HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20190213
AGENDA
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
February 13, 2019
4:30 PM City Council Meeting Room
130 S Galena Street, Aspen
I. SITE VISIT- PLEASE VISIT 333 W. BLEEKER ON YOUR OWN.
II. 4:30 INTRODUCTION
A. Roll call
B. Draft minutes for December 12th, 2018 and January 9th, 2019
C. Public Comments
D. Commissioner member comments
E. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent)
F. Project Monitoring
G. Staff comments
H. Certificate of No Negative Effect issued
I. Submit public notice for agenda items
J. Call-up reports
K. HPC typical proceedings
III. OLD BUSINESS
A. None
IV. 4:45 NEW BUSINESS
A. 4:45 333 W. Bleeker- Major Development, Relocation, and Setback Variations,
PUBLIC HEARING
B. 6:00 Wireless 5G Update and Check In
V. 7:00 ADJOURN
Next Resolution Number:
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 DECEMBER 12, 2018
1
Commissioners in attendance: Gretchen Greenwood, Jeffrey Halferty, Nora Berko, Roger Moyer, Bob
Blaich, Richard Lai, Sheri Sanzone, Scott Kendrick. Absent was Willis Pember.
Staff present:
Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk
James R. True, City Attorney
Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer
Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner
Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mr. Blaich motioned to approve the minutes of November 14th & 28th, Mr.
Halferty seconded. All in favor, motion carried.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Ms. Berko thanked council and staff for putting the work session
together.
Ms. Garrow agreed that we need to have these sessions with council at least once a year if not more.
Ms. Berko said once a month and Ms. Greenwood said twice a year would be good. Ms. Garrow
mentioned there will be a new council in June, so it would be good to connect with them.
Mr. Halferty thanked staff and the board for the work on preservation over the past year. He said it’s
been an excellent year with a lot of learning experiences. He thanked staff for the meeting with council
and wished everyone happy holidays. Mr. Blaich seconded.
Ms. Sanzone thanked staff for the gifts.
DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT: Ms. Sanzone said she is conflicted on 517 E. Hopkins.
PROJECT MONITORING: Aspen Meadows Reception Center
Amy Simon
Ms. Simon said this was continued from the site visit and the previous meeting. Ms. Simon and Mr.
Curtis have met, and they have agreed that the window being changed to a door is not original.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Jeff Berkus of Jeffrey Berkus Architects, Jim Curtis.
Mr. Berkus said they presented two options in the field. There is an option to keep the existing door as
is with the addition of two and half inches to the panel to meet code. We would have to hinge it on the
left side and cut out about 6 inches of wall, which would pull it out of alignment with the T. He shares
some concern on this. It would not be its original size or configuration. That is not their preferred
solution, but instead they want to take the window and door assembly done in 1993 and mirror it to the
other corner by hinging the door on the left side and adding a side panel. It would maintain the integrity
of the window assembly’s running across the side of the building and would maintain Herbert Bayer’s
three-foot module.
Ms. Berko asked for a visual of the first option.
Mr. Berkus said the door panel is too small for egress. We didn’t show a proposal where we would keep
the door and add a new door adjacent to it. In his mind, that would look a little foreign. The patterning
P1
II.B.
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 12, 2018
2
would be a little awkward and would be kind of a lot going on there. Ms. Greenwood said the conflict
seems to come with removing some of the original Herbert Bayer detail. You could egress out of it to
the right of the door and then everyone has what they want. Mr. Halferty said that his concern was the
rhythm of the door. It is not in rhythm with the 1993 addition.
Ms. Simon said staff prefers the widened door and not completely reconstructing it. It does open up as
we are standing on the site. We do have examples of Victorian buildings where an original wooden door
has been expanded. Ms. Greenwood suggested a stainless-steel panel around it would be code legal
and still showcases the historic door. Ms. Sanzone said the door itself has to increase in size and asked
about the integrity of it. Mr. Berkus said the door itself is pretty much a mess and the integrity of the
door has been compromised. We would advocate for rebuilding it. If we push the door to meet code,
we’d take the structural “T” out, so we would be restructuring that. If we put the door in a new frame,
it’s possible to keep it more in line.
Mr. Lai asked if it’s possible to have an accurate rendering or model of the frame and said he doesn’t
know whether his vision is the same as everyone else’s, so he’d like to see a detailed rendering. Mr.
Berkus said it would look exactly like the other door assembly because we don’t need it looking like a
third thing. It would look exactly like the door to the right with a solid panel adjacent to it. Ms.
Greenwood thinks that would look appropriate because it’s historic. Mr. Berkus thinks it will look
awkward and Ms. Berko said it already looks awkward, so it will probably look the same.
Mr. Curtis said he understands the door is not in the best shape. There have been so many
manipulations to the south elevation over time, so we would prefer to match the storefront. The
storefront was done in 1965 by Benedict and Bayer. Having consistency in the store front is more
accurate with the overall façade of the building. The functionality and use of the building has evolved
over time. Matching 1965 and 1993 pulls the whole building together. There are three windows
upstairs and it’s reasonable to see that one was done in 1958 and one in 1993 so the building has
changed so much.
Ms. Simon said she doesn’t think it’s a good idea to think that way because there has been so much
done already, we shouldn’t just keep going down that road. It’s one of the few buildings designed by
Benedict and Byer together and it’s such an interesting combination of their ideas. It would be a shame
to lose a section of this wall. We shouldn’t second guess Bayer’s reasoning for this. It is not an easily
made decision, so we need to stick to preservation being our goal. Our real position is that we want to
add to the door and keep a minimal amount of work to the stone and deal with staff and monitor.
Mr. Moyer said he concurs with staff.
Mr. Blaich said he’s worried about the function of the door. We saw the condition and it won’t get
better, so we should be assured that whatever we do to it, fixes the problem.
Mr. Kendrick said he doesn’t like losing all the stone and supports staff as well.
Mr. Lai said we should keep as much stone as possible.
Ms. Berko said the whole building has changed, and she hears that. She’s been around too long, and
this door is all that is left for her. If there is a way of reusing it, she would love to see it stick around. If
we can bring this door into the 21st century, let’s do it.
P2
II.B.
