equipment does not intersect the protected viewplane. Mechanical equipment is
consolidated and screened from view at the rear of the building, shown on the preliminary roof
plans. A parapet is located on the front and rear facades to screen mechanical and to relate to
traditional 19th century commercial buildings downtown.
1.19 – Use materials that complement the design of the building façade.
Brick is the primary material proposed for the parapet with a precast concrete cap. A painted
metal access stair for the mechanical equipment is proposed on the rooftop as required by
Building Code.
1.20 – Incorporate green roofs and low landscape elements into rooftop design where feasible.
After detailed analysis it was determined by the design team that the 304 property is not a good
candidate for a green roof due to site specific constraints; however at grade planters may be rain
gardens that filter storm water as described in the attached Engineering Report (Exhibit T).
1.21 – Minimize visibility of rooftop railings.
The parapet wall functions as a rooftop railing. The only allowed access to the roof is for
maintenance of the mechanical equipment.
1.22 – Complete and accurate identification of materials is required.
The drawing set identifies materials for consideration during Final Design Review. Material cut
sheets are included in the application submittal as Exhibit S.
1.23 – Building materials hall have these features:
• Convey the quality and range of materials fond in the current block context or seen
historically in the Character Area.
• Convey pedestrian scale.
• Enhance visual interest through texture, application, and/or dimension.
P80
III.A.
Exhibit A – Commercial Design + Demolition
304 East Hopkins
• Be non-reflective. Shiny or glossy materials are not appropriate as a primary material.
• Have proven durability and weathering characteristics within Aspen’s climate.
• A material with an integral color shall be a neutral color. Some variation is allowed for
secondary materials.
The primary material is brick. Wood columns and beams are proposed for the front porch, and a
simple wood front door is proposed. A dark metal standing seam is proposed for the front porch
roof. The brick parapet has a cast concrete cap, which is also used to cap the planter boxes. Metal
handrails with a bronze finish are proposed for the exterior stair that accesses the basement
commercial space. Impermeable black granite pavers are proposed for the seating area beneath
the front porch. All of the proposed materials are natural in finish and are non-reflective, please
refer to Exhibit S for cut sheets.
The proposed materials reflect the range of materials found in the block – brick, wood, metal, and
precast concrete. The buildings located within the vicinity (shown below) include brick, metal,
wood, ceramic tile, and precast concrete. Considering the proliferation of these materials in
Aspen, they are proven to be durable within Aspen’s climate.
1.24 - not applicable.
1.25 – Architecture that reflects corporate branding of the tenant is not permitted.
Architecture that relates to the Commercial Core Historic District is proposed and is not reflective
of corporate branding.
1.26 - The design of light fixtures should be appropriate to the form, materials, scale, and style of the
building.
Preliminary lighting locations and fixture type are indicated on sheet A-2.00 Ground Floor Plan for
general reference. Lighting fixtures will be proposed during Final Design Review.
Figure 7: Current materials directly across the street from 304 East Hopkins: brick, ceramic tile, metal , stone and precast concrete
materials.
Figure 9: The buildings to the east of 304 Hopkins include a three story infill building (308 East Hopkins) constructed about 10 years ago that includes brick,
stone, precast concrete and metal materials. To the right of 308 East Hopkins is a one story landmark that, similar to White House Tavern at 302 East
Hopkins, is primarily horizontal wood clapboard siding.
P81
III.A.
Exhibit A – Commercial Design + Demolition
304 East Hopkins
1.27 – Trash and recycle service areas shall be co-
located along an alleyway where on exists, and
screened from view with a fence or door.
The proposed utility/trash/recycle area is
located along the alleyway. A metal roll down
door in burnished slate finish is proposed. The
proposed trash area greatly improves the
current condition shown at right.
1.28 – Design trash and recycle areas thoughtfully and
within the style of the building, with the goal of
enhancing pedestrian and commercial uses along the
alley.
The materials proposed for the front elevation
are carried to the rear elevation to create a cohesive building. The rear elevation is clean and
simple to support alley uses that may occur on adjacent properties in the future.
1.29 – Delivery areas shall be located along an alleyway where one exists.
The main delivery entrance is at the alley for both the main and basement levels.
1.30 – Mechanical equipment, ducts, and vents shall be accommodated internally within the building
and/or co-located on the roof.
A preliminary roof plan is included in the drawing submittal that shows consolidation of
mechanical equipment on the roof, minimal ducts and vents, and a mechanical roof is provided
in the basement. Equipment is screened by the parapet wall.
1.31 – Minimize the visual impacts of utility connections and service boxes.
Utility and service boxes are located on the alley façade (only the gas meter) and within the
trash/recycle/utility room (electrical panels) to the greatest extent practical. Please refer to Sheet
A-2.00 Ground Floor Plan.
1.32 – Transformer location and size are dictated by City and utility company standards and codes.
The design team has been working with the City for almost 6 months to verify capacity and ability
to use the recently upgraded transformer at the Wells Fargo building.
1.33 to 1.37 – not applicable (these guidelines/standards pertain to remodels).
Conceptual Commercial Core Design Standards and Guidelines
2.1 – Maintain the alignment of facades at the property line.
• Place as much of a building at the property line as possible to reinforce historic development
patterns.
• A minimum of 50% of the first floor building façade shall be at the property line. This
requirement may be varied by the Historic Preservation Commission based on historic context
of in order to accommodate Pedestrian Amenity.
Figure 10: Current alley condition. Middle building is 304 E.
Hopkins.
P82
III.A.
Exhibit A – Commercial Design + Demolition
304 East Hopkins
• A minimum of 70% of the first floor building façade shall be at the property line for properties
on a pedestrian mall.
Consistent with subpoint two above, the building is aligned with historic context to support and
highlight the adjacent 302 East Hopkins landmark that has a significant front yard setback and to
accommodate street level Amenity space. 304 East Hopkins has 30 feet of street frontage, so in
addition to revealing the historic corner of 302, a setback allows at grade pedestrian amenity for
outdoor dining. The proposed setback creates a softer transition between the three story 308 East
Hopkins building that sits on the property line and the setback of the historic 302 East Hopkins
building.
This property is located on “restaurant row” with ample outdoor dining – street level, on property
dining is consistent with development patterns found within the block and creates a transition from
the Commercial Core Zone District to the adjacent Mixed Use Zone District (which has a 10 ft. front
yard setback requirement) on the other side of Monarch Street.
The 1886 Sanborn Map is provided below to highlight the range of setbacks found in block which back
in 1886 was a mix of commercial and residential buildings.
302 308
Figure 11: Rendering showing reveal of historic building at 302 East Hopkins and the relationship between the subject property
and 308 East Hopkins.
P83
III.A.
Exhibit A – Commercial Design + Demolition
304 East Hopkins
The property is required to provide at least 50% of the required Pedestrian Amenity onsite or to ask
City Council for a variance. The proposed at grade amenity space is appropriate for the current
conditions of the block and is appropriate considering the historic context of the area. Three of the
seven remaining one story residential miner’s cabins within the Commercial Core are found within
the block and across Hopkins Avenue. A front yard setback, while it sacrifices valuable year-round net
leasable area, is appropriate for this location and is similar to the current building setback at 304 East
Hopkins.
In addition to the site constraints related to Pedestrian Amenity, the design intent to align facades is
met through the projecting front porch and the substantial planter boxes located on the property line.
2.2 – Not applicable.
2.3 – Development should be inspired by traditional late 19th-century commercial buildings to reinforce
continuity in architectural language within the Historic District. Consider the following design elements:
form, materials, and fenestration. Pick two areas to related strongly to the context.
• When relating to materials, use traditional application of materials commonly found in the
Historic District, such as wood, brick and stone, and use similar texture and color to the historic
context.
Figure 12: 1886 Sanborn Map of subject block.
P84
III.A.
Exhibit A – Commercial Design + Demolition
304 East Hopkins
• When relating to fenestration, large vertical windows on the ground level and punches vertical
openings on upper levels, with a similar solid to void ratio are appropriate.
• When relating to form, note that rectangular forms are predominant with limited projecting or
setback elements. Most roofs are flat, but some gables are present and these may be a
reference for new design.
The proposed one story flat roof building with a front porch element is inspired by the historic
photographs provided above and specifically by the original one story residence located on the site
(shown below).
The architecture relates to materials through the use of traditional brick, wood, stone and metal in a
neutral color palette. The rectangular form is consistent with typical commercial buildings. The
proposed setback relates to surrounding historic context and the projecting front porch is reminiscent
of large awnings found throughout the Commercial Core while remaining authentic to the building as
a product of its own time and not recreating history.
Figure 13: 1970s photograph of a building that is similar to the 1886 Sanborn map footprint at 304 East Hopkins.
P85
III.A.
Exhibit A – Commercial Design + Demolition
304 East Hopkins
2.4 – Respect adjacent iconic historic structures.
• Development near historic landmarks may use Pedestrian Amenity designs as a transition or
buffer to highlight the importance of adjacent historic structures.
• Use simple architectural details, materials and massing that do not detract from nearby historic
landmarks.
The proposed front setback exposes the historic corner and side façade of the landmark at 302 East
Hopkins as part of the proposed at grade Pedestrian Amenity at 304. This allows diners to enjoy the
historic architecture as part of the outdoor dining experience. Simple architectural details create a
support and secondary backdrop to the Carpenter Gothic style of 302 East Hopkins.
2.5 – The massing and proportions of a new building or addition should respond to the historic context.
• Two story buildings are encouraged. A two-story high one-story element should be used with
finesse and discretion.
• On larger buildings, stepping down to a one-story element within the composition is
appropriate and consistent with the historic pattern of the district.
• Building modules or individual features should generally be tall and narrow in proportion.
A one story flat roof building directly relates to the three one-story landmarks located within the block
and directly across the street (i.e. Katie Reed building). The proposed one story building is 17.5 ft to
the top of parapet which is lower than the adjacent 302 landmark, but tall enough to avoid a short
and wide building mass.
Figure 14: Awnings along Cooper Avenue. Arrow points to a one story building with large projecting awning.
P86
III.A.
Exhibit A – Commercial Design + Demolition
304 East Hopkins
In addition to historic context, a one story building is proposed in this location due to some site specific
constraints and new Land Use Code requirements. First, the Main Street view plane intersects this
property at alley and the new Land Use Code located this property in the foreground of the view plane
which places very strict height limitations. Second tier commercial requirements that require direct
access are burdensome on a 30 ft. wide interior lot with an onsite Pedestrian Amenity requirement.
After numerous studies and analysis, a one story building is the best approach to Code requirements
and to respect adjacent one story landmarks.
2.6 – not applicable
2.7 – not applicable.
2.8 – Composition of the façade, including choices related to symmetry and asymmetry, should reflect
the close readings of patterns established by the 19th-century structures.
• The pattern of building widths or bays within a building varies from 20 to 30 feet. Variety is
preferred.
• Provide historic precedent using historic maps and adjacent landmarks to determine
appropriate building width, height, and form. Photographs, dimensional drawings, figure-
ground diagrams, are all examples of tools that can be used to illustrate precedent.
• Align architectural details and features with the surrounding context.
The 1886 and 1890 Sanborn maps show a building width of slightly less than 30 feet for most of the
buildings in the block. The proposed design extends to the side lot lines and the access stair to the
required basement second tier commercial space breaks up the façade into two modules of 24ft 6 ½
inches wide for the restaurant and 5ft 5 ¼ inches wide for the basement space. A secondary door on
the front façade of a downtown building typically provides access to the upper floors, where in this
condition it accesses a basement level as required by the Land Use Code. Proposed window height is
closely aligned with the adjacent 302 landmark to provide consistency with the surrounding context.
Figure 15: Tall one story commercial building with flat roof and parapet.
P87
III.A.
Exhibit A – Commercial Design + Demolition
304 East Hopkins
Figures 16 and 17: Renderings of proposed façade.
2.9 – Recessed entries are required.
• Set a primary entrance back from the front façade a minimum of 4 feet.
• Alternative options that define an entryway and reinforce the rhythm of recessed entryways
may be considered.
The large front porch element defines the entryway and relates better to the rhythm of front porch
elements in the block than recessed entryways, which are not typical in this block of Hopkins Avenue.
The design intent of using context to drive an appropriate and identifiable entryway is met through
P88
III.A.
Exhibit A – Commercial Design + Demolition
304 East Hopkins
this proposal. A recessed entryway would be appropriate on a commercial building built to the
property line, but is not appropriate for this type of building.
2.10 – not applicable.
2.11 – Maintain a floor to ceiling height of 12 to 15 feet for the first floor and 9 feet for the second floor.
Not applicable. A one story building is proposed; therefore there is no relationship between the first
and second floor. A floor to ceiling interior height of 16 feet is proposed.
2.12 – not applicable.
2.13 – Street level commercial storefronts should be predominately transparent glass.
• Window design, including the presence of mullions, has a significant influence on architectural
expression. Avoid windows which suggest historic styles or building types that are not part of
Aspen’s story.
Large storefront windows are proposed with a horizontal mullion. The proposed windows show an
architectural rhythm and a contemporary expression that represents this building as a product of its
own time.
2.14 – Architectural details should reinforce historic context and meet at least two of the following
qualities.
• Color or finish traditionally found downtown.
• Texture to create visual interest, especially for larger buildings.
• Traditional material: Brick, stone, metal and wood.
• Traditional application: for example, a running bond for masonry.
The proposed details and materials meet three of the four qualities listed above. The primary material
is brick. Wood columns and beams are proposed for the front porch, and a simple wood front door is
proposed. A dark metal standing seam is proposed for the front porch roof. The brick parapet has a
cast concrete cap, which is also used to cap the planter boxes. Metal handrails with a bronze finish
are proposed for the exterior stair that accesses the basement commercial space. Impermeable black
granite pavers are proposed for the seating area beneath the front porch. All of the proposed
materials are natural in finish and are non-reflective, please refer to Exhibit S for cut sheets.
26.412.070. Pedestrian Amenity
B. Provision of Pedestrian Amenity. Unless specified, the Planning and Zoning Commission or the 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,
Lodge and Historic District Design Standards and Guidelines.
25% of the property or 753.8 sf is required Pedestrian Amenity for the property. Considering this
property is 30 ft. wide, there is limited space to accommodate the required Amenity onsite. As
such the application proposes a mix of onsite amenity and cash in lieu. Cash in lieu of less than
P89
III.A.
Exhibit A – Commercial Design + Demolition
304 East Hopkins
377 sf (or 50% of the requirement) may be approved by HPC rather than City Council. 435 sf of
onsite amenity is proposed.
Pedestrian Amenity Guidelines and Standards are addressed below:
PA1.1 Maximize solar access to Pedestrian Amenity space on the subject property.
• At grade Pedestrian Amenity on the north side of the street is discouraged, except when
providing a front yard along Main Street.
The property is located on the north side of the street; however the space is proposed for
outdoor dining beneath the front porch which can accommodate heating to create a
comfortable environment.
PA1.2 - not applicable.
PA1.3 Street level Pedestrian Amenity spaces should be equal to a minimum of 1/3 of the total
Pedestrian Amenity requirement.
The proposed street level space is more than half of the requirement.
PA1.4 Street level Pedestrian Amenity shall be within 18 inches above or below the existing
grade of the street or sidewalk which abuts the space.
Street level Amenity is within 18 inches of the surrounding grade.
PA1.5 Street level Pedestrian Amenity areas shall be open to the sky.
• Direct access to the Pedestrian Amenity from the street is required.
• A street level Pedestrian Amenity space may be covered, subject to HPC or P&Z
approval. If the space is covered, the street-facing portion shall be entirely open.
A front porch element is proposed which covers approximately 319 sf of the Amenity space.
The front porch element is related to historic context as described in detail above.
PA1.6 Design meaningful street level space that is useful, versatile, and accessible.
• Small unusable spaces are inappropriate.
• Consider providing space for future outdoor merchandising or restaurant seating
opportunities when designing the space.
• Providing good solar access, capturing mountain views, and providing seating is
recommended.
• Do not duplicate existing nearby open space.
• Storage areas, delivery areas, parking areas, or trash areas are not allowed uses within
Pedestrian Amenity space.
Proposed Amenity space is proposed to be restaurant seating.
PA1.7 Design amenity space that enhances the pedestrian experience and faces the street.
P90
III.A.
Exhibit A – Commercial Design + Demolition
304 East Hopkins
• On corner lots, Pedestrian Amenity space may be considered on side streets or adjacent
to the alley rather than facing primary streets.
Proposed Amenity space faces the street and enhances the current outdoor dining experience
within the block.
PA1.8 Street level Pedestrian Amenity space should reinforce the property line. Consider the
context of the block when selecting an appropriate technique.
Planter boxes are proposed to define the property line.
PA1.9 Street level Pedestrian Amenity may be appropriate on a case by case basis within the
Commercial Core Historic District.
• Consider the existing context of the block.
• Clearly define the property line as defined in PA1.8
• In this District, street level Pedestrian Amenity should be subordinate to the line of
building fronts.
The range of setbacks in this block support the proposed street level amenity which enhances
the adjacent historic landmark and is consistent with outdoor dining characteristics of the
neighborhood.
PA1.10 - not applicable.
PA1.11 - not applicable.
26.412.070.B.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 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.
Not applicable. Property is not located on a Pedestrian Mall.
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.
The site is 30 ft x 100 ft. which limits the ability to provide onsite Pedestrian Amenity. The Main
Street view plane and an adjacent one story landmark limit the ability to provide a second floor
or rooftop Pedestrian Amenity space, and second tier commercial requirements limit the ability
to provide a subgrade courtyard. Midblock walkways and interior courtyards are not an option
P91
III.A.
Exhibit A – Commercial Design + Demolition
304 East Hopkins
for this 3,015 sf lot. Cash in lieu is requested to fulfill the remaining Amenity requirement that is
not met through the onsite Amenity provided.
The calculation is provided below:
3,015 sf lot * 25% = 753.75 sf required pedestrian amenity
Total proposed onsite = 435 sf
Remainder requested as cash in lieu = 753.75 – 435 = 318.75 sf as cash in lieu
318.75 sf * $100 = $31,875 cash in lieu
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.
The requested cash in lieu is less than 50% of the requirement.
26.412.080 Second Tier Commercial Space
B. Requirement.
2. The redevelopment of any building that includes existing second tier commercial space shall provide the
greater of fifty-percent (50%) of the existing space or the minimums outlined in Table 26.412.100-1. (The
minimum for Commercial Core is 20% and the maximum is 75%).
Existing second tier space within the 304 E. Hopkins building is located on the basement and upper
floor.
Table 1. Second Tier Calculation
Existing Proposed
Basement (second tier) 2,647 1,774
Main floor (prime) 1,631 2,003
Second floor (second tier) 901 n/a
Total commercial 5,179 3,777
Total second tier 3,548 1,774
Required second tier 50% - 1,774 sf Min. 20% - 755.4 sf
The proposed basement space is second tier commercial which meets the required 1,774 sf of net
leasable space. It has a separate entrance from Hopkins Avenue and meets the definition of
second tier space. The proposed use of the second tier commercial space is not yet determined.
26.415.080. Demolition of designated historic properties or properties within a
historic district.
It is the intent of this Chapter to preserve the historic and architectural resources that have demonstrated
significance to the community. Consequently no demolition of properties designated on the Aspen
Inventory of Historic Landmark Site and Structures or properties within a Historic District will be allowed
unless approved by the HPC in accordance with the standards set forth in this Section.
P92
III.A.
Exhibit A – Commercial Design + Demolition
304 East Hopkins
4. The HPC shall review the application, the staff report and hear evidence presented by the property
owners, parties of interest and members of the general public to determine if the standards for
demolition approval have been met. Demolition shall be approved if it is demonstrated that the
application meets any one of the following criteria:
a) The property has been determined by the City to be an imminent hazard to public safety and
the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely manner,
b) The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly
maintain the structure,
c) The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen or
d) No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic,
architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance and
Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met:
a) The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or Historic District in which
it is located and
b) The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the
Historic District or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated
properties and
c) Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the
area.
The existing building, aka the Seguin Building/Renaissance Building/Smith Building, was
approved by City Council in 1979 and was completed in the early 1980s. The architect was
Donald Ball who was a partner in the local firm Jacobs/Ball & Associates. The architecture
and the architect are not recognized within the AspenModern program as important to the
Commercial Core Historic District or to the AspenModern program. The loss of the building
will not adversely affect the integrity of the Historic District and demolition will be
inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the area.
P93
III.A.
Exhibit B – GMQS
304 East Hopkins
Exhibit B
Growth Management
26.470.080 General Review Standards
All Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council applications for growth management review shall
comply with the following standards.
A. Sufficient Allotments. Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the
proposed development, pursuant to Subsection 26.470.040.B. Applications for multi-year development
allotment, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.110.A shall be required to meet this standard for the growth
management years form which the allotments are requested.
Sufficient growth management allotments are not required as the commercial net leasable is
significantly reduced by this proposal.
B. Development Conformance. The proposed development conforms to the requirements and limitations
of this Title, of the zone district for site specific development plan, any adopted regulatory master plan, as
well as any previous approvals, including the Conceptual Historic Preservation Commission approval, the
Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval and the Planned Development – Project Review approval,
as applicable.
The project conforms to the requirements of the Land Use Code and to the Commercial Core Zone
District. Commercial Design and Major Development Review for a property located within a
Historic District are consolidated with the GMQS application.
C. Public Infrastructure and Facilities. The proposed development shall upgrade public infrastructure and
facilities necessary to serve the project. Improvements shall be a the sole costs of the developer. Public
infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment, energy and communication
utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid waste disposal, parking and road and transit
services.
The proposed project replaces a mixed use building with a much smaller commercial building.
Sufficient infrastructure and facilities are available for the proposed smaller building as
demonstrated in the Engineering Report included as Exhibit T.
D. Affordable Housing Mitigation.
1) For commercial development, sixty-five percent (65%) of the employees generated by the
additional commercial net leasable space, according to Section 26. 470.050.B, Employee
generation rates, shall be mitigated through the provision of affordable housing.
Not applicable. No new commercial net leasable space is added.
P94
III.A.
Exhibit B – GMQS
304 East Hopkins
Table 1. Existing commercial net leasable
Net leasable area FTEs
Basement 2,647 9.34
Main floor 1631 7.67
Upper floor 901 3.18
Total 5179 20.19
Table 2. Proposed project
Net leasable area FTEs
Basement 1774 6.26
Main floor 2003 9.41
Total 3777 15.67
There is no increase in FTEs associated with the project.
2) For lodge development, sixty-five percent (65%) of the employees generated by the additional
lodge pillows, according to Section 26.470.050.B, Employee generation rates, shall be mitigated
through the provision of affordable housing.
Not applicable.
3) For the redevelopment of existing commercial net leasable space that did not previously mitigate
(see Section 26. 470.070.F), the mitigation requirements for affordable housing shall be phased at
15% beginning in 201, and by 3% each year thereafter until 65% is reached.
Please refer to Exhibit G, a determination by the Community Development Department
that concludes the existing commercial is mitigated by the two onsite deed restricted
units.
4) Unless otherwise exempted in this chapter, when a change in use between development categories
is proposed, the employee mitigation shall be based on the use the development is converting to.
For instance, if a commercial space is being converted to lodge units, the mitigation shall be based
on the requirements for lodge space, outlined in subsection 2, above. Conversely, if lodge units
are being converted to commercial space, the mitigation shall be based on the requirements for
commercial space, outlined in subsections 1 and 3.
No change in use is proposed.
For free market residential development, affordable housing net livable area shall be provided in
an amount equal to at least thirty percent (30%) of the additional free market residential net
livable area.
Not applicable.
5) For essential public facility development, mitigation shall be determined base don Section
26.470.110.D.
P95
III.A.
Exhibit B – GMQS
304 East Hopkins
Not applicable.
6) For all affordable housing provided as mitigation pursuant to this chapter or for the creation of a
Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit pursuant to Chapter 26. 540.
Not applicable.
7) Affordable housing units that are being provided absent a requirement (“voluntary units”) may be
deed restricted at any level of affordability, including residential occupied (RO).
Not applicable.
26.470.100.E Demolition or redevelopment of multi-family housing
26.470.100.E.2 Requirements for demolishing affordable multi-family housing units.
In the event a project proposes to demolish or replace existing deed-restricted affordable housing units,
the redevelopment may increase or decrease the number of units, bedrooms or net livable area such that
there is no decrease in the total number of employees housed by the existing units. The overall number of
replacement units, units sizes, bedrooms and category of the units shall be reviewed by the Aspen/Pitkin
County Housing Authority and a recommendation forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
There are three levels of commercial space within the two-story building, and two deed restricted
residential studio units located on the upper floor. The recorded condominium plat assigned
Units 1, 2 and 5 to commercial use; and Units 3 and 4 are assigned to the deed restricted studio
units. These units were required as housing mitigation for the commercial space.
Removal of the two studio residential units is considered demolition. The affordable units house
2.5 FTEs (1.25 FTES per studio). The existing units are both substandard in size: minimum size of
a studio is 500 sf. The units are deed restricted as “low income” with no specific Category
assignment.
Due to site constraints, the Main Street view plane, and the history of complaints between
residences above restaurants, the proposal is to replace the housing units through affordable
housing credits. Housing Credits for 2.5 FTEs at Category 2 is proposed.
26.470.100.E.4 Location requirement.
Multi-family replacement units, both free market and affordable, shall be development on the same site
on which demolition has occurred, unless the owner shall demonstrate and the Planning and Zoning
Commission determines that replacement of the units on the site would be in conflict with the parcel’s
zoning or would be an inappropriate solution due to the site’s physical constraints.
When either of the above circumstances result, the owner shall replace the maximum number of units on
site which the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that the site can accommodate and may
replace the remaining units off-site, at a location determined acceptable to the Planning and Zoning, or
may replace the units by extinguishing the requisite number of affordable housing credits, pursuant to Sec.
26.54, Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority shall be considered for this standard.
P96
III.A.
Exhibit B – GMQS
304 East Hopkins
When calculating the number of credits that must be extinguished, the most restrictive replacement
measure shall apply.
Replacement of the housing units onsite would be an inappropriate solution due to the small size
of the property, the Main Street view plane, the surrounding one story historic landmarks, and
the inability to provide onsite parking for the housing unit or units considering trash/utility,
delivery and egress requirements along the alley.
Affordable housing credits offer a great opportunity to support the Housing Credit program and
to replace the deed restricted units in a more appropriate location without compromising other
City and community goals such as view planes, adequate service along the alley, and historic
context.
26.470.100.F Expansion or new commercial development
The expansion of an existing commercial building or commercial portion of a mixed use building or the
development of a new commercial building or commercial portion of a mixed use building shall be
approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on general
requirements outlined in Section 26.470.080.
Please see General Requirements addressed above. There is no increase to the existing
commercial net leasable space.
P97
III.A.
Exhibit C – Parking/Transportation
304 East Hopkins
Exhibit C
Transportation and Parking Management
26.515.060.C. Review Criteria
All development and redevelopment projects are required to submit a Mobility Plan, which shall include
and describe a project’s mitigations for TIA and Parking Requirements. The Engineering, Transportation,
and Community Development Department staff shall determine whether the project conforms to this
Chapter requirements using the following standards:
1. Project TIA and the resulting mitigation program meets requirements for exempt, minor or
major project categories as outlined in the TIA Guidelines.
A completed TIA is attached as Exhibit D. Due to the reduction in commercial net leasable
space, the project generates a negative number of trips.