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 12, 2018
3
Mr. Halferty said he doesn’t love either solution. By the time you picture frame it, you’re losing some of
the modernist feel of the wall. He thinks there’s a better internal solution. He mentioned keeping the
door as a primary person instead of a third-class citizen and make the egress work. He wants to make it
work for the owners. It is an important façade for the building and is seen by a lot of people. The width
is a problem, but there isn’t an easy clean-cut solution.
Ms. Sanzone asked if it is possible to replace the door with the store front style and not add the
sidelight. Mr. Berkus said the second option was just to have the door without the sidelight.
Ms. Greenwood said the board is generally agreeing with staff.
Ms. Simon said that everyone would like to see a drawing of what this really is. We can assign a monitor
or come back to the next HPC meeting. Ms. Greenwood said a monitor could work.
Mr. Berkus said what is on the screen is exactly what this will look like. We won’t be able to come back
and show anything different.
Mr. Curtis reminded everyone that the request from the Aspen Institute is to be ADA compliant for
patrons in wheelchairs, so they can get in and out of this building. We don’t always have access to the
other doors when separate events are going on. The room layout was shown on screen.
Ms. Greenwood said that as a board, we can say no, we don’t allow it, or we follow staff to give the
applicant some room to maintain some of the historic fabric and give the institute what they want. Or
third, we give the applicants what they want by doing a storefront design to match what was done in
1993.
Mr. Berkus said he has spent 15 years respecting Herbert Bayer’s work on this campus and has worked
for many years to maintain Mr. Bayer’s work, so he’s very conflicted about this. A clean, clear voice is
what Mr. Bayer always strove for. Ms. Greenwood said she respects what he has done.
Ms. Greenwood asked to take a straw vote on option #3. Mr. Blaich and Ms. Sanzone voted in favor of
option #3 to make it match and with an all new door. Ms. Greenwood called for a straw vote of option
#2, which is staff’s recommendation. Ms. Greenwood, Mr. Lai, Ms. Berko, Mr. Moyer, Mr. Pember and
Mr. Halferty were in agreement for option #2.
Ms. Greenwood and Mr. Halferty volunteered to be the monitors and Mr. Berkus will send the design to
Ms. Simon and share with them.
STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon said thank you to the board and she hopes they enjoy the gift from the
Community Development department. She mentioned the Christmas party on Friday night at the
Limelight at 6:30. The Colorado preservation conference will be in February as usual in Denver and in the
past, we’ve had a few members join. They’ve changed it a little this year as it will no longer be in the
convention center and they also changed the days of the week. It is now a Monday to Thursday thing,
instead of towards the end of the week. It will be February 4th - 7th. One member should attend, so
please email her with interest. Also, the National Trust conference will be in Denver in October. It is a
big deal. She will send out an email reminder. There are professional education credits available for
AIA.
CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: None.
P3
II.B.
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 12, 2018
4
PUBLIC NOTICE: Ms. Simon handed to Mr. True.
CALL UPS: None.
Ms. Sanzone exited the meeting.
NEW BUSINESS: 517 E Hopkins
Amy Simon
This is for a proposed demolition and replacement from a 2016 approval. What you are discussing
tonight is for a proposed amendment. In August, we discussed an annex for City Hall. That was
approved, but not by the voters. A number of architectural changes to the front and rear façades
discussed at that time and are basically the same. The site plan approval was shown on screen. The
public amenity has not changed. The street façade was shown on screen. The store front moved up
closer to the street, we lost a bridge/deck. It created a two-story glazing wall, so HPC established a
condition which is included in tonight’s resolution. They will be enlivening the façade with a lot more
windows. This design is acceptable and will contribute to the alley scape, but it may need to be revised.
The main change is the programming in the building. The approval that HPC granted was commercial in
basement, commercial on the main floor and affordable housing occupying the entire second floor.
There are currently four studio apartments in the building and they are occupied. The applicant had
intended to replace the four units and add a few more to generate affordable housing credits. On the
right is what is proposed, which is all commercial net leasable space and all of the affordable housing
replaced with credits. APCHA has submitted a referral comment. Staff feels that the four existing
housing units need to be replaced on site. We feel this is important to address city goals of the housing
deficit. We don’t want to miss any opportunities to address this issue. Affordable housing credits are
great and have helped, but we need other solutions. We are recommending approval once we solve the
issue of mitigation with the following conditions:
1. Center module needs some design to reduce the scale
2. Material for the public amenity space needs further definition
3. Repeating the previous agreement that 285 sq. ft. of the public amenity is on site and the rest is
on the streetscape
4. Applicant gets credit for the existing building. 12,756 sq. ft. of net leasable space. The
commercial space will have some mitigation
5. Five full time employees living in this building, so these FTE’s must be replaced at category 1.
Staff wants onsite units.
6. Applicant will have to mitigate for any new net leasable space beyond the credit at a category 4.
7. Parking- credit – can mitigate via cash in lieu
8. Trash, delivery, transformer – alley. The applicant will work with engineering to mitigate any
new trips. Bus passes for employees, etc.
9. Automatic three years of vested rights, which protects them from changes in the code. This
project was approved under the pre-moratorium code.
When the city plan was here in August, it was considered an essential public facility and there was no
housing. The city was going to provide all credits because it was a unique opportunity to create a city
hall annex space right across the street. Ms. Garrow said there were different review standards for that
request for an essential public facility. There were also criteria related to waiving mitigation
P4
II.B.
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 12, 2018
5
requirements from council to promote civic uses and broader community goals, which created a unique
opportunity to for city offices in a campus-like situation.
Mr. Halferty asked if staff is suggesting that the city can play by different rules than a private applicant
when it comes to employee housing. Mr. True said yes, there are different review standards, which the
code provides and different rules. Ms. Garrow said the city was going to use its own credits. This aspect
hinges on the location requirement standards, which is why the specific language was pulled for this
presentation. It is absolutely within HPC’s authority to find that credits are appropriate here and is
within HPC’s purview.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Chris Bendon of Bendon Adams, Mark Hunt & Chris Bryan of Garfield &
Hecht
Mr. Bendon thanked HPC for their service to preservation. He showed the conceptual approval on
screen and mentioned that Mr. Hunt is the largest credit holder of housing credits currently. The
approval for retail and city offices was just given with the housing mitigation offsite on August 1st. The
proposal for tonight is for retail and offices. There is a new exciting tenant he wants to talk about that
we have leased up for the space. The roof would be the same and the façade would be more lively and
we can work with staff and monitor on this aspect. The retail and city offices were required to meet the
multi-family replacement standards. In addition, it was required to meet the essential public facility.
With retail and non-city offices, we have to meet those first three criteria: HPC, commercial design
review and a multi-family replacement. Both projects had to address this standard. He showed on
screen the requirements for demolishing affordable multifamily housing units, which references section
26.470.070.5.2. The location requirement is important – he read to the board. The importance of this is
that the city had to address this same standard. The recommendation you see in front of you tonight is
for denial under this standard. Staff and APCHA do not support the use of credits. The growth
management criteria have not been met according to staff. We did go to the APCHA board and they
previously recommended the use of credits for the city project, so we were thinking they would
recommend approval for an all commercial project. We are getting a transcript of the meeting and have
some suspicion around a couple of members and their possible bias. There was one member who was
upset because he used to live in one of these units. We think he made his decision based on this and
another woman commented on the change in the retail environment downtown and suggested we
don’t need more retail pop up stores. We were caught off guard by this. He ran through APCHA’S
approval for the city project. He feels they have already demonstrated compliance with the same
criterion which the city met with its project. We think as community members, you can be proud of this
project. He mentioned HanaHaus in Silicon Valley as an amazing shared workspace. There is a huge
buzz surrounding this and is a retail and commercial shared workspace. We have a tenant currently on
board with this same idea and we don’t currently want to say exactly who it is. They have their own
marketing and roll out plan, but it’s a signed deal and they are ready to come with it. We are very
excited about this space and it is actually one of city council’s top 9 goals. #5 is to look at shared work
spaces.
Mr. Hunt said they were really excited to work with the city. Recently, he felt a little blindsided and
surprised with some of the recommendations coming through. We’ve always put our best foot forward
and tried to do the right thing, not just in a vacuum on a single property, but regarding offices, housing,
retail, local, etc. It’s an important mix. Shortly after the election, towards the end, we had some
discussions for this type of use. Maybe things happen for a reason. A huge challenge was natural light
P5
II.B.
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 12, 2018
6
and he is proud of the work that was done with the city to find solutions for this to make a compelling
development. This is truly dynamic and opens up opportunities to all of us. The problem, for him,
regarding housing units, is that they are taking the only wall that gets the southern light and creating
subpar housing in the alley right above the trash and also makes subpar commercial space. We believe
this tenant is perfection for this town and truly is dynamic. There are shared spaces, delis, café, a bar,
health and fitness classes. They will open their doors to anyone who wants a shared work space. Office
space like this is such a shortage and it’s a real opportunity. There’s very little commercial space in the
downtown area. He truly puts forward what he thinks is right for the community. We will end up with a
bank or pharmacy in this space if not and it’s a miss to the community. This is something we want and is
truly the last piece of property in town where something like this can happen. We are going above and
beyond and asking for your help and support. Mr. Bendon mentioned that David Johnston Architects
have been a key element for the transition of this building and have been instrumental in turning the
light on to the shared office space and vision. Collin Frank is here representing David Johnston
Architects. This is a fully mitigated project and we are not side stepping anything. It’s our position that
it meets the same standard as the city. The project relies on having the solar light down through the
center of the building.
Mr. Kendrick said Aspen isn’t Palo Alto; it’s much smaller and less people to drawn from to make a
project like this successful. How do we make sure that going forward, we aren’t giving up housing for
this space to be turned into retail 5-10 years down the road? Mr. Bendon said he agrees, this isn’t
Silicon Valley, but he just started his own business and he would have appreciated a collaborative space
to have in lieu of initial startup costs when anyone is starting a business. Will it be here forever? Maybe
not, but there is a lot of change in retail that we are all seeing. Mr. Kendrick said he doesn’t want to see
more high-end retail. Tell us about the offsite housing. Mr. Bendon mentioned the Base Lodge and said
there is one approval there they would like to convert to affordable housing for 22 units. We see this as
a fabulous opportunity to rehouse tenants.
Ms. Greenwood said she recollects that this board made statements toward the end of the approval for
this building, that they would allow you to maintain your approvals with all commercial. She felt the
board agreed to that. Ms. Simon said the resolution said the exact opposite. Ms. Greenwood said the
board generally felt that they should be able to keep their approvals. She said it was in the meeting
minutes. A level of fairness was where the board was coming from.
Ms. Garrow said that if HPC likes this idea and it’s exciting and thinks it’s appropriate, you could use the
location requirement standard and you can make that finding that the housing is an inappropriate
solution due to physical constraints. Our recommendation is that you hold the applicant to this
representation and that in section 11, that there be added language about a co-work space on the
second floor but hold the applicant to the representation to address the location requirement.
Mr. Moyer said they didn’t address the large two-story fenestration. Mr. Bendon said when they went
through for the City project, there was concern about that needing more refinement and would be
worked out with staff and monitor. He is assuming it is still staff’s position that it still needs more
refinement. We would still like to connect into 204 as we wanted to with the annex, so we have the
same desire to align these floors and connect them.
P6
II.B.
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 12, 2018
7
Mr. Blaich asked about the potential tenant and if they are interested in the additional space. Mr. Hunt
said yes, they would need that space including the Kitchen space. There are two requirements for the
tenant, the natural light and square footage.
Ms. Berko said the city does play by different rules whether we like it or not, so she is having trouble
understanding the comparison of the previous approval and their current approval. Ms. Greenwood
said the city had the same criteria for being able to satisfy the housing need off site as the applicants are
proposing. Mr. Bendon said that is correct. Ms. Garrow said that is not correct along with Mr. True
because their presentation was made as an “essential public facility”, which allowed HPC to waive the
requirements due to providing civic services.
Mr. Bendon said we are not subject to the essential public facility standards, but we are subject to the
multifamily replacement standards instead. If it’s good enough for the city, it’s good enough for us.
Mr. True said we want to focus on this and resolve this because I believe you are ok with the provision
within the proposed resolution that would recognize the commitment to the proposal that Mr. Hunt
spent time explaining. That would perhaps allow more consideration of the onsite property being an
inappropriate solution due to the site’s physical constraints. The way Mr. Hunt has described the
physical constraints, they do not contemplate affordable housing. We want to make sure that
representation carries forward.
Ms. Garrow said we would want this to be very specific because we’ve all seen this property a few times.