2. Project provides full mitigation for the Parking Requirements pursuant to Section 26.515.050.
In the commercial core historic district, 100% of the parking mitigation may be through
the provision of cash in lieu. 1 parking space ($38,000) per 1,000 sf of net leasable
commercial is required = 3.777 parking spaces or $143,526 is the required cash in lieu.
3. If existing development is expanded, additional Parking Requirements shall be provided for that
increment of the expansion.
Not applicable.
4. If existing development is redeveloped, on-site parking deficits may not be maintained unless
all parking, or at least 20 spaces are provided as Public Parking.
The commercial net leasable is reduced in the proposal. A total of 3,777 sf of net
leasable is proposed (5,179 sf of nla exists onsite currently). See calculation in Section 2
above. Cash in lieu is proposed for mitigation.
P98
III.A.
DATE:
PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT ADDRESS:
APPLICANT CONTACT
INFORMATION:
NAME, COMPANY,
ADDRESS, PHONE, EMAIL
Peak Hour Max Trips Generated MMLOS TDM Total Trips Mitigated
AM -4.7 0 -0.08 -0.08 0.00
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.
rep: Sara Adams
BendonAdams
300 S. Spring St., #202
925-2855; sara@bendonadams.com
Summary and Narrative:
Narrative:
3/19/2018
304 E. Hopkins
304 East Hopkins
Trip Generation
SUMMARY
Trip Mitigation NET TRIPS TO BE
MITIGATED
Project Description
In the space below provide a description of the proposed project.
A one story above grade commercial building, with a full basement, is proposed to replace the existing three story commercial and affordable
housing building. The property is 3,015 sf is size and is located between a one story historic landmark and a three story mixed use building. The
property is located within the foreground of the Main Street view plane and is located within the Commercial Core Historic District.
MMLOS
Include any additional information that pertains to the MMLOS plan in the space provided below.
Enter Text Here
TDM
Explain below how the project plans to participate in the Transportation Options Program (TOP). The successful project will work with City
of Aspen staff to determine whether TOP membership is appropriate and, if so, to join the program. Notes: This program is not typically
appropriate for employers of less than 20 employees. Grant funding from the TOP program may not be used to offset mitigation measures
until the reporting period has been successfully completed
The tenants will participate in the City's TOP program.
Exhibit D
P99
III.A.
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.
Marketing information about alternate modes of transportation will be included in break rooms.
Include any additional information that pertains to the TDM plan in the space provided below.
Enter Text Here
MMLOS Site Plan Requirements
Include the following on a site plan. Clearly call out and label each measure. Attach the site plan to the TIA submittal.
Slopes Between Back of Curb and Sidewalk
2% Slope at Pedestrian Driveway Crossings
Pedestrian Directness Factor (See callout number 9 on the MMLOS sheet for an example)
Enforcement and Financing
Provide an overview of the Enforcement and Financing plan for the proposed transportation mitigation measures.
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.
The City may request the tenants create and provide a monitoring and reporting plan.
Information on the transportation measures will be provided to tenants.
Scheduling and Implementation Responsibility of Mitigation Measures
Provide an overview of the scheduling and implementation responsibility for the proposed transportation mitigation measures.
Transportation measures are the responsibility of the tenant.
Monitoring and Reporting
P100
III.A.
= input= calculation
DATE:
PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT ADDRESS:
APPLICANT CONTACT
INFORMATION:
NAME, COMPANY,
ADDRESS, PHONE, EMAIL
Minor
Entering Exiting Total Entering Exiting Total
Commercial (sf)-1402.0 sf -2.20 -0.99 -3.18 -2.32 -3.48 -5.80
Free-Market Housing (Units)0 Units 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Affordable Housing (Units)-2 Units -0.72 -0.78 -1.50 -0.98 -0.80 -1.78
Lodging (Units)0 Units 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Essential Public Facility (sf)0.0 sf 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
-2.92 -1.77 -4.68 -3.30 -4.28 -7.58
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
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?
304 East Hopkins
304 E. Hopkins
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.
rep: Sara Adams
BendonAdams
300 S. Spring St., #202
925-2855; sara@bendonadams.com
Trip Generation
3/19/2018
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
P101
III.A.
= input
= calculation
0
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?
No 0
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
0
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?Yes 0
9
Is new large-scale landscaping proposed that improves the
pedestrian experience? Properties within the Core do not have
ample area to provide the level of landscaping required to receive
credit in this category.
No 0
10 Does the project propose an improved crosswalk? This measure
must get City approval before receiving credit. No 0
0
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.
No 0
15 Does the project propose enhanced pedestrian or bicyclist
interaction with vehicles at driveway areas?No 0
0
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 0PedestriansTOTAL NUMBER OF TRIPS MITIGATED:Pedestrian RoutesTraffic Calming and Pedestrian NetworkDriveways, Parking, and Access ConsiderationsMMLOS 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
P102
III.A.
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
0
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?No 0
0
0
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?No 0
0
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
0
SubtotalAdditional Proposed ImprovementsTransitBasic AmenitiesSubtotal
Subtotal
Subtotal
Enhanced AmenitiesSubtotal
Subtotal
Pedestrian Total*
Bicycles Total*
Transit Total*BicyclesModifications to Existing Bicycle PathsP103
III.A.
Category Measure
Number Sub. Question Answer Strategy VMT
Reductions
Will an onsite ammenities strategy be implemented?No
Which onsite ammenities will be implemented?
Will a shared shuttle service strategy be implemented?No
What is the degree of implementation?
What is the company size?
What percentage of customers are eligible?
3 Nonmotorized Zones Will a nonmotorized zones strategy be implemented?No 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?Yes
What percentage of employees are eligible?100%
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?No
What percentage of employees are participating?
What is the workweek schedule?
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?No
What percentage of employees are eligble?
Is carshare participation being implemented?No
How many employee memberships have been purchased?
What percentage of employees are eligble?
Is participation in the bikeshare program WE-cycle being implemented?No
How many memberships have been purchased?
What percentage of employees/guests are eligble?
Is an end of trip facilities strategy being implemented?No
What is the degree of implementation?
What is the employer size?
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?No
What is the employer size?
What number of parking spots are available for the program?
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%
1.71%
0.00%
1.71%
1. 22% work trips represents a mixed-used site (SF Bay Area Travel Survey). See Assumptions Tab for more detail.
21
16
17
18
19
20
11
12
13
14
15
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
TDM Input Page
0.00%
0.00%
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
Maximum Reduction Allowed in Category
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Bikeshare Program
0.00%
4.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
4.00%
Maximum Reduction Allowed in Category
Maximum Reduction Allowed in CategoryTransit System Improvements Strategies1
2
4
5
6
8
9
10
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.
P104
III.A.
SUBJECT PROPERTY304 E HOPKINS AVEE HOPKINS AVE>>>>>>DIRECTNESS FACTORWALKING DISTANCE = 36 FTDIRECTNESS FACTORCROW FLIES DISTANCE = 25.5 FTACCESSPOINTFRONTENTRANCESIDEWALK CROSSSLOPE, MAX 2%LANDSCAPE AREA(BACK OF CURB TOSIDEWALK) SLOPE,MAX 5%ALLEYDIRECTNESS FACTOR36/25.5 =1.4PROPOSEDBUILDINGOPRIS ES NGINEERING, LLC.
CIVIL CONSULTANTS
TIA SITE PLAN
304 EAST HOPKINS AVE
HPC SUBMITTALJOB NO. 17221SHEET 1DATE: 03-21-18NO.REVISION BY DATE
502 MAIN STREET
CARBONDALE, CO 81623
(970) 704-0311
FAX: (970)-704-0313
ASPEN, COLORADO
G:\2017\17221\CIVIL\CIVIL DWGS\DE\17221 - DE.DWG - Mar 21, 2018 - 10:54am NORTH1 inch = 20 ft.010 2040GRAPHIC SCALE( IN FEET )Exhibit DP105III.A.
Exhibit E – view plane
304 East Hopkins
Exhibit E
View plane
26.435.050.A Jurisdiction [emphasis added]
Unless subject to Administrative Review as described in Section 26.435.050.D, all applications for
development which infringes upon a designated view plane shall be subject to administrative review or
review for an exemption in compliance with this Section by the Planning and Zoning Commission or Historic
Preservation Commission (collectively, the Review Body). Projects unable to meet the applicable view
plane standards shall be required to obtain a variation from the requirement and standards of this section
from the applicable review body and are subject to a public vote as required by section 13.14 of the City
Charter.
26.435.050.C Applicability
1.c This section shall not limit the ability of development to occur below a view plane. If development on
a property is within the lateral extent of a view plane but does not infringe into the view plane then that
development is not subject to the requirements of this section.
As shown in the attached image and below, the Main Street view plane is not intersected by the
proposed one story commercial building or the proposed rooftop mechanical equipment, ducts,
vents, or parapet. The proposed development is not subject to view plane review.
view plane
Figure 1: Section of proposed building (A-11.0) showing Main Street view plane above.
P106
III.A.
MAIN ST. VIEW PLANE DIAGRAMHILLSTONE ASPENMARCH 23, 2018FLEETWOOD FERNANDEZARCHITECTS7911.9’7911.9’7948.39’7947.82’Exhibit EP107
III.A.
Exhibit F – Trash/Recycle Special Review
304 East Hopkins
Exhibit F
Trash/Recycle Area – Special Review
Sec. 12.10.030.(A).b.
For Commercial Buildings that will contain or that will have the capacity to contain an
establishment with a Retail Food Service License, as defined by the State of Colorado Retail Food
Establishment Rules and Regulations, a minimum of twenty (20) linear feet adjacent to the
alleyway must be reserved for trash and recycling facilities. The required area shall have a
minimum vertical clearance of ten (10) feet and a minimum depth of fifteen (15) feet at ground
level.
The project requests Special Review to vary the dimensional requirements. The proposed trash area is
10ft 9 ½ in. wide x 10 ft. high x 7ft ¼ in. deep. A metal rolling door is proposed.
Sec. 12.10.080.E Special Review
The Environmental Health Department may reduce the required dimensions of a trash and
recycling service area if:
(i) There is demonstration that, given the nature of the potential uses of the building and its total
square footage, the trash and recycling area proposed will be adequate:
a. For the purposes of approvals, adequate will be defined as follows:
i. For a Commercial, Lodge or Multi-family building the space must accommodate
and provide access to the following types of bins at a minimum:
• One garbage collection bin
• One comingled container recycling collection bin
• One office paper recycling collection bin
• One newspaper/magazine recycling collection bin
• One cardboard recycling collection bin or collection area where boxes can
be stacked and contained in an enclosed space.
Please refer to site plan and ground floor plan for delineated trash area.
ii. Access by both the tenants and the waste hauling companies to the trash and
recycling service area is adequate; and,
Access to the trash area is from the alley for the hauling companies and tenants.
iii. Measures are provided for locating and enclosing trash bins and making them
easily movable by trash personnel; and,
The trash area is located at the alley and is at grade.
P108
III.A.
Exhibit F – Trash/Recycle Special Review
304 East Hopkins
iv. The proposed area meets the requirements to the greatest extent practicable
given physical constraints of the property or existing improvements.
The proposed area meets trash requirements to the greatest extent practicable
considering the small size of the lot 30 x 100 and the small restaurant and
commercial operation (3,777 sf of net leasable area total) of the proposed
building.
P109
III.A.
Exhibit G
P110
III.A.
P111
III.A.
P112
III.A.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO
Resolution No. ~/
Series of 1979~
WHEREAS, in accordance with Ordinance No. 48, Series of 1977, September l,
1979, was established as a deadline for submission of 1979 applications for
commercial and office development within the City of Aspen, and
WHEREAS, in response to this ordinance six commercial projects were submitted
for a total of 28,6 square feet of commercial space within the 24,000 square
feet of commercial space available in 1979, and
WHEREAS, duly noticed public hearings were conducted before the Aspen
Historic Preservation Commission on October 4, 1979, and before the Planning
and Zoning Commission on October 23, 1979, to consider the Growth Management
applications and evaluate and score these applications in conformance with
criteria established in Ordinance No. 48, Series of 1977, and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission did evaluate, rank, and score
the projects submitted in the following order:
P and Z HPC
Average Average Total
1. Epicure Plaza Building
10,041 sq. ft.) 18.6 14.0 32.6
2. La Cocina Addn.
1,300 sq. ft.) 15.4 12.4 27.8
3. Bell Mountain Sports Addn.
2,000 sq. ft.) 16.4 11.3 27.7
4. Smith Building
5,100 sq. ft.) 14.3 13.0 27.3
5. Ajax Mountain Assoc. Bldg.
6,02~ sq. ft.) 15.7 9.0 24.7
6. First National Bank Addn.
4,203 sq. ft.) 16.2 7.9 24.1
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended, in accordance
with Section 24-10.3(a), that City Council authorize additional
commercial construction in the amount of4~669 square feet so as to approve all six
projects.NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Aspen,Colorado, hereby allocates commercial development allotment to the
Epicure Plaza Building in the amount of10,041 square feet, to La Cocina in the
amount of1,300 square feet, to Bell Mountain Sports in the amount of2,000
exhibit 4.5
P113
III.A.
feet, to the Smith Building in the amount of 5,100 square feet, to the Ajax
C
Mountain Assoc. Building in the amount of~6~O25~square feet, and to the First
National Bank in the amount of 4,203 square feet and that these projects are
authorized to proceed further with any additional approvals needed by the
City of Aspen to secure building permits.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT special review approval be secured for
the employee housing proposals contained in the Epicure, Bell Mountain Sports
and Smith projects.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at its regular
meeting held on November 26, 1979.
ATTEST:
Kathryn S~Koch, ~City Clerk
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO
Herman Edel, Mayor'---~
P114
III.A.
exhibit 4.8
P115
III.A.
P116
III.A.
P117
III.A.
P118
III.A.
exhibit 4.9
P119
III.A.
P120
III.A.
Exhibit H
P121
III.A.
P122
III.A.