We’ve talked a lot about what is happening in this building, so if HPC finds that the location requirement
shouldn’t be met with onsite housing, we want you to include specific language that it is for this co-work
space and that a future change would need to be reviewed. Ms. Greenwood said staff can help us with
the language if it goes that direction.
MOTION: Mr. Blaich motioned to extend the meeting past 7:00 p.m., Ms. Berko seconded. All in favor,
motion carried.
PUBLIC COMMENT: Peter Fornell
There are some compelling points about this mitigation. The City of Aspen has a 120 million dollar a
year budget and we all benefit from this budget. The lion’s share of our tax base comes from the
commercial core. We rely on these dollars for all things that we all utilize and take benefit from. A
thousand square feet of affordable housing produces $300 a year in property taxes. A thousand square
feet of free market commercial produces $15,000 a year in property taxes, including taxes for housing.
The five people that we are considering housing, will benefit 5 people. Moving the affordable housing
to an offsite location, will till benefit the 5 people and the building will additionally assist all of us in the
community. Those of us going in to use this building with the five FTE’s is very limited. The likelihood of
many of us going in to use the second floor of this building as commercial space, is very likely. The
certificate program needs the support of the commercial developer. I hope you guys all see the wisdom
and have our residential housing be in a residential area. We still have room to build more affordable
housing. Let’s use the available space for this purpose of co-work space.
P7
II.B.
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 12, 2018
8
Andrew Sandler:
Mr. Sandler said he wants to underscore what Mr. Fornell said. When we sit in this room, he finds that
often we suffer from paralysis by analysis in this room. We overanalyze the code and make the best
decision for the city, but we have to just go off instincts and fundamentals. There are always exceptions
to these rules and situational. We need to look at the cost vs benefit. The shared spaces and shared
thinking, whether in Palo Alto or here, is a feather in our caps. This will highlight and complement the
rest of the town. It helps the surrounding businesses as well. Let’s look at the opportunity of cost vs
benefit and don’t kick the can down the road. We have to think about the now. He urges the board to
think about the tax base and everyone in the community.
Matt Brown:
Mr. Brown said he has been in front of HPC for his project at 834 Hallam. He said the two speakers in
front of him, said what he wanted to come up with. They did a great job. I felt like my conversations
with APCHA, was really supportive of finding more dedicated sites for housing. I didn’t know the plans
or potential vendors for this building either, but he does believe Mr. Hunt when he says he’s invested in
building dedicated sites for affordable housing for the larger picture. We have to look at the time and
place of this and the particular circumstance. Let’s focus on offsite housing. This was not their
objective, they would prefer things offsite. From a tax base and vibrancy, this is compelling to him.
Bill Small:
Mr. Small said his company is Zenith Realty Advisors. He has personally been involved in commercial
real estate for 30 years. He has personally been responsible for many of the leases in downtown Aspen.
The unique aspect I bring to this is that he wants to speak about the shared offices. Quality shared
office facilities are the fastest growing in the United States. There really is a huge demand for this kind
of thing. The whole way we use office space, is changing. Companies are changing. Independent
contractors, etc. here in Aspen, have come to him to get a single office space, so there is a strong
demand for this type of thing. We need office space for the next generation of millennials. It’s an
exciting office amenity. This kind of thing is a catalyst to service this new part of the population.
Montrose shared office facility is very vibrant and energetic. Great amenity.
Bill Stirling:
Mr. Stirling said he appreciates the tug of war and the balancing of the issues. Mr. Stirling is a big
proponent of option A in the election and the people did speak pretty clearly about the alternative. He
said he has no engagement with the applicant in any way, whatsoever, but he has some thoughts to
share. Two years ago, limits were put on chain stores in downtown Aspen. Ms. Garrow confirmed that
this took place in 2015, but she mentioned that this property is exempt. The idea was to create more
locally owned businesses downtown and to change the oxymoron, which is affordable commercial into
something that it could be, like affordable housing, which is not an oxymoron. The purpose was to bring
back the concept of locally owned businesses and affordable commercial space. The spirit of what this
proposal has is in line with this idea. The one try downtown for this incubator approach, was over
where the old state street theater used to be, but they couldn’t manage the finances. The city proposed
the old art museum for this concept, instead, but was resisted by neighbors and didn’t pan out. I think
the purpose of this project is, in spirit with what the town is after. Affordable housing shouldn’t only be
in residential areas. There is still a lot downtown and it doesn’t have to be one way or the other. In long
P8
II.B.
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 12, 2018
9
term interest of the community, let’s work on a compromise. This is a legitimate concern and we do
need to keep a wonderful mix and the messy vitality that is Aspen.
Toni Kronberg:
Ms. Kronberg said the very first time she spoke in front of a group 40 years ago, was when Bill Stirling
was mayor. She said the question before him at the time was regarding whether they were going to
build a rec center or build something for the arts and the arts won out. It took 20 years to get a
recreation center. Ms. Kronberg went on to say that she wants to support the all commercial building.
A lot of other places benefit from the tax revenues generated in the commercial core. If it’s affordable
housing, they won’t generate the sales tax. As you were told tonight, it’s within your purview to
approve this request. One of the things she heard loud and clear in the election, is that people didn’t
want to lose the retail space. This building really does have a constraint in it and you would really
diminish the work space if affordable housing were added. She said she wanted to echo all of the other
speakers and points they have made. Is affordable housing really an appropriate use for this property?
We would like to have quality of life and having a unit in an alley isn’t great. You would really be
satisfying the younger generation for shared office space. It’s a win win condition for everyone. It’s
funny how it all circles around.
Chris Bendon read a letter from Linda Manning and was entered into the public record. Mr. Bendon
quoted Ms. Manning as saying that this is exactly the type of business which Aspen needs to support our
business community. It will deliver just what is needed and is providing vitality and benefit to the entire
community. It should receive the same support as previous application received.
Ms. Greenwood said her daughter lives in San Francisco and she’s in a shared office space and has
allowed she and her friends to interact and become an entrepreneur. She loves this idea and mentioned
that she works out of the Elks building and said it’s affordable office space, but currently have a waiting
list of 30 people. She said there isn’t enough affordable office space in the city. This would be a win win
for developers to have these grand spaces. She knows this alley very well and it’s super busy and is not
suitable for living. Trucks are always running and it’s very dark. She doesn’t feel like we’d be losing any
housing and would be an excellent concept for our town to tie the approval to it. This is an exciting and
important project and she would like to see this building be all commercial and tie this to and affordable
housing situation. This has really worked in San Francisco for her daughter because ideas are
exchanged and its life changing. It’s much more vital than affordable housing for this site. She hopes
that we can agree to do this as it would be an excellent ending to this building.