City of Aspen Community Development Department
Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Packet
City of Aspen|130 S. Galena Street.| (970) 920 5090 Historic Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: March 2016
ATTACHMENT 3 - Dimensional Requirements Form
(Item #10 on the submittal requirements key. Not necessary for all projects.)
Project:
Applicant:
Project
Location:
Zone District:
Lot Size:
Lot Area:
(For the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high
water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the
Municipal Code.)
Commercial net leasable: Existing:__________Proposed:_________________
Number of residential units: Existing:__________Proposed:_________________
Proposed % of demolition: __________
DIMENSIONS: (write N/A where no requirement exists in the zone district)
Floor Area:
Height
Existing:_________Allowable:__________Proposed:________
Principal Bldg.: Existing:_________Allowable:__________Proposed:________
Accessory Bldg.: Existing:_________Allowable:__________Proposed:________
On-Site parking: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
% Site coverage: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
% Open Space: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
Front Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
Rear Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
Combined Front/Rear:
Indicate N, S, E, W Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
Side Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
Side Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
Combined Sides: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
Distance between
buildings:
Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
Existing non-conformities or encroachments and note if encroachment licenses have been issued:
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
Variations requested (identify the exact variances needed): ______________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Exhibit I
P123
III.A.
City of Aspen Community Development Department
Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Packet
City of Aspen|130 S. Galena Street.| (970) 920 5090 Historic Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: March 2016
ATTACHMENT 2 - Historic Preservation Land Use Application
PROJECT:
Name:
Location:
(Indicate street address, lot & block number or metes and bounds description of property)
Parcel ID # (REQUIRED)___________________________________________________________
Applicant:
Name:
Address:
Phone #: _______________________Fax#:___________________E-mail:_______________________________________________
REPRESENTATIVE:
Name:
Address:
Phone #: _______________________Fax#:___________________E-mail:________________________________________________
TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply):
Historic Designation
Certificate of No Negative Effect
Certificate of Appropriateness
-Minor Historic Development
-Major Historic Development
-Conceptual Historic Development
-Final Historic Development
-Substantial Amendment
Relocation (temporary, on
or off-site)
Demolition (total demolition)
Historic Landmark Lot Split
EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.)
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.)
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
304 East Hopkins Avenue
Lot L, Block 80 city and townsite of Aspen; Units 1 -5 of the Seguin Building.
2737-073-75-001 thru - 005, and 2737-073-75-800
Hillstone Restaurant Group/ contact: Matthias Lenz
147 South Beverly Drive, Beverly Hills, CA 90212
310-385-0333 matthias.lenz@hillstone.com
Sara Adams/ BendonAdams
300 S. Spring St. #202, Aspen
925-2855 sara@bendonadams.com
two story mixed use 1980s building with basement and sunken courtyard
one story above grade commercial building with basement and street level
Pedestrian Amenity space
Growth Management
Parking
Exhibit I
P124
III.A.
City of Aspen Community Development Department
Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Packet
City of Aspen|130 S. Galena Street.| (970) 920 5090 Historic Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: March 2016
General Information
Please check the appropriate boxes below and submit this page along with your application. This
information will help us review your plans and, if necessary, coordinate with other agencies that
may be involved.
YES NO
Does the work you are planning include exterior work; including additions, demolitions,
new construction, remodeling, rehabilitation or restoration?
Does the work you are planning include interior work, including remodeling,
rehabilitation, or restoration?
Do you plan other future changes or improvements that could be reviewed at this time?
In addition to City of Aspen approval for a Certificate of Appropriateness or No Negative
Effect and a building permit, are you seeking to meet the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for Rehabilitation or restoration of a National Register of Historic Places
Property in order to qualify for state or federal tax credits?
If yes, are you seeking federal rehabilitation investment tax credits in
Conjunction with this project? (Only income producing properties listed
on the National Register are eligible. Owner-occupied residential
properties are not.)
If yes, are you seeking the Colorado State Income Tax Credit for
Historical Preservation?
Please check all City of Aspen Historic Preservation Benefits which you plan to use:
Rehabilitation Loan Fund Conservation Easement Program Dimensional Variances
Increased Density Historic Landmark Lot Split Waiver of Park Dedication Fees
Conditional Uses Tax Credits
Exemption from Growth Management Quota System
P125
III.A.
Exhibit J
P126
III.A.
CITY OF ASPEN
PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PLANNER: Amy Simon, amy.simon@cityofaspen.com DATE: 11.6.17
PROJECT: 304 E. Hopkins Avenue
REPRESENTATIVE: BendonAdams
DESCRIPTION: 304 E. Hopkins Avenue is a 3,000 square foot parcel, located in the Commercial Core Historic District.
The existing building on the site is considered to be “non-contributing” to the historic significance of the district and is not
landmarked. The property owner proposes full demolition. For this to proceed, HPC must make a finding that the
standards for Demolition of a building in the district are met.
A new commercial building with a basement and ground floor are proposed. The first land use review step for the project will
be Conceptual HPC Major Development Review, Commercial Design Review, Demolition, and Mountain View Plane
Review. Evaluation of Pedestrian Amenity, Second Tier Commercial Space, Formula Uses, Transportation and Parking
Management, and Trash and Recycling Storage will occur at this stage as well. HPC will use the Historic Preservation
Design Guidelines, the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Standards and Guidelines and standards found in
the Municipal Code to make their determinations.
Careful evaluation of context will be needed to ensure the new structure’s architectural compatibility with the neighborhood.
The block-face contains two landmarked Victorian era structures which are relatively unique within the downtown context;
both one story gable roofed clapboard buildings setback from the front lot lines. The majority of the structures in the area are
taller masonry structures without setbacks. The design guidelines provide direction on fundamental design patterns that will
help shape an appropriate new structure.
Regarding Pedestrian Amenity, it appears that less than 25% of the site will be devoted to on-site amenity. HPC must
approve the form of amenity provided. Options include on-site, off-site, cash-in-lieu (requiring Council approval if in excess
of 50% of the requirement) or an alternative proposal meeting the intent of Pedestrian Amenity. The applicant has mentioned
the possibility of a seasonal airlock enclosure at the front door. This may be in conflict with the design guidelines and the
area the enclosure would occupy would need to be excluded from the calculation of on-site amenity provided.
Second Tier Commercial Space review will involve a calculation of the existing qualified space on the site and replacement
of 50% of that area in the new building, according to the criteria for such spaces. Preliminary building plans provided to
Planning Staff indicate Second Tier Space in the basement. The space can be reached through a street-facing staircase,
but access to an elevator to the basement is either through the ground floor Prime Commercial Space or through the alley
doorway towards the elevator. Neither of these arrangements meet the requirements of Second Tier Space or the
Community Development Director’s Interpretation clarifying Second Tier Commercial Space attached here and issued on
May 11, 2017.
The property is in the Foreground of the Main Street view plane. It is anticipated that the development is below the height of
the view plane as it crosses the site, however this will be verified during review of the project.
As a new structure in the Commercial Core Zone District, compliance with limitations on Formula Uses will be required. This
will apply not only to the subject parcel, but may also have implications for the adjacent property at 302 E. Hopkins due to
internal connections between the structures indicated on the early plans.
Applicant has suggested that Transportation and Parking Management will all be addressed through off-site, cash-in-lieu or
operational proposals rather than allocating some of the ground plane to parking spaces. The project is required to meet the
requirements of Section 26.515, which will be verified at the Conceptual review. In the same vein, the area of the alley
dedicated to on-site Trash and Recycling Storage is envisioned to be less than the minimum required by Environmental
Exhibit K
P127
III.A.
Health. The applicant may consider a shared arrangement with their adjacent restaurant, subject to Environmental Health
review and approval.
Given the physical connections and shared spaces the applicant envisions between the 302 and 304 E. Hopkins properties,
staff recommends the applicant pursue Subdivision approval to formalize the combined ownership that is implied by the
plans. If the applicant chooses not to pursue this, it will be expected that the application clearly demonstrate how each of the
properties, 302 and 304 E. Hopkins, individually meet their required Pedestrian Amenity, Transportation and Parking, and
Trash Storage requirements so that each lot may be transferred to other owners in the future without this redevelopment
having created non-conformities. Building Code requirements related to property lines will need to be considered as well.
It is anticipated that HPC will conduct Growth Management review of the project. This review can be consolidated with the
Conceptual design review, or conducted as a separate application. It has been determined that the existing building
received Growth Management allotments in 1979 and provided affordable housing mitigation through the provision of two
on-site deed restricted studio units. Demolition of these units requires an equivalent number of FTE’s be housed in on-site
units meeting APCHA requirements, unless HPC, in consultation with APCHA, determines that on-site replacement is not
appropriate, in which case off-site units or Certificates of Affordable Housing may be provided, or cash-in-lieu with City
Council approval.
The applicant has indicated that the new building will not represent an increase in net leasable area over the existing
structure. If this changes and there is an increase in net leasable, additional housing mitigation will be required.
In preparation for HPC review, a Development Review Committee meeting will occur to receive comments from referral
agencies including Engineering, Zoning, Fire, Utilities, Sanitation District, Building, Environmental Health and Transportation.
To further ensure that diverse perspectives are made available to assist HPC in its review, the project will be required to
undertake Neighborhood Outreach as part of the public notice effort.
Following HPC Conceptual approval, staff will inform City Council of the decision, allowing Council the opportunity to “Call-
Up” any aspects of the design approval that they find require additional HPC review. This is a standard practice for all
significant projects reviewed by HPC and P&Z.
The last review step is HPC Final design (landscape, lighting and materials). A new pre-application summary will be
prepared when the application is ready to proceed to that stage.
Below are links to relevant documents, for your convenience:
Historic Preservation Land Use Application form:
http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Portals/0/docs/businessnav/ApprovaltoDevelop/Land%20Use%20HPC%20Packet%20MAY
%202017.pdf
Land Use Code:
http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Business-Navigator/Get-Approval-to-Develop/Refer-to-Land-Use-Code/
HPC Design Guidelines:
http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Portals/0/docs/City/Comdev/HPC/New%20Historic%20Preservation%20Guidelines.pdf
Commercial Design Guidelines:
https://app.box.com/s/3a0vvpgpwtdzsomb9aa9rjsfq3qx2o1b
P128
III.A.
Land Use Code Section(s)
26.104.100 General Provisions, Definitions
26.104.110 Use Categories
26.304 Common Development Review Procedures
26.304.035 Neighborhood outreach
26.412 Commercial Design Review
26.412.070 Pedestrian amenity
26.412.080 Second Tier Commercial Space
26.415 Historic Preservation
26.415.070 Certificate of Appropriateness for a Major development
26.415.080 Demolition
26.425.025 Standards applicable to formula uses, determination of formula uses
26.435.050 Mountain view plane
26.470.100.E.2 Requirements for demolishing affordable housing units
26.470.100.E.4 Location requirements for multi-family replacement units
26.470.100.F Expansion or new commercial development
26.470.040 Allotment Procedures
26.470.050 Calculations
26.470.080 Affordable Housing Mitigation
26.480 Subdivision
26.515 Transportation and Parking Management
26.575 Miscellaneous Supplemental Regulations
26.575.020 Calculations and Measurements
26.710.140 Commercial Core zone district
and Municipal Code Section
12.10 Space Allotment for Trash and Recycling Storage
Review by: Staff for completeness and recommendations. HPC for determinations.
Public Hearing: Yes.
Referral Agencies: Engineering, Parks, APCHA, Environmental Health
Planning Fees: $4,550 for 14 billable hours (additional/fewer hours will be billed/refunded at a rate of $325 per
hour)
Referral Fees: $325 for a one hour deposit with Engineering, $975 APCHA flat fee, $975 Parks flat fee, $975
Environmental Health flat fee
Total Deposit: $7,800
To apply, first submit one copy of the following information:
Completed Land Use Application and signed fee agreement.
Pre-application Conference Summary (this document).
Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a
current (no older than 6 months) certificate from a title insurance company, an ownership and encumbrance
report, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property,
and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and
demonstrating the owner’s right to apply for the Development Application.
P129
III.A.
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)
List of adjacent property owners within 300’ for public hearing
Site improvement survey including topography and vegetation showing the current status, certified by a
registered land surveyor, licensed in the state of Colorado.
A scaled site plan indicating all proposed structures and features including parking, utilities, trash and recycling,
and vegetation.
Scaled drawings of all proposed structure(s) or addition(s) depicting their form, including their height, massing,
scale, proportions and roof plan; and the primary features of all elevations.
Existing and proposed floor area, net leasable and net livable calculations.
Preliminary selection of primary exterior building materials.
Supplemental materials to provide a visual description of the context surrounding the designated historic property
or historic district including at least one (1) of the following: diagrams, maps, photographs, models or streetscape
elevations.
A written description of the proposal and an explanation of how the proposed development, and any requested
variances or bonuses, complies with the review standards and design guidelines relevant to the application.
Documentation showing the proposal meets all Transportation Mitigation Requirements as outlined in the City’s
Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines and Mitigation Tool, available online at:
http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-Development/Planning-and-Zoning/Recent-Code-
Amendments/. A copy of the tool showing trips generated and the chosen mitigation measures should be
included with the application.
Once the copy is deemed complete by staff, the following items will then need to be submitted:
A complete copy of the application, including all items listed above, provided as a .pdf by email to
amy.simon@cityofaspen.com. Please separate the text and drawings into different files.
12 sets of all graphics, printed at 11”x17.”
Total deposit for review of the application.
Applicants are advised that building plans will be required to meet the International Building Code as adopted by the City
of Aspen, the Federal Fair Housing Act, and CRS 9.5.112. Please make sure that your application submittal addresses
these building-related and accessibility regulations. You may contact the Building Department at 920-5090 for additional
information.
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
P130
III.A.
PROFORMA TITLE REPORT
SCHEDULE A
1.Effective Date: March 16, 2018 at 8:00 AM Case No. PCT25210W
2.Policy or Policies to be issued:
Proposed Insured:
PROFORMA
3.Title to the FEE SIMPLE estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment is at the
effective date hereof vested in:
HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION
4.The land referred to in this Commitment is situated in the County of PITKIN State of COLORADO and is
described as follows:
CONDOMINIUM UNITS 1, 2, 3, 4 AND 5,
THE SEGUIN BUILDING CONDOMINIUMS, according to the Condominium Map thereof recorded May 4,
1983 in Plat Book 14 at Page 84 and as defined and described in the Condominium Declaration for Seguin
Condominiums recorded May 4, 1983 in Book 444 at Page 474.
PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC.
601 E. HOPKINS, ASPEN, CO. 81611
970-925-1766 Phone/970-925-6527 Fax
877-217-3158 Toll Free
AUTHORIZED AGENT
Countersigned:
Exhibit L
P131
III.A.
SCHEDULE B - SECTION 1
REQUIREMENTS
THIS REPORT IS FURNISHED FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY, IT IS NOT A CONTRACT TO ISSUE TITLE
INSURANCE AND SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED AS SUCH. IN THE EVENT A PROPOSED INSURED IS NAMED THE
COMPANY HEREBY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO MAKE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS AND/OR EXCEPTIONS AS
DEEMED NECESSARY. THE RECIPIENT OF THIS INFORMATIONAL REPORT HEREBY AGREES THAT THE
COMPANY HAS ISSUED THIS REPORT BY THEIR REQUEST AND ALTHOUGH WE BELIEVE ALL INFORMATION
CONTAINED HEREIN IS ACCURATE AND CORRECT, THE COMPANY SHALL NOT BE CHARGED WITH ANY
FINANCIAL LIABILITY SHOULD THAT PROVE TO BE INCORRECT AND THE COMPANY IS NOT OBLIGATED TO
ISSUE ANY POLICIES OF TITLE INSURANCE
P132
III.A.
SCHEDULE B SECTION 2
EXCEPTIONS
The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to
the 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 correct
survey 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 law
and not shown by the public records.
5. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public
records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed insured
acquires 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 sewer
service or for any other special taxing district.
7. Terms, conditions and reservations as contained in the Patent for the City of Aspen recorded in Book 139
at Page 216
8. Reservations and exceptions as set forth in the Deed from the City of Aspen recorded November 28, 1888
in Book 59 at Page 518 providing as follows: "That no title shall be hereby acquired to any mine of gold,
silver, cinnabar or copper or to any valid mining claim or possession held under existing laws".
9. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in Historic Preservation recorded January 13,
1975 in Book 295 at Page 515.
10. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in Statement of Exception from the Full
Subdivision Process recorded May 4, 1983 in Book 444 at Page 468.
11. Those terms, conditions, provisions, obligations, easements, restrictions, assessments and all matters as
set forth in Declaration of Covenants, Restrictions and Conditions for The Seguin Building (a
condominium) recorded May 4, 1983 in Book 444 at Page 472, deleting therefrom any restrictions
indicating any preference, limitation or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial
status, or national origin.
12. Terms, conditions, provisions, obligations, easements, restrictions and assessments as set forth in the
Condominium Declaration for The Seguin Building (a condominium) recorded May 4, 1983 in Book 444 at
Page 474, deleting therefrom any restrictions indicating preference, limitation or discrimination based on
race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin.
13. Easements, rights of way and all matters as disclosed on Plat of subject property recorded May 4, 1983 in
Plat Book 14 at Page 84.
14. Security interest under the Uniform Commercial Code affecting subject property, notice of which is given
by Financing Statement from Aspen Brewing Company LLC, debtor to Vectra Bank Colorado, National
Association, secured party, Recorded February 18, 2011 as Reception No. 577762 and recorded February
18, 2011 as Reception No. 577764 and extended by Continuation Statement recorded December 24, 2015
as Reception No. 625879 and recorded December 24, 2015 as Reception No. 625882.
15. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in Encroachment License recorded February 7,
2012 as Reception No. 586551 and re-recorded March 28, 2017 as Reception No. 637140.
(Continued)
P133
III.A.
SCHEDULE B SECTION 2
EXCEPTIONS - (Continued)
16. Lease dated September 1, 2011 entered into between VMV, LLC, d/b/a Over Easy as tenant and William L.
Seguin as landlord, as amended by First Amendment to Lease dated March 15, 2017 between VMV, LLC,
d/b/a Over Easy as tenant and 304 East Hopkins Holdings, LLC as Landlord with respect to the lease of
Condominium Unit 2, and shared right to use patio; and
Lease dated September 15, 2010 entered into between Aspen Brewing Company as tenant and William L.
Seguin as landlord, as amended by First Amendment to Lease dated March 10, 2016 between Aspen Brewing
Company as tenant and 304 East Hopkins Holdings, LLC as landlord, with respect to the lease of
Condominium Units 3, 4, and 5.
17. Any loss or damage caused by the 0.2' building and 0.3' facia encroachment onto the adjacent property along
the easterly property line and the encroachment of a portion of brick surface onto the adjacent property along
the westerly property line as shown on Survey of Aspen Survey Engineers, Inc. dated April, 2017 as Job No.
39232FA.
18. Any and all leases and/or tenancies.
19. Deed of Trust from : HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP, INC. (f/k/a Houston's Restaurants ,Inc.), A
DELAWARE CORPORATION
To the Public Trustee of the County of PITKIN
For the use of : BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.
Original Amount : $120,000,000.00
Dated : August 16, 2017
Recorded : August 17, 2017
Reception No. : 640727
20. First Amendment to above Deed of Trust, Assignment of Rents, Security Agreement and Fixture Filing was
recorded August 21, 2017 as Reception No. 640783.
P134
III.A.
PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC.
601 E. HOPKINS, THIRD FLOOR
ASPEN, CO 81611
970-925-1766/970-925-6527 FAX
TOLL FREE 877-217-3158
WIRING INSTRUCTIONS FOR ALL TRANSACTIONS REGARDING THE CLOSING OF THIS FILE
ARE AS FOLLOWS:
ALPINE BANK-ASPEN
600 E. HOPKINS AVE.
ASPEN, CO. 81611
ABA ROUTING NO. 102103407
FOR CREDIT TO:
PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC., ESCROW ACCOUNT
ACCOUNT NO. 8910 354 425
REFERENCE:PCT25210W/PROFORMA
P135
III.A.
Exhibit M
P136
III.A.
Exhibit N
P137
III.A.
Pitkin County Mailing List of 300 Feet Radius
Pitkin County GIS presents the information and data on this web
site as a service to the public. Every effort has been made to
ensure that the information and data contained in this electronic
system is accurate, but the accuracy may change. Mineral
estate ownership is not included in this mailing list. Pitkin County
does not maintain a database of mineral estate owners.
Pitkin County GIS makes no warranty or guarantee concerning
the completeness, accuracy, or reliability of the content at this
site or at other sites to which we link. Assessing accuracy and
reliability of information and data is the sole responsibility of the
user. The user understands he or she is solely responsible and
liable for use, modification, or distribution of any information or
data obtained on this web site.
This document contains a Mailing List formatted to be
printed on Avery 5160 Labels. If printing, DO NOT "fit to
page" or "shrink oversized pages." This will manipulate the
margins such that they no longer line up on the labels
sheet. Print actual size.
From Parcel: 273707375001 on 03/06/2018
Instructions:
Disclaimer:
http://www.pitkinmapsandmore.com
Exhibit O
P138
III.A.
JPS NEVADA TRUST
HENDERSON, NV 89074
1701 N GREEN VALLEY PKWY #9C
CLARK FAMILY TRUST
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 362
KATIE REED BUILDING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
407 S HUNTER ST #3
GRAND SLAM HOLDINGS LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
215 S MONARCH ST #101
GRAND SLAM HOLDINGS LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
215 S MONARCH ST #101
MONARCH BUILDING LLC
WOODY CREEK, CO 81656
PO BOX 126
ORR ROBERT L
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506
2700 G ROAD #12A
CANTINA BUILDING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 1247
HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP INC
ATLANTA, GA 30327
3539 NORTHSIDE PKWY
COLORADO MOUNTAIN NEWS MEDIA CO
CARSON CITY, NV 89701
580 MALLORY WY
HART GEORGE DAVID & SARAH
SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615
PO BOX 5491
ISIS BUILDING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
602 E COOPER #202
201 E MAIN HOLDINGS LLC
WICHITA, KS 67219
2416 E 37TH ST N
ROBERTS JANET A
ASPEN, CO 81611
215 S MONARCH ST #G101
HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP INC
ATLANTA, GA 30327
3539 NORTHSIDE PKWY
232 EAST MAIN STREET LLC
CHICAGO, IL 60614
2001 N HALSTED #304
TRUE JAMES R
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 2864
ORR ROBERT L
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506
2700 G ROAD #12A
360 HEXAGON LLC
BROOKLINE, MA 02445
119 HYSLOP RD
CLARK FAMILY TRUST
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 362
ORR ROBERT L
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506
2700 G ROAD #12A
JOHNSON PETER C & SANDRA K
ASPEN, CO 81611-1008
51 OVERLOOK DR
DAVIDSON DONALD W
ASPEN, CO 81611
864 CEMETERY LN
MONARCH BUILDING LLC
WOODY CREEK, CO 81656
PO BOX 126
HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP INC
ATLANTA, GA 30327
3539 NORTHSIDE PKWY
SEDOY MICHAEL
NEW YORK, NY 10022
35 SUTTON PL #19B
KATIE REED PLAZA CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
301 E HOPKINS AVE
MOTHER LODE CONDO ASSOC INC
OLATHE, KS 66061
25880 W 104 TER
MOJO ASPEN LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
215 S MONARCH #G102
PARK CENTRAL CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
215 S MONARCH ST STE 203
P139
III.A.
ELLIOTT ELYSE A TRUST
ASPEN, CO 81611
610 NORTH ST
CLARK FAMILY TRUST
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 362
KATIE REED BUILDING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
407 S HUNTER ST #3
CITY OF ASPEN
ASPEN, CO 81611
130 S GALENA ST
CLARKS ASPEN LLC
BLANDING , UT 84511
818 SOUTH MAIN ST
MOTHER LODE CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
COMMON AREA
314 E HYMAN AVE
DAVIS HORN INCORPORATED
ASPEN, CO 81611
215 S MONARCH #104
1000 EAST HOPKINS LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
215 S MONARCH #104
KATIE REED BUILDING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
407 S HUNTER ST #3
KATIE REED BUILDING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
407 S HUNTER ST #3
TRUE JAMES R
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 2864
GRAND SLAM HOLDINGS LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
215 S MONARCH ST #101
SHVACHKO NATALIA
NEW YORK, NY 10022
35 SUTTON PL #19B
AJAX JMG INVESTMENTS LLC
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 902122974
9401 WILSHIRE BLVD 9TH FL
BRINING ROBERT D
ASPEN, CO 81611
215 S MONARCH #203
KELLY GARY
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 12356
314-200 HEXAGON LLC
OLATHE, KS 66061
25880 W 104 TERR
KATIE REED BUILDING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
407 S HUNTER ST #3
KATIE REED BUILDING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
407 S HUNTER ST #3
ASPEN BRANCH HOLDINGS LLC
DENVER, CO 80206
3033 E FIRST AVE
BERNSTEIN JEREMY M PROFIT SHARING PLAN
ASPEN, CO 81611
610 NORTH ST
NUNN RONALD FAMILY LP
BRENTWOOD, CA 94513
10500 BRENTWOOD BLVD
RACZAK JOSEPH S & JANET L
SNOWMASS, CO 81654
0234 LIGHT HILL RD
MINERS REAL ESTATE LLC
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 1365
TRUE JAMES R
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 2864
BERNSTEIN JEREMY M PROFIT SHARING PLAN
ASPEN, CO 81611
610 NORTH ST
ORR ROBERT L
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506
2700 G ROAD #12A
ORR ROBERT L
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506
2700 G ROAD #12A
303 EAST MAIN LLLP
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 8016
KATIE REED BUILDING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
407 S HUNTER ST #3
P140
III.A.
ORR ROBERT L
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506
2700 G ROAD #12A
314 HEXAGON LLC
OLATHE, KS 66061
25880 W 104 TERR
KATIE REED BUILDING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
407 S HUNTER ST #3
BRINING ROBERT
ASPEN, CO 81611
215 S MONARCH ST #203
JPS NEVADA TRUST
HENDERSON, NV 89074
1701 N GREEN VALLEY PKWY #9C
KATIE REED BUILDING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
407 S HUNTER ST #3
TRUE JAMES R
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 2864
CLARKS ASPEN LLC
BLANDING , UT 84511
818 SOUTH MAIN ST
HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP INC
ATLANTA, GA 30327
3539 NORTHSIDE PKWY
JPS NEVADA TRUST
HENDERSON, NV 89074
1701 N GREEN VALLEY PKWY #9C
ORR ROBERT L
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506
2700 G ROAD #12A
SHVACHKO NATALIA
NEW YORK, NY 10022
35 SUTTON PL #19B
CARLS REAL ESTATE LLC
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 1365
ORR ROBERT L
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506
2700 G ROAD #12A
KATIE REED BUILDING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
407 S HUNTER ST #3
JPS NEVADA TRUST
HENDERSON, NV 89074
1701 N GREEN VALLEY PKWY #9C
DAVIS HORN INCORPORATED
ASPEN, CO 81611
215 S MONARCH #104
CITY OF ASPEN
ASPEN, CO 81611
130 S GALENA ST
KATIE REED BUILDING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
407 S HUNTER ST #3
JPS NEVADA TRUST
HENDERSON, NV 89074
1701 N GREEN VALLEY PKWY #9C
DAVIS HORN INCORPORATED
ASPEN, CO 81611
215 S MONARCH #104
DAVIS HORN INCORPORATED
ASPEN, CO 81611
215 S MONARCH #104
DAVIS HORN INCORPORATED
ASPEN, CO 81611
215 S MONARCH #104
RACZAK JOSEPH S & JANET L
SNOWMASS, CO 81654
0234 LIGHT HILL RD
WELLS FARGO BANK
CARLSBAD, CA 92018
PO BOX 2609
ICONIC PROPERTIES JEROME LLC
HOUSTON, TX 77077
1375 ENCLAVE PKWY
KATIE REED BUILDING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
407 S HUNTER ST #3
CLARK FAMILY TRUST
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 362
KATIE REED BUILDING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
407 S HUNTER ST #3
SEDOY MICHAEL
NEW YORK, NY 10022
35 SUTTON PL #19B
P141
III.A.