Mr. Moyer said he agrees in this situation, that the building should be all commercial. He would like to
be able to demand a third floor for employee housing. He’d also like to demand employee housing in
the Kitchen building, but he doesn’t think we can do that at this time, but maybe something to look into
for the future. The design on the two-story can be handled by a monitor. We do need a clause that
there will be a guarantee that they will provide housing in or close to the core.
Mr. Blaich said he supports this project. We approved this design before and he doesn’t know why they
would want to change it. The shared work space is a national and international trend. He said he was
party to starting this in 1964 with Herman Miller, when they invented the “action office”. It was an
open plan concept and it was the start of this breaking down the walls of a traditional office. He said he
P9
II.B.
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 12, 2018
10
subscribes to a design magazine, Metropolis, and in almost every issue, they are dealing with this
subject. This isn’t just in Palo Alto, but all over the country. I think it’s a very healthy step and I’ve
always supported affordable housing, but he doesn’t feel it’s appropriate in this building. Because of the
environment of the alley, he thinks the project stands on its own.
Mr. Kendrick said he does really like the idea of having the startup businesses having a place to operate
out of. He’s still a little concerned about how it operates and being able to fill it with local people and
not other corporations coming in and using up the space. He thinks it’s worth giving it a shot. He would
like to see the affordable housing built somewhere near the town core. You have to trust people and he
knows that Mr. Hunt will be in front of HPC again and that he will do what he says. I would stand in
favor of the full commercial.
Mr. Halferty said he supports the application. He said the applicant has been very patient. The city
government vs the private sector has always been complex. What’s good for the goose, is good for the
gander, so he thinks it’s perfectly appropriate. Whoever the tenant is, is a great collaboration for the
space. He was working a lot just to pay for his space, when he started his own office in 1995. The front
façade and alley can be handled by staff and monitor. The housing credits are more than sufficient. The
applicant has shown his commitment to employee housing and is well prepared to move this offsite.
Overall, he said he is in complete support of this project.
Ms. Berko said that any of us who are connected with young people, know that work space is really a
challenge. We all know people who live and work in these spaces. Theoretically, she believes in on site
housing, but feels it’s a difficult situation. She is fine leaving the facades and alley to staff and monitor.
She thanked the public commenters for all of the input and thinks it was really helpful. She would like
some sort of clause on the use as the others have mentioned. She’s in favor of this project.
Mr. Lai said he will make it unanimous as he is also in favor of the project. He said he’d like to speak a
little bit as a former academic. He said that James Jacobs is always talking about the necessity of having
housing to inject “exuberant vitality” into an area. If you walk around downtown Aspen, even at one or
two a.m., the last thing we have is quiet, so we don’t need to have the exuberant diversity that housing
brings because we have so much already. We don’t need to have affordable housing on the alley either.
Ideally, he’d like to have affordable housing in the downtown, but that is really against the market.
There is a strong current towards having incubator commercial space, so it is something we need to try.
He agrees with the cautionary tale from Ms. Berko, that we need to have a clause for the future. He said
he was personally disappointed with the vote as he liked the idea of having city offices right across the
street from city hall. He likes the design, but the façade he’d like to hold off on. Generally, he likes it.
Ms. Greenwood summed it up and said it’s unanimous for the building being commercial. Ms. Garrow
said that staff has two suggestions for the resolution. The first is in section 3 related to employee
generation and mitigation. The first paragraph has been edited to read, “the historic preservation
commission has determined that existing affordable housing has been replaced through housing credits
equivalent to 5 FTE’s at a Category 1”. Mr. True said that section also needs to have a finding pursuant
to the code that HPC determines that the units on site are an inappropriate due to the sites physical
constraints. The physical constraints were made regarding what is proposed there. The second change
would add at the end of section 11 to address the representations which create those physical
constraints. Ms. Garrow read the amended section as, “HPC has determined that the replacement is
inappropriate due to the site’s physical constraints and the existing affordable housing may be replaced
P10
II.B.
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 12, 2018
11
through credits at 5 FTE’s at category 1. Material representations and commitments. This would
include the “representations that co work space will occupy all of the second-floor net leasable space
and will not be replaced with another use unless approved by HPC”. Ms. Garrow mentioned adding to
section 1, a subsection 1.3, which says a connection between 517 and 204 would be permitted pursuant
to the representation. Mr. Bendon agreed this is fine.
MOTION: Mr. Lai motioned with the amendments, Mr. Moyer seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Blaich, yes;
Mr. Kendrick, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Ms. Berko, yes; Ms. Greenwood, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Mr. Lai, yes.
7-0, motion carried.
Ms. Simon said they will do the year in review at the first meeting in January.
MOTION: Mr. Kendrick motioned to adjourn, Mr. Halferty seconded. All in favor, motion carried at 7:53
p.m.
__________________________________
Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk
P11
II.B.
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 09, 2019
1
Commissioners in attendance: Gretchen Greenwood, Nora Berko, Roger Moyer, Bob Blaich, Richard Lai,
Scott Kendrick. Absent were Willis Pember, Jeffrey Halferty 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
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None.
PUBLIC COMMENT: Jake Vickery
Mr. Vickery said he has a request of the board to think about a couple of new concepts for the benefits
of small properties. He passed out a handout to the board with a letter and a diagram. He said he
owns 202 W. Main, which is a Victorian across from where the bakery used to be. He has owned it for
almost 20 years. He has come up with some ideas and said these would be exemptions from FAR, but
not for space or volume, but just for deck areas and lightwells. He directed the board to look at the
diagram. This idea is to develop a connection with the alley to make it more human and interesting with
an “elosia” space. The second item is regarding light wells. The third item is regarding those 3000 sq. ft
lots, which are really challenged in a lot of ways. There is very little private outdoor space. He is
proposing a roof top deck, which would not be visible from the front or back. He is trying to get an
exemption from having a cap on FAR for small properties.
Mr. Moyer said these are great ideas. Ms. Greenwood asked him to explain the “elosia” space. Mr.
Vickery said this is an open space below an actual space above. It’s a two-sided space, which is
transitional activity space. It’s like a rear front porch.
Ms. Greenwood said these would be little additional bonuses. Ms. Simon said that’s correct. Mr. Moyer
said this goes back to the messy vitality concept and he totally understands the dilemma. Ms. Simon
said here in the next few months we will go back to council to formally discuss the code benefits, so they
will come back to the board one more time prior.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS:
Ms. Berko mentioned a presentation by Harry Teague, Dick Carter and Ann at the Wheeler at 7:30 p.m.
on the Bauhaus. Ms. Simon said it’s at the Limelight.
Ms. Greenwood mentioned a screen that is always down on the building across the street from the
Sardy house. She asked if that is allowed and said it doesn’t feel right. She said it is an outside wooden
screen. Ms. Simon said she will look into it.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Ms. Simon announced that Mr. Pember has submitted his resignation as his house has sold and he will
be between Aspen and Boulder from here on out. She said that he has been on HPC for years so there
should be a get together at some point to wish him well. Ms. Simon also mentioned that Ms. Sanzone
and Mr. Halferty both reported that they could not attend tonight. She said the next meeting will be
P12
II.B.
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 09, 2019
2
canceled because there are no agenda items. She said there is currently a project on small cell towers
being installed within the city so that is coming up. She needs to follow up with Mr. Moyer and Mr. Lai
to get them registered for Colorado Preservation Inc. and to see if anyone else wants to go to that
conference in Denver the first week of February.
Ms. Greenwood asked when council is going to make a decision on 517 E. Hopkins and Ms. Simon said
she doesn’t know for sure if this is going in front of council.
DISCLOSURES OF CONFLICT: None.
PROJECT MONITORING: None.
CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: None.
PUBLIC NOTICE: Ms. Simon said this is not actually a public hearing, but just a referral comment.
CALL UPS: None.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION: 506 E Main
Patrick Rawley of Stan Clauson Associates, Jodi Smith of Pitkin County and Andy Duckett-Emke of
Anderson Hallas Architects
Mr. Rawley mentioned the site visit to view the improvements to be done to the courthouse. Those are
for ADA accessibility and security issues to support the essential public facility.
Ms. Simon said she will run through the staff memo very quickly. She said this is an unusual process
since it’s a referral comment to Jessica Garrow, who will make an administrative decision. This falls into
a public project review process. This will have reduced review criteria and a faster review process.
Because all of the changes have to do with accessibility and life safety, it will require Ms. Garrow’s
approval. The board walked around the site and staff is recommending approval. Potential staff and
monitor items include: what the material would be for the new pathway that leads to the new
accessible entry, clarify any lighting required above the doorway, signage that might be directing people
to this entrance, railings, details, etc. We discussed the lilac along the front steps, which needs to be
removed. She looked back at historic photos and the lilacs did not appear until the 1980’s, so they are
not heritage shrubs. There is a drywell proposed to deal with drainage. There would be a two-foot-
wide manhole cover. We would like to see if it can be relocated or if there is another drainage technique
that can be applied. Engineering has allowed a sod lid, so it looks like grass, so we need more
discussion about this. Regarding the fire escape on the rear, it will detach at the base of the doorway
threshold and we want to make sure there is no further damage caused to the rear of the historic
building. We would like to have HPC discuss this in regard to the resolution.
Mr. Rawley said regarding condition #1, their preference is to use grey concrete, but they would also
entertain a paving material the city has used in Galena plaza. Concerning removing the lilac, we haven’t
really discussed, but we could relocate or remove them. The drywell could be handled with engineering
discussions and the fire escape can be addressed by Mr. Duckett-Emke.
Mr. Moyer said the lilac bush should come out so there is symmetry on both sides. He asked if they can
have them detail the conduit and to the left of the rear porch, there is that hole in the wall with all of
P13
II.B.
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 09, 2019
3
the ugly black wrapping. He said it should be removed or hidden and a fifth condition should be added
for this.
Mr. Blaich seconded that. He mentioned the conduit on the site and he agreed with Mr. Moyer’s other
comments. Ms. Greenwood agreed on adding another condition and said they would never allow that.
Mr. Kendrick said he agrees with Mr. Moyer. He would like to see the lilacs gone as they block too much
of the building. Ms. Greenwood agreed.
Ms. Berko asked about the coloring and if it is more appropriate to have it in the same color as the west
side, as opposed to grey. Ms. Greenwood said that using the same material seems right to her. Ms.
Smith said they will go with grey concrete when it all needs to be replaced.
Mr. Lai said he may be blowing in the wind. He understands the necessity for these changes, as
accessibility is vital, and the fire escape is there for public safety, but he’s not happy with these
necessities. When he looks at page 46, we have this wonderful historic building. The change with the
door is a drastic change in his mind to the symmetry of this building. He would like to be reassured that
every other option has been explored regarding the south façade. Regarding the north side fire escape,
he has the same feeling especially if there is a garden back there. One suggestion would be to move the
fire escape to the space between the court house and the newer annex where there is a cover which
already disrupts the integrity of both buildings. Another solution would be if the fire escape could be
separated from the building. Personally, we would be remiss as a committee if we didn’t look more at
other possibilities to preserve both facades.
Ms. Berko asked if the lift has been explored on the east side. Ms. Simon said there can only be one
entry for the public. Right now, the accessible entrance is on the north and they could stick with that
and then everyone has to go to the back door.
Ms. Smith said we did explore every option. Security wise, it didn’t work on the inside of the building
and would have back logged people. They would have had to do more extensive changes to the interior
building. We looked at north entrance, which creates a back log. We went to the board of county
commissioners and vetted every possible way.
Mr. Moyer asked if the fire escape is attached to the building and Mr. Duckett-Emke said the intent is
that the majority of the structure will be independent of the building. We will have a little bit of contact
where the steel landing touches the brick, but the support itself will stand on its own. It’s about 36
inches right now from the main stair structure and back to the building.
Mr. Lai said he appreciates the applicant’s comments and he appreciates that the county has a great
interest in historic preservation just as we do.
Ms. Smith addressed Mr. Lai’s comment about a garden on the north side and she said our goal is to not
have people back there. It will not be a place of gathering. We are keeping this in mind while doing the
landscaping plan.