GOODING NANCY A
ENGLEWOOD, CO 80111
4800 S HOLLY ST
SEGUIN BUILDING CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
COMMON AREA
304 E HYMAN AVE
KELLY GARY
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 12356
KATIE REED BUILDING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
407 S HUNTER ST #3
CLARK FAMILY TRUST
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 362
KELLY GARY
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 12356
DCBD2 LLC
DALLAS, TX 75201
2100 ROSS AVE #3300
DAVIDSON DONALD W
ASPEN, CO 81611
864 CEMETERY LN
MINERS REAL ESTATE LLC
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 1365
312 EAST HYMAN AVENUE LLC
CHICAGO, IL 60614
2001 N HALSTED # 304
1543 LLC
DENVER, CO 80202
1543 WAZEE ST #400
MOTHER LODE CONDO ASSOC INC
OLATHE, KS 66061
25880 W 104 TER
FREDRICK LARRY D
ASPEN, CO 81611
215 S MONARCH ST #G101
HOFFMAN JOHN L & SHARON R TRUST
KANSAS CITY, MO 64108
411 E 63RD ST
ROBERTS JANET A
ASPEN, CO 81611
215 S MONARCH ST #G101
BRINING ROBERT
ASPEN, CO 81611
215 S MONARCH ST #203
HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP INC
ATLANTA, GA 30327
3539 NORTHSIDE PKWY
FREDRICK LARRY D
ASPEN, CO 81611
215 S MONARCH ST #G101
KATIE REED BUILDING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
407 S HUNTER ST #3
KATIE REED BUILDING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
407 S HUNTER ST #3
308 EAST HOPKINS CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
COMMON AREA
308 E HOPKINS AVE
DAVIDSON DONALD W
ASPEN, CO 81611
864 CEMETERY LN
DAVIS HORN INCORPORATED
ASPEN, CO 81611
215 S MONARCH #104
CLARKS ASPEN LLC
BLANDING , UT 84511
818 SOUTH MAIN ST
314-PH HEXAGON LLC
OLATHE, KS 66061
25880 W 104 TERR
1000 EAST HOPKINS LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
215 S MONARCH #104
KATIE REED BUILDING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
407 S HUNTER ST #3
PCU-5 LLC
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 2563
GRAND SLAM HOLDINGS LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
215 S MONARCH ST #101
MOJO ASPEN LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
215 S MONARCH #G102
P142
III.A.
DAVIS HORN INCORPORATED
ASPEN, CO 81611
215 S MONARCH #104
FREDRICK LARRY D
ASPEN, CO 81611
215 S MONARCH ST #G101
MILL STREET PLAZA ASSOC LLC
ASPEN , CO 81611
602 E COOPER #202
JAFFE JONATHAN & KAREN
LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651
88 EMERALD BAY
P143
III.A.
2,257
376.2
Legend
1:
WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere
Feet0376.2188.08
Notes
304 E. Hopkins Vicinity Map
THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES.
Pitkin County GIS makes no warranty or guarantee
concerning the completeness, accuracy, or reliability
of the content represented.
Map Created on 9:22 AM 03/06/18 at http://www.pitkinmapsandmore.com
State Highway
Road Centerline 4K
Primary Road
Secondary Road
Service Road
Rivers and Creeks
Continuous
Intermittent
River, Lake or Pond
Town Boundary
Federal Land Boundary
BLM
State of Colorado
USFS
Exhibit P
P144III.A.
STREET AND CONTEXT VIEW WITH PROPOSED BUILDINGHILLSTONE ASPEN
MARCH 23, 2018 FLEETWOOD FERNANDEZ
ARCHITECTS
Exhibit Q
P145III.A.
EXISTING STREET AND CONTEXT VIEWHILLSTONE ASPEN
MARCH 23, 2018 FLEETWOOD FERNANDEZ
ARCHITECTSP146 III.A.
EXISTING SITE STREET FRONT VIEWHILLSTONE ASPEN
MARCH 23, 2018 FLEETWOOD FERNANDEZ
ARCHITECTSP147 III.A.
COVER SHEET &
PROJECT INFORMATION
A-0.00HILLSTONE - ASPEN304 EAST HOPKINS AVENUEASPEN, CO 81611ISSUE DATE AND DESCRIPTION
fleetwood fernandez reserves its common law copyright and other property rights in these drawings. these drawings are not to be reproduced in any manner or assigned to any third party without first obtaining the written consent of fleetwood fernandez.F
S
T
G
U
V
W
J
I
H
A
K
L
MB
C
N
O
D
P
RE
ABBREVIATIONS GRAPHIC SYMBOLS VICINITY MAP
LOCATION MAP
GRAPHIC SYMBOLS DRAWING INDEX
PROJECT DIRECTORYPROJECT STATISTICS AND ZONING ANALYSIS
EAST
M
A
I
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
EAST
H
O
P
K
I
N
S
A
V
E
N
U
E SOUTH MILL STREETSOUTH MONARCH STREETSITE
NN
SITE
MAIN
S
T
E CO
O
P
E
R
A
V
ES ORIGINAL STE HO
P
K
I
N
S
A
V
E
S MONARCH STE DU
R
A
N
T
A
V
E
P148III.A.
EAST HOPKINS AVESOUTH MONARCH STREET
304 E HOPKINS
AVENUE
302 E HOPKINS
AVENUE
EXISTING
BUILDING
3/16" = 1'-0"
A-0.10HILLSTONE - ASPEN304 EAST HOPKINS AVENUEASPEN, CO 81611ISSUE DATE AND DESCRIPTION
fleetwood fernandez reserves its common law copyright and other property rights in these drawings. these drawings are not to be reproduced in any manner or assigned to any third party without first obtaining the written consent of fleetwood fernandez.LEGEND
SHEET NOTES
KEY NOTES
1(E) N Elevation2(E) S Elevation
4(E) Site Plan
EXISTING FAR
PERCENTAGE OF PUBLIC AMENITY
(E) AREA CALCULATIONSP149
III.A.
EXISTING PLANS
N.T.S.
A-0.11HILLSTONE - ASPEN304 EAST HOPKINS AVENUEASPEN, CO 81611ISSUE DATE AND DESCRIPTION
fleetwood fernandez reserves its common law copyright and other property rights in these drawings. these drawings are not to be reproduced in any manner or assigned to any third party without first obtaining the written consent of fleetwood fernandez.LEGEND
SHEET NOTES
KEY NOTES
1(E) UPPER FLOOR3(E) LOWER LEVEL4(E) SITE PLAN
NET LEASABLE / LIVABLE
(E) AREA CALCULATIONS
2(E) MIDDLE FLOORP150 III.A.
METCT MS
M1K1P1APTLPPROPOSED PLANS
AREA DIAGRAMS
3/16" = 1'-0"
A-0.12HILLSTONE - ASPEN304 EAST HOPKINS AVENUEASPEN, CO 81611ISSUE DATE AND DESCRIPTION
fleetwood fernandez reserves its common law copyright and other property rights in these drawings. these drawings are not to be reproduced in any manner or assigned to any third party without first obtaining the written consent of fleetwood fernandez.LEGEND
SHEET NOTES
KEY NOTES
1PROPOSED BASEMENT LEVEL2PROPOSED STREET LEVEL
AREA CALCULATIONS
GROSS FLOOR AREA
NET LEASABLE AREA
PEDESTRIAN AMENITY
SECOND TIER COMMERCIALP151
III.A.
M1K1P1APTLPPROPOSED PLANS
AREA DIAGRAMS
3/16" = 1'-0"
A-0.13HILLSTONE - ASPEN304 EAST HOPKINS AVENUEASPEN, CO 81611ISSUE DATE AND DESCRIPTION
fleetwood fernandez reserves its common law copyright and other property rights in these drawings. these drawings are not to be reproduced in any manner or assigned to any third party without first obtaining the written consent of fleetwood fernandez.LEGEND
SHEET NOTES
KEY NOTES
1SUBGRADE CALCULATIONS
2PROPOSED BASEMENT LEVEL3FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS
FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS
P152III.A.
SOUTH MONARCH STREET
EAST HOPKINS AVENUESITE PLAN
3/16" = 1'-0"
A-1.00HILLSTONE - ASPEN304 EAST HOPKINS AVENUEASPEN, CO 81611ISSUE DATE AND DESCRIPTION
fleetwood fernandez reserves its common law copyright and other property rights in these drawings. these drawings are not to be reproduced in any manner or assigned to any third party without first obtaining the written consent of fleetwood fernandez.LEGEND
SHEET NOTES
KEY NOTES
P153III.A.
METCTMSEB
EB
GROUND FLOOR PLAN
1/4" = 1'-0"
A-2.00HILLSTONE - ASPEN304 EAST HOPKINS AVENUEASPEN, CO 81611ISSUE DATE AND DESCRIPTION
fleetwood fernandez reserves its common law copyright and other property rights in these drawings. these drawings are not to be reproduced in any manner or assigned to any third party without first obtaining the written consent of fleetwood fernandez.LEGEND
SHEET NOTES
KEY NOTES
EXTERIOR LIGHTING
SCHEDULE
EA
EB
EC
EDP154 III.A.
MSB1M1K1P1APTLPBASEMENT FLOOR PLAN
1/4" = 1'-0"
A-2.01HILLSTONE - ASPEN304 EAST HOPKINS AVENUEASPEN, CO 81611ISSUE DATE AND DESCRIPTION
fleetwood fernandez reserves its common law copyright and other property rights in these drawings. these drawings are not to be reproduced in any manner or assigned to any third party without first obtaining the written consent of fleetwood fernandez.LEGEND
SHEET NOTES
KEY NOTES
P155III.A.
HILLSTONE - ASPEN304 EAST HOPKINS AVENUEASPEN, CO 81611ISSUE DATE AND DESCRIPTION
fleetwood fernandez reserves its common law copyright and other property rights in these drawings. these drawings are not to be reproduced in any manner or assigned to any third party without first obtaining the written consent of fleetwood fernandez.1South Elevation
2North Elevation
EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
1/4" = 1'-0"
A-10.00
KEY NOTES
SHEET NOTES
P156III.A.
HILLSTONE - ASPEN304 EAST HOPKINS AVENUEASPEN, CO 81611ISSUE DATE AND DESCRIPTION
fleetwood fernandez reserves its common law copyright and other property rights in these drawings. these drawings are not to be reproduced in any manner or assigned to any third party without first obtaining the written consent of fleetwood fernandez.1Section
BUILDING SECTIONS
1/4" = 1'-0"
A-11.00
KEY NOTES
SHEET NOTES
P157III.A.
HILLSTONE - ASPEN304 EAST HOPKINS AVENUEASPEN, CO 81611ISSUE DATE AND DESCRIPTION
fleetwood fernandez reserves its common law copyright and other property rights in these drawings. these drawings are not to be reproduced in any manner or assigned to any third party without first obtaining the written consent of fleetwood fernandez.1Section
2Section
BUILDING SECTIONS
1/4" = 1'-0"
A-11.01
KEY NOTES
SHEET NOTES
P158III.A.
projectdescriptionscaledatesketch no1 of 25.21.20181/4"=1'-0"HILLSTONE ASPENGround Floor -Trash Room Revisions1275 E SIXTH STREET #202 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90021 213.553.9135Key Plan - not to scaleEnlarged Plan at Trash Room302 East Hopkins -Shown shadedNew Trash RoomExisting Trash Roomfor White HouseTavernEast Hopkins
Alley
New combined TrashRoom - shown ingreen - is 170 squarefeet total.Existing Roll-up doorat White House TavernTrash Room2 yard dumpster2 yard dumpsterExisting oil and greasecollection tankNew gas meter for304 East Hopkins.Also reclocate existinggas meter for 302 tothis location.New roll-up doorNew opening betweenexisting Trash Roomand new Trash RoomP159III.A.
projectdescriptionscaledatesketch no2 of 25.21.20181/8"=1'-0"HILLSTONE ASPENTrash Room Revisions1275 E SIXTH STREET #202 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90021 213.553.9135P160III.A.
METCT MS
M1K1P1APTLPPROPOSED PLANS
AREA DIAGRAMS
3/16" = 1'-0"
A-0.12HILLSTONE - ASPEN304 EAST HOPKINS AVENUEASPEN, CO 81611ISSUE DATE AND DESCRIPTION
fleetwood fernandez reserves its common law copyright and other property rights in these drawings. these drawings are not to be reproduced in any manner or assigned to any third party without first obtaining the written consent of fleetwood fernandez.LEGEND
SHEET NOTES
KEY NOTES
1PROPOSED BASEMENT LEVEL2PROPOSED STREET LEVEL
AREA CALCULATIONS
GROSS FLOOR AREA
NET LEASABLE AREA
PEDESTRIAN AMENITY
SECOND TIER COMMERCIALP161
III.A.
STREET VIEWSHILLSTONE ASPEN
MARCH 23, 2018 FLEETWOOD FERNANDEZ
ARCHITECTS
Exhibit S
P162III.A.
STREET VIEWSHILLSTONE ASPEN
MARCH 16, 2018 FLEETWOOD FERNANDEZ
ARCHITECTS
FRONT FACADE VIEWS (WITH AND WITHOUT WINTER VESTIBULE)HILLSTONE ASPEN
MARCH 23, 2018 FLEETWOOD FERNANDEZ
ARCHITECTSP163 III.A.