MOTION: Mr. Moyer moved to approve with condition #5, addressing the conduit and the black wires,
Mr. Blaich seconded. Roll call vote: Ms. Berko, yes; Mr. Blaich, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Greenwood,
yes; Mr. Kendrick, yes; Mr. Lai, no. 5-1, motion carried.
P14
II.B.
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 09, 2019
4
The work session commenced: 2018 End of Year Review
Election of chair and vice chair. Ms. Greenwood volunteered for chair and Mr. Blaich volunteered for
vice chair.
MOTION: Mr. Moyer motioned to approve Ms. Greenwood as chair and Mr. Blaich as vice chair, Ms.
Berko seconded. All in favor, motion carried.
MOTION: Mr. Kendrick motioned to adjourn, Mr. Moyer seconded. All in favor, motion carried.
______________________________
Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk
P15
II.B.
C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\3D2FD647-C693-
4B92-9AB7-355F49F41CAC\15669.doc
2/7/2019
HPC PROJECT MONITORS- projects in bold are under construction
Nora Berko 1102 Waters
602 E. Hyman
210 S. First
333 W. Bleeker
Bob Blaich Lot 2, 202 Monarch Subdivision
209 E. Bleeker
300 E. Hyman, Crystal Palace
128 E. Main, Sardy House
Gretchen Greenwood 124 W. Hallam
411 E. Hyman
300 E. Hyman, Crystal Palace
101 W. Main, Molly Gibson Lodge
201 E. Main
834 W. Hallam
420 E. Hyman
Jeff Halferty 232 E. Main
541 Race Alley
208 E. Main
303 E. Main
517 E. Hopkins
533 W. Hallam
110 W. Main, Hotel Aspen
Roger Moyer 500 W. Main
223 E. Hallam
300 W. Main
Richard Lai 122 W. Main
211 W. Main
Scott Kendrick 303 E. Main
517 E. Hopkins
419 E. Hyman
Sheri Sanzone 135 E. Cooper
Need to assign:
134 W. Hopkins
422/434 E. Cooper
529-535 E. Cooper, Stein Building
305/307 S. Mill
534 E. Cooper
210 W. Main
P16
II.F.
TYPICAL PROCEEDING- 1 HOUR, 10 MINUTES FOR MAJOR AGENDA
ITEM, NEW BUSINESS
Provide proof of legal notice (affidavit of notice for PH)
Staff presentation (5 minutes)
Board questions and clarifications (5 minutes)
Applicant presentation (20 minutes)
Board questions and clarifications (5 minutes)
Public comments (close public comment portion of hearing) (5 minutes)
Applicant rebuttal (5 minutes)
Chairperson identifies the issues to be discussed (5 minutes)
HPC discussion (15 minutes)
Motion (5 minutes)
*Make sure the motion includes what criteria are met or not met.
No meeting of the HPC shall be called to order without a quorum consisting of at least
four (4) members being present. No meeting at which less than a quorum shall be present
shall conduct any business other than to continue the agenda items to a date certain. All
actions shall require the concurring vote of a simple majority, but in no event less than
three (3) concurring votes of the members of the commission then present and voting.
Procedure for amending motions:
A “friendly amendment” to a Motion is a request by a commissioner to the commissioner
who made the Motion and to the commissioner who seconded it, to amend their Motion.
If either of these two do not accept the “friendly” amendment request, the requesting
commissioner may make a formal motion to amend the Motion along the lines he/she
previously requested. If there is no second to the motion to amend the Motion, there is
no further discussion on the motion to amend, it dies for a lack of a second; discussion
and voting on the Motion may then proceed.
If there is a second to the motion to amend the Motion, it can be discussed and must be
voted upon before any further discussion and voting on the Motion for which the
amendment was requested. If the vote is in favor of amending the Motion, discussion and
voting then proceeds on the Amended Motion. If the vote on the motion to amend fails,
discussion and voting on the Motion as originally proposed may then proceed.
P17
II.K.
Page 1 of 15
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
Memorandum
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner
THROUGH: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer
MEETING DATE: February 13, 2018
RE: 333 West Bleeker Street – Major Development Review, Relocation and Setback
Variations, PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICANT /OWNER:
Bleeker & 3rd LLC, Mark S.
Moussa, Manager
REPRESENTATIVE:
Haas Land Planning, LLC and
Rally Dupps, Architect
LOCATION:
Street Address:
333 W. Bleeker Street
Legal Description:
Lot 1, Bleeker Street Partners
Historic Landmark Lot Split
Subdivision Exemption Plat, City
and Townsite of Aspen,
Colorado.
Parcel Identification Number:
PID# 2735-124-01-401
CURRENT ZONING & USE
Single-family home,
R-6 – Medium-Density Residential
PROPOSED LAND USE:
No change
SUMMARY:
The applicant has requested a Major Development review for the
relocation of the historic residence onto a new basement,
relocation of an outbuilding, and the construction of a new one-
story addition. Setback variations are requested.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends continuation of this project to restudy the
issues identified on page 15 of this memo.
Site Locator Map – 333 West Bleeker Street
333
P18
IV.A.
Page 2 of 15
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
BACKGROUND:
333 West Bleeker Street is a designated landmark on a 6,000 square foot corner lot in the R-6 zone
district. This property contains a two story Victorian era residence with elaborate architectural detailing
on the front façade. The house appears to be in its original location according to the historic Sanborn
maps. There is a relocated historic outbuilding along the alley, and a number of large trees on and
around this property.
In 2002, the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) approved a historic lot split that resulted in the
Bleeker Street Partners Historic Landmark Lot Split that allocated 2,280 square feet of floor area to Lot
1, containing the historic resource, and 1,800 square feet of floor area to Lot 2, to the east, containing a
new house. Current floor area calculations indicate that Lot 1 has an existing floor area of 2,435 square
feet which is over the allotted floor area. This appears to be due to a miscalculation of the garage floor
area that was not recognized during the lot split. In this case, the applicant is permitted to maintain the
non-conforming floor area but cannot expand the non-conformity, and any reduction in floor area will
be lost.
REQUEST OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals:
• Major Development (Section 26.415.070.D) for a new addition towards the rear of the historic
residence. The Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) is the final review authority.