STREET VIEWSHILLSTONE ASPEN
MARCH 16, 2018 FLEETWOOD FERNANDEZ
ARCHITECTS
RESTAURANT ENTRY VIEWSHILLSTONE ASPEN
MARCH 23, 2018 FLEETWOOD FERNANDEZ
ARCHITECTSP164 III.A.
Material Submission - HPC
Hillstone Restaurant
304 E Hopkins Ave, Aspen, CO
Precast Concrete
Concrete Collaborative
Pacifica, Ivory
Exhibit T
P165
III.A.
Material Submission - HPC
Hillstone Restaurant
304 E Hopkins Ave, Aspen, CO
Wall Brick
Interstate Brick, Atlas 6”x4”x16”
Terra Cotta L-4
P166
III.A.
Material Submission - HPC
Hillstone Restaurant
304 E Hopkins Ave, Aspen, CO
Roofing
Standing Seam
VMZINC, AnthraZinc
P167
III.A.
Material Submission - HPC
Hillstone Restaurant
304 E Hopkins Ave, Aspen, CO
Doors
Flat Walnut with Glass inserts
P168
III.A.
Material Submission - HPC
Hillstone Restaurant
304 E Hopkins Ave, Aspen, CO
Columns and Beams
Douglas Fir
P169
III.A.
Material Submission - HPC
Hillstone Restaurant
304 E Hopkins Ave, Aspen, CO
Powdercoat Steel
Ralph Lauren
TH28 Surrey
P170
III.A.
Material Submission - HPC
Hillstone Restaurant
304 E Hopkins Ave, Aspen, CO
Flooring
Flamed black granite tiles
Enhanced and Sealed
P171
III.A.
Material Submission - HPC
Hillstone Restaurant
304 E Hopkins Ave, Aspen, CO
Handrails
Naval Brass with US10B Bronze
Finish
P172
III.A.
Material Submission - HPC
Hillstone Restaurant
304 E Hopkins Ave, Aspen, CO
Roll Down Door at Trash
DBCI 2500 series
Burnished slate
P173
III.A.
C:\General CADD 12\Gxd\39232FB.gxd -- 02/09/2018 -- 11:11 AM -- Scale 1 : 120.000000
Exhibit U
P174III.A.
SE Job #17221 - Hillstone - 304 East Hopkins Avenue March 22, 2018
S OPR IS E NGI NEERING • LLC civil consultants
502 Main Street Suite A3 Carbondale Colorado 81623 (970)704-0311 Fax:(970)704-0313
Engineering Report
HPC Review Submittal
for
304 East Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, Colorado
Hillstone Restaurant Group
Prepared for:
Hillstone Restaurant Group
304 East Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611
Prepared by:
Sopris Engineering, LLC
502 Main Street Suite A3
Carbondale, Colorado 81623
SE Project Number: 17221
March 22, 2018
Exhibit V
P175
III.A.
SE Job #17221 - Hillstone - 304 East Hopkins Avenue March 22, 2018
1 | P a g e
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION …………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………..….2
A. Project Summ ary ................................................................................................................ 2
B. Site Utilities ........................................................................................................................ 2
C. Drainage Analysis ............................................................................................................... 4
D. Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 5
P176
III.A.
SE Job #17221 - Hillstone - 304 East Hopkins Avenue March 22, 2018
2 | P a g e
Introdu ction
The following report has been prepared by Sopris Engineering (SE) in support of a redevelopment
project located at 304 East Hopkins Avenue in Aspen, Colorado. The property is located within the
Commercial Core Zone District and is subject to the City’s Historic Preservation Council (HPC)
review. The subject property, which is Lot L of Block 80, is owned by the Hillstone Restaurant
Group (Hillstone). Hillstone plans to demolish the building on the existing lot and replace with a
new building. The information within this report presents SE’s preliminary summary of
engineering analysis and findings associated with the proposed utilities and stormwater
infrastructure for the re-development of the property.
A. Project Summary
Hillstone owns the White House Tavern Restaurant located at 302 East Hopkins Avenue on the
adjacent lot to the west of the subject property (Lot K, Block 80). The White House Tavern building
was remodeled approximately 5 years ago, before opening as a restaurant. Hillstone intends to
expand their restaurant services to both of the lots they own. They intend to demolish the existing
brick building on Lot L and construct a new one story restaurant with a full basement.
The proposed building on Lot L will have one above ground level that extends to the north, east
and west lot lines and recessed away from the south lot line for surface patio improvements in
front of the entrance. The proposed, below grade level will extend from lot line to lot line. The
new building will have some form of interconnectivity with the existing adjacent White House
Tavern building. The redevelopment is planned to include improvements into the north alley,
storm water quality improvements onsite, and associated utility improvements as well.
B. Site Utilities
Coordination with various utility providers has taken place to discuss the feasibility of serving the
proposed improvements. This section describes SE’s findings. Additional details and routing will
be finalized prior to submitting for a building permit application
Water Service: The COA Water Department is the provider of potable water for the subject
property. A 4-inch service to the building exists from the main in East Hopkins Avenue. The pipe
material and condition of the line will need to be verified to see if abandonment and replacement
is required. If the material of the existing line is cast iron, SE recommends replacing with ductile
iron. SE is confident that the 4-inch size has adequate capacity for the fire flow estimates that will
be generated from the proposed structure. New tap fees will be determined from the proposed
ECU’s and the value of the previous tap fees will be credited towards the total value of the new fee
amount. Should a new service be required, the existing line will be abandoned at the main and a
new line will be extended to the building in accordance with COA Water Department standards.
P177
III.A.
SE 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.
P178
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.
P179
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.
P180
III.A.
EXHIBIT
a
9
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E),ASPEN LAND USE CODE
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY:
all Npb}- Aspen, CO
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE:
Weed 2(0 20 Is
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
County of Pitkin )
I, (name,please print)
being or represe ing an Applicant to the Ci of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally
certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060
(E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner:
Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section.of an official
paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15)
days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto.
Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the
Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof
materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six
(26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in
height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen(15) days prior to the public hearing
on the_day of 520 , to and including the date and time
of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto.
Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community
Development Department, which contains the information described in Section
26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to
the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage
prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the
property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of
property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they
appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A
copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto.
Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach,
summarized and attached, was conducted-prior to the first public hearing as
required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the
neighborhood outreach summary, including the method of public notification and
a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto.
(continued on next page)
Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt
requested,to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty(30) days prior to the
date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development.
The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current
tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions, SPAs or PUDs that
create more than one lot, new Planned Unit Developments, and, new Specially
Planned Areas, are subject to this notice requirement.
Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any
way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this
Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be
made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or
otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal
description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of
real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the
proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning
agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing
on such amendments.
Signature
The foregoing"Affidavit of Notice"was acknowledged before me this day
201 B",by
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
RE:211 West Main Street WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
Public Hearing: Wednesday,September
26th,2018;4:30 PM
Meeting Location: City Hall,City Council
Chambers
130 S.Galena SL, My commission expires:
Project Location: Aspen,C081611
StreelPlDs 2735-124-54-002 1 West Main
Legally described as Lot F and the West 15 feet
Block 25,City and Townsite of Aspen,
ColoOfLoG " lll✓✓/��� 'l
Colorado.
Description: The apicant requests Notary Public
design approval for exterior remodelplof the struc-
ture,addition of a covered walkway and carport, TA
and setback variation for the carport. TARA L. NELSON
Land Use Reviews: Minor Development De-
signReviewandSetbackVariation. NOTARY PUBLIC
Decision Making). dy:
(HPC
Commission(HPC). Historic Preservation STATE OF COLORADO
Applicant: 211 West Main street LLC,Jim Ken- NOTARY I D#20014030017
pard,manager,323 West Main Street,Aspen,CO ATTACffiVIIINTS AS APPLICABL
61611. ly Commission Expires SeptembC 23,202 1
More Information: For further information
related to the project,contact Sarah Yoon at the ;PUBLICATION
City of Aspen Community Development Depart-
970.9ment,130 S.Galena St.,Aspen,TO H OF THE POSTED NOTICE(SIGN) .
970.920.5144,sarah.yoon®cityofaspen.com.
Published in the Aspen Times on September 6, OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED
2018. 0000301624
• AYYLt rig._ XRTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE
AS REQUIRED BY CR.S. §24-65.5-103.3
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E),ASPEN LAND USE CODE
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY:
211 West Main Street ,Aspen,CO
SCHEDULED l'UBL1C HEARING DATE:
September 26 ,2018
STATE OF COLORADO )
SS.
County of Pitkin )
1, Sara Adams (name,please print)
being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally
certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060
(E)of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner:
Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official
paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15)
days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto.
Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the
Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof
materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six
(26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in
height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen(15)days prior to the public hearing
on the 10 day of September , 20 188, to and including the date and time
of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto.
Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community
Development Department, which contains the information described in Section
26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to
the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage
prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the
property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of
property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they
appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A
copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto.
Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach,
summarized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as
required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the
neighborhood outreach summary, including the method of public notification and
a copy of arty 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
date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development.
The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current
tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions, PDs that create more
than one lot, and new Planned Developments are subject to this notice
requirement.
Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any
way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this
Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be
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.
1
Sighdture
The f goin ffidJ�vit of Not' e"was ac owledg�jd before me this day
of E ,2011 by V41 �TW�
TARA NELSCi,,
NO-w1Y PUBLICWITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
STATE: '-'u COLORADO
NOTARY 0#20014030-047
My Commission Expires SFptembu 25,202 a My commission expires: 69qkj Z(T2-(
Notary Public
ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE:
• COPYOFTHEPUBLICATION
• PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE(SIGN)
• 1.ZQTnFTNF. nWNF.R.0 4Nn(;nVF.RN]NF.NTA1. 4GF.N('1F..CNnTfCF.n
BYMAIL
• APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTATE OWNERS NOTICE
AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3
Alill=W- .
s y�
rill r
E G R1' tir '
CD de
CD a
CL
UP
.�,�. .. � � � Ffes,�� � t,�7 ,� � �r -y � ,- r_ _ ►r`x.
CLLda
CN
ismAMW
r
46 .
kilo
Lti �t�L
J1 J .�fY1'
AV /- •�
I#�.
t ,
Awl
w
+0
J
L
r P
a � _
A'�� NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING:
�
� '���,� 211 West Main Street
IN4 N, Project Location: 211 West Main Street, Aspen
Land Use Reviews: Minor- Development Design Review
��TY , A:- N and Setback Variation
130 S. Galena Street, Decision Making Body: HPC
Aspen, CO 81611 Hearing Date: September 26, 2018, 4:30 p.m.
p: (970) 920.5000 Hearing Location: City Hall, Council Chambers; 130 S.
f: (970) 920.5197 Galena St; Aspen, CO 81611
www.aspenpitkin.com
Project Description: The applicant requests design approval for exterior remodel of the
structure, addition of a covered walkway and carport, and setback variation for the
carport.
Legal Description: Lot F and the West 15 feet of Lot G, Block 52, City and Townsite of
Aspen,Colorado.
Parcel ID: 2735-124-54-002.
Applicant: 211 West Main Street LLC, Jim Kennard, manager, 323 West Main Street,
Aspen, C081611. Represented by BendonAdams.
More Information: For further information related to the project, contact Sara Yoon at the
City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970)
920-5144, sarah.yoon@cityofaspen.com
BendonAdams U S
300 So Spring St 202
Aspen, CO 81611
970.925.2855
bendonadams.com
SAND KATHERINE M
PO BOX 51
ASPEN,c0 81612
7
Pitkin County Mailing List of 300 Feet Radius
From Parcel: 273512454002 on 08/31/2018
1' KIN
A C
oUNT
Instructions:
This document contains a Mailing List formatted to be
printed on Avery 5160 Labels. If printing, DO NOT "fit to
page,, or "shrink oversized pages." This will manipulate the
margins such that they no longer line up on the labels
sheet. Print actual size.
Disclaimer:
Pitkin County GIS presents the information and data on this web
site as a service to the public. Every effort has been made to
ensure that the information and data contained in this electronic
system is accurate, but the accuracy may change. Mineral
estate ownership is not included in this mailing list. Pitkin County
does not maintain a database of mineral estate owners.
Pitkin County GIS makes no warranty or guarantee concerning
the completeness, accuracy, or reliability of the content at this
site or at other sites to which we link. Assessing accuracy and
reliability of information and data is the sole responsibility of the
user. The user understands he or she is solely responsible and
liable for use, modification, or distribution of any information or
data obtained on this web site.
http://www.pitkinmapsandmore.com
r
JACOBY FAMILY LP RICKEL DAVID GLICKMAN ADAM
700 20TH ST 275 GOLDENROD DR 644 FERNANDEZ JUNCOS AVE#301
VERO BEACH,FL 32960 LANDSDALE,PA 19446 DISTRICT VIEW PLAZA MIRAMAR
SAN JUAN PUERTO RICO 00907-3122,
VAUGHAN CAPITAL PTNRS LP PRICE DOUGLAS HITE ANGELA R FAMILY TRUST
PO BOX 390 PO BOX 220 PO BOX 155
HEBRON,IL 60034 CABIN JOHN,MD 20818 WOODY CREEK,CO 81656
PESIKOFF DAVID WEST MAIN VENTURES INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC
1811 NORTH BLVD PO BOX 11977 233 W MAIN ST
HOUSTON,TX 77098 ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81611
220 WEST MAIN PARTNERS LLC ASPEN A CONDO ASSOC CHISHOLM HEATHER M
730 E COOPER AVE COMMON AREA 205 W MAIN ST
ASPEN,CO 81611 308 W HOPKINS AVE ASPEN,CO 81611
ASPEN,CO 81611
TACO 2 LLC PRICE DOUGLAS SPERAW ENDEAVORS LLC
220 W MAIN ST#202 PO BOX 220 PO BOX 6575
ASPEN,CO 81611 CABIN JOHN,MD 20818 SNOWMASS VILLAGE,CO 81615
233 WEST BLEEKER LLC INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC BROWDE KRISTEN PRATA
400 E MAIN ST#2 233 W MAIN ST 604 QUAKER RD
ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 CHAPPAQUA,NY 10514
2401 BLAKE LLC KING LOUISE LLC TYROL APARTMENTS LLC
1615 CALIFORNIA ST#707 PO BOX 1467 200 W MAIN ST
DENVER,CO 80202 BASALT,CO 81621 ASPEN,CO 81611
INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC MOUNTAIN LODGE HOLDINGS LLC 220 WMAC LLC
233 W MAIN ST 605 W MAIN ST#2 PO BOX 8346
ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81612
132 W MAIN LLC TACO 2 LLC 132 W MAIN LLC
1615 CALIFORNIA ST#707 220 W MAIN ST#202 1615 CALIFORNIA ST#707
DENVER,CO 80202 ASPEN,CO 81611 DENVER,CO 80202
SHEEHAN WILLIAM J&NANCY E BOND RICHARD CAREY GREENASPEN LLC
10 GOLF VIEW LN 320 JULIA ST 30 ISLAND DR
FRANKFORT,IL 60423 NEW ORLEANS,LA 70130 KEY BISCAYNE,FL 33149
GUNNING JANINE L TACO 2 LLC 235 W HOPKINS B LLC
PO BOX 11705 220 W MAIN ST#202 250 S OCEAN BLVD#14A
ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81611 BOCA RATON,FL 33432
INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC KARP MICHAEL WEST MAIN VENTURES
233 W MAIN ST 1630 LOCUST ST#200 PO BOX 11977
ASPEN,CO 81611 PHILADELPHIA,PA 19103 ASPEN,CO 81612
FCB LLC SPERAW ENDEAVORS LLC 220 WEST MAIN PARTNERS LLC
PO BOX 6622 PO BOX 6575 730 E COOPER AVE
SNOWMASS VILLAGE,CO 81615-6622 SNOWMASS VILLAGE,CO 81615 ASPEN,CO 81611
EDGEWATER PROPERTIES LLC PRICE DOUGLAS MOUNTAIN LODGE HOLDINGS LLC
18081 BURT ST PO BOX 220 605 W MAIN ST#2
OMAHA,NE 68022 CABIN JOHN,MD 20818 ASPEN,CO 81611
ASPEN MEDICAL CENTER CONDO ASSOC 132 W MAIN LLC CONNOR WILLIAM E II TRUST
COMMON AREA 1615 CALIFORNIA ST#707 990 S ROCK BLVD#F
W MAIN ST DENVER,CO 80202 RENO,NV 89502
ASPEN,CO 81611
BLUEGREEN VACATIONS UNLIMITED INC 220 WEST MAIN PARTNERS LLC SNYDER GARY
4960 CONFERENCE WY N#100 730 E COOPER AVE 8324 BROODSIDE RD
BOCA RATON,FL 33431 ASPEN,CO 81611 ELKINS PARK,PA 19027
KETTELKAMP TRUST TACO 2 LLC ASPEN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
3408 MORRIS AVE 220 W MAIN ST#202 311 W MAIN ST
PUEBLO,CO 81008 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611
SPERAW ENDEAVORS LLC BOOKBINDER FISHDANCE&DELANEY LLC DHM FAMILY TRST
PO BOX 6575 164 LITTLE PARK RD 2288 PEACHTREE RD,NW#12
SNOWMASS VILLAGE,CO 81615 GRAND JUNCTION,CO 81503 ATLANTA,GA 30309
MOUNTAIN LODGE HOLDINGS LLC DIMITRIUS RALLI TRUST INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC
605 W MAIN ST#2 535 FREMONT DR 233 W MAIN ST
ASPEN,CO 81611 PASADENA,CA 91103 ASPEN,CO 81611
ASPEN SKIING COMPANY LLC TWIN COASTS LTD GROSVENOR DENIS
PO BOX 1248 433 PLAZA REAL#275 209 CAMINO DE LA MERCED#C
ASPEN,CO 81612 BOCA RATON,FL 33432 TAOS,NM 875716922
2401 BLAKE LLC 132 W MAIN LLC ASPEN MAIN OFFICE CONDO ASSOC
1615 CALIFORNIA ST#707 1615 CALIFORNIA ST#707 220 W MAIN ST
DENVER,CO 80202 DENVER,CO 80202 ASPEN,CO 81611
ASPEN CONDOS ASSOC TACO 2 LLC GASTON JOHN&KATHERINE
COMMON AREA 220 W MAIN ST#202 16 BRYNWOOD LN
311 W MAIN ST ASPEN,CO 81611 GREENWICH,CT 06831
ASPEN,CO 81611
PRICE DOUGLAS SHADOW MOUNTAIN DUPLEX CONDO ASSO BLUEGREEN VACATIONS UNLIMITED INC
PO BOX 220 COMMON AREA 4960 CONFERENCE WY N#100
CABIN JOHN,MD 20818 W HOPKINS AVE BOCA RATON,FL 33431
ASPEN,CO 81611
TACO 2 LLC CHOOKASZIAN DENNIS BLUEGREEN VACATIONS UNLIMITED INC
220 W MAIN ST#202 1100 MICHIGAN AVE 4960 CONFERENCE WY N#100
ASPEN,CO 81611 WILMETTE, IL 60091 BOCA RATON,FL 33431
HAYMAX LODGING LLC BLUEGREEN VACATIONS UNLIMITED INC 220 WEST MAIN PARTNERS LLC
101 W MAIN ST 4960 CONFERENCE WY N#100 730 E COOPER AVE
ASPEN,CO 81611 BOCA RATON,FL 33431 ASPEN,CO 81611
HEINEMAN S MARLENE CRETE ASSOCIATES LP CRETE ASSOCIATES LP
PO BOX 810323 1062 E LANCASTER AVE#30B 1062 E LANCASTER AVE#30B
DALLAS,TX 753810323 BRYN MAWR,PA 19010 BRYN MAWR,PA 19010
SAND KATHERINE M 212 WEST HOPKINS LLC TIMBERLINE BANK
PO BOX 51 212 W HOPKINS AVE 633 24 RD
ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81611 GRAND JUNCTION,CO 81505
JLR QPRT TRUST STEVENSON KAREN H TEMPKINS HARRY&VIVIAN
355 MARQUESA DR 205 W MAIN ST 605 LINCOLN RD#301
CORAL GABLES,FL 33156 ASPEN,CO 81611 MIAMI BEACH,FL 33139
LAMBERT HENRY M GROVER FREDRICK W&PAULA J 132 W MAIN LLC
320 JULIA ST 399 MARSHALL HEIGHTS DR 1615 CALIFORNIA ST#707
NEW ORLEANS,LA 70130 WEXFORD,PA 15090 DENVER,CO 80202
135 HOPKINS LTD MOUNTAIN LODGE HOLDINGS LLC SEVEN SEAS INVESTMENT LLC
12400 HWY 71 W#350-371 605 W MAIN ST#2 1120 MICHIGAN AVE
AUSTIN,TX 78738 ASPEN,CO 81611 WILMETTE,IL 60091
MOUNTAIN LODGE HOLDINGS LLC INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC TACO 2 LLC
605 W MAIN ST#2 233 W MAIN ST 220 W MAIN ST#202
ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611
CRETE ASSOCIATES LP 132 W MAIN LLC BLUEGREEN VACATIONS UNLIMITED INC
1062 E LANCASTER AVE#30B 1615 CALIFORNIA ST#707 4960 CONFERENCE WY N#100
BRYN MAWR,PA 19010 DENVER,CO 80202 BOCA RATON,FL 33431
GILDENHORN MICHAEL S TACO 2 LLC HITE HENRY HARRIS REVOC TRUST
5008 BALTON RD 220 W MAIN ST#202 PO BOX 155
BETHESDA,MD 20816 ASPEN,CO 81611 WOODY CREEK,CO 81656
2401 BLAKE LLC WEST HOPKINS LLC 220 WMAC LLC
1615 CALIFORNIA ST#707 PO BOX 61510 PO BOX 8346
DENVER,CO 80202 POTOMAC,MD 20859 ASPEN,CO 81612
MAYER KEVIN MOUNTAIN LODGE HOLDINGS LLC 2401 BLAKE LLC
222 W HOPKINS AVE#2 605 W MAIN ST#2 1615 CALIFORNIA ST#707
ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 DENVER,CO 80202
BERGHOFF MICHAEL R TRUST INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC HAYMAX LODGING LLC
9112 WALNUT GROVE DR 233 W MAIN ST 605 W MAIN ST#2
INDIANAPOLIS,IN 46236 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611
SPERAW ENDEAVORS LLC 2401 BLAKE LLC RILEY AMY CLARK
PO BOX 6575 1615 CALIFORNIA ST#707 129 W BLEEKER ST
SNOWMASS VILLAGE,CO 81615 DENVER,CO 80202 ASPEN,CO 81611
TWIN COASTS LTD INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC MOUNTAIN LODGE HOLDINGS LLC
433 PLAZA REAL#275 233 W MAIN ST 605 W MAIN ST#2
BOCA RATON,FL 33432 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611
NORTHSTAR OFFICE BUILDING CONDO ASS ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORII MARTIN SCOTT M
COMMON AREA 210 E HYMAN AVE#202 PO BOX 51
122 W MAIN ST ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611
ASPEN,CO 81611
INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC BLUEGREEN VACATIONS UNLIMITED INC MOUNTAIN LODGE HOLDINGS LLC
233 W MAIN ST 4960 CONFERENCE WY N#100 605 W MAIN ST#2
ASPEN,CO 81611 BOCA RATON,FL 33431 ASPEN,CO 81611
TACO 2 LLC TIMBERLINE BANK 2401 BLAKE LLC
220 W MAIN ST#202 633 24 RD 1615 CALIFORNIA ST#707
ASPEN,CO 81611 GRAND JUNCTION,CO 81505 DENVER,CO 80202
MOUNTAIN LODGE HOLDINGS LLC MOUNTAIN LODGE HOLDINGS LLC TIMBERLINE BANK
605 W MAIN ST#2 605 W MAIN ST#2 633 24 RD
ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 GRAND JUNCTION,CO 81505
SPERAW ENDEAVORS LLC 220 WEST MAIN PARTNERS LLC PRICE DOUGLAS
PO BOX 6575 730 E COOPER AVE PO BOX 220
SNOWMASS VILLAGE,CO 81615 ASPEN,CO 81611 CABIN JOHN,MD 20818
TACO 2 LLC INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC BERGHOFF KRISTIN TRUST
220 W MAIN ST#202 233 W MAIN ST 9112 WALNUT GROVE DR
ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 INDIANAPOLIS,IN 46236
AJAX VIEW COMMERCIAL/NORTH STAR OFF MORGAN DONALD BLUEGREEN VACATIONS UNLIMITED INC
132 W MAIN ST 2288 PEACHTREE RD,NW#12 4960 CONFERENCE WY N#100
ASPEN,CO 81611 ATLANTA,GA 30309 BOCA RATON,FL 33431
CRETE ASSOCIATES LP SPERAW ENDEAVORS LLC 132 W MAIN LLC
1062 E LANCASTER AVE#30B PO BOX 6575 1615 CALIFORNIA ST#707
BRYN MAWR,PA 19010 SNOWMASS VILLAGE,CO 81615 DENVER,CO 80202
WEST MAIN VENTURES PRICE DOUGLAS SHIELD JULIET E
PO BOX 11977 PO BOX 220 221 N STARWOOD DR
ASPEN,CO 81612 CABIN JOHN,MD 20818 ASPEN,CO 81611
118 NORTH FIRST LLC 132 W MAIN LLC MOUNTAIN LODGE HOLDINGS LLC
623 E HOPKINS AVE 1615 CALIFORNIA ST#707 605 W MAIN ST#2
ASPEN,CO 81611 DENVER,CO 80202 ASPEN,CO 81611
132 W MAIN LLC TYROLEAN LODGE LLC INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC
1615 CALIFORNIA ST#707 200 W MAIN ST 233 W MAIN ST
DENVER,CO 80202 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611
2401 BLAKE LLC GUNN ROBERT W FAMILY TRST GUNNING RALPH
1615 CALIFORNIA ST#707 409 OCEAN AVE PO BOX 11912
DENVER,CO 80202 MARBLEHEAD,MA 01945 ASPEN,CO 81612
MARTIN SCOTT M 132 W MAIN LLC 2401 BLAKE LLC
PO BOX 51 1615 CALIFORNIA ST#707 1615 CALIFORNIA ST#707
ASPEN,CO 81611 DENVER,CO 80202 DENVER,CO 80202
MOUNTAIN LODGE HOLDINGS LLC WEST SIDE CONDO ASSOC 233 WEST BLEEKER LLC
605 W MAIN ST#2 234 W HOPKINS AVE 400 E MAIN ST#2
ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611
JACOBY FAMILY LP DEAN FAMILY LTD PTSHP LLP CRETE ASSOCIATES LP
700 20TH ST 590 DELLWOOD AVE 1062 E LANCASTER AVE#30B
VERO BEACH,FL 32960 BOULDER,CO 80301 BRYN MAWR,PA 19010
PRICE DOUGLAS 2401 BLAKE LLC JES 2002 GRANTOR TRUST
PO BOX 220 1615 CALIFORNIA ST#707 221 N STARWOOD DR
CABIN JOHN,MD 20818 DENVER,CO 80202 ASPEN,CO 81611
GARET CONDO ASSOC SILVERSTEIN PHILIP&ROSALYN 2401 BLAKE LLC
400 E MAIN ST#2 25 KNOLLS CRESCENT APT 81 1615 CALIFORNIA ST#707
ASPEN,CO 81611 BRONX,NY 10463 DENVER,CO 80202
INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC SAND KATHERINE M WINER CAROL G
233 W MAIN ST PO BOX 51 6740 SELKIRK DR
ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81612 BETHESDA,MD 20817
MELTON DAVID
135 W MAIN ST
ASPEN,CO 81611