• Relocation (Section 26.415.090) for the relocation of the historic residence onto a new
foundation, and the relocation of the historic outbuilding for alley access. The Historic
Preservation Commission (HPC) is the final review authority.
• Setback Variation (Section 26.415.110.C) for the relocated historic outbuilding. The Historic
Preservation Commission (HPC) is the final review authority.
This project is subject to Call-up Notice to City Council.
PROJECT SUMMARY:
333 West Bleeker is a two story single-family residence on the corner of Bleeker Street and Third Street.
The applicant proposes to relocate the historic residence 5’ north, towards Bleeker Street and 3’-7” to
the east. The relocated historic home will be on a new basement. What appears to be a historic enclosed
porch on the rear (south elevation) of the historic home is proposed to be removed and an 8 feet long
connecting element is proposed to link the historic residence with a new one story addition. The existing
historic outbuilding is to be relocated, remaining in the southwest corner of the lot, but the structure
will be rotated so that the garage entry is off the alley and not Third Street. Fenestration changes on
the west, south and east elevations of the historic residence are proposed.
P19
IV.A.
Page 3 of 15
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
Figure 1 – Existing West Elevation (along Third Street)
Figure 2 – Proposed West Elevation (along Third Street)
STAFF COMMENTS:
Staff finds that the proposal does not meet the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines and
recommends continuation for restudy, specifically to address the design compatibility between the
historic home and the new addition and the relocation of the historic house. The design choices
regarding form and fenestration show no clear relationship to the historic resource and staff is
concerned with the future impact to the historic house moving closer to Bleeker Street and the large
Spruce tree on the property. Staff also recommends additional investigative study to determine
appropriate fenestration changes to the historic house.
The following points go into more detail regarding the proposal for HPC discussion:
1. Site Planning & Relocation: This corner lot condition results in three elevations to be viewed
by the public and creates an opportunity for the community to experience the historic resource
from multiple angles.
The historic outbuilding is located along the rear alley in the southwest corner of the property.
The Sanborn maps indicate different outbuildings along the alley, but aerial imagery from 1968
depicts the existing outbuilding in its current location. There is no record of when this outbuilding
was placed in this location, but it is recognized as a contributing historic outbuilding and is
P20
IV.A.
Page 4 of 15
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
Victorian era construction. At some point, this structure was converted into a garage. The
Historic Preservation Design Guidelines state that any non-historic driveways accessed from
the street should be removed if it is possible to relocate the access to the alley (1.3 and 1.4).
Currently, the garage door entry is accessed from Third street and the applicant proposes to
rotate the historic outbuilding to gain alley access which is in compliance with the guidelines. It
is important to note that this move will not visually cover or negatively impact the visibility of the
historic house. An existing driveway in the right-of-way is to be removed. Staff finds the proposal
to relocate the outbuilding to be compliant with the guidelines.
The area where the relocated historic home will sit is largely determined by the site conditions
related to the trees. See Exhibit B and sheet A1.07 for more details. The Parks Department has
identified trees for preservation on all lot lines. According to the Design Guidelines, relocation
is reviewed on a case-by-case basis, but the historic resource must continue to have a prominent
presence and a similar orientation to the historic orientation should be maintained (9.2 and 9.3).
No change is proposed to the orientation of the historic house and it retains a prominent
presence along Bleeker Street but the move east by 3’-7” no longer centers the front façade
between the two large spruce trees and the move forward towards Bleeker Street by 5’ will bring
the historic house closer to the large Spruce trees. Staff is concerned that the proposed
relocation of the historic house may potentially compromise the longevity of the resource over
time by putting it closer to the tree roots and drip line and recommends restudy.
The historic buildings will be on a new basement that extends past the building footprint, to the
setbacks. The historic foundation is identified as an original sandstone foundation that needs to
be replicated using the salvaged materials from the original foundation if relocation is pursued
(9.5). It is also important to maintain the historic grade and how it relates to the foundation and
the finished floor of the historic resource (1.23). According to the proposed drawings, the height
of the first floor relative to grade may be changed. Dimensions confirming these relationships
are needed.
Considering the size of the proposed basement and the large trees that surround the property,
staff is concerned that that a plan for stormwater mitigation has not been submitted. The Design
Guidelines reference the need to consider site design incorporating stormwater management
early in the design process (1.8). This is especially critical if space available to address the
necessary mitigation appears limited. It is important that stormwater features such as
drywells/man holes are not located in areas that will create visual impact. Staff recommends the
applicant provide a preliminary plan that identifies the location of individual features in areas
with the least visual impact.
P21
IV.A.
Page 5 of 15
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
The site plan reveals a long row of skylights on the ground of the east side yard setback along
the historic house. These skylights serve the basement spaces and do not adhere to Design
Guideline 9.6 which regulates the visual impact of such features. In general, the base of the
resource should be met by grade, not uncharacteristic features such as lightwells and skylights.
This element would be more appropriate adjacent to new construction. Staff recommends
restudy of this feature.
The Historic Preservation Design Guidelines state:
1.3 Remove driveways or parking areas accessed directly from the street if they were not part of the
original development of the site.
• Do not introduce new curb cuts on streets.
• Non-historic driveways accessed from the street should be removed if they can be relocated to
the alley.
1.4 Design a new driveway or improve an existing driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual
impact.
• If an alley exists at the site, the new driveway must be located off it.
• Tracks, gravel, light grey concrete with minimal seams, or similar materials are appropriate for
driveways on Aspen Victorian properties.
1.8 Consider stormwater quality needs early in the design process.
• When included in the initial planning for a project, stormwater quality facilities can be better
integrated into the proposal. All landscape plans presented for HPC review must include at least
a preliminary representation of the stormwater design. A more detailed design must be
reviewed and approved by Planning and Engineering prior to building permit submittal.
• Site designs and stormwater management should provide positive drainage away from the
historic landmark, preserve the use of natural drainage and treatment systems of the site, reduce
the generation of additional stormwater runoff, and increase infiltration into the ground.
Stormwater facilities and conveyances located in front of a landmark should have minimal visual
impact when viewed from the public right of way.
• Refer to City Engineering for additional guidance and requirements.
1.11 Preserve and maintain historically significant landscaping on site, particularly landmark trees
and shrubs.
• Retaining historic planting beds and landscape features is encouraged.
• Protect historically significant vegetation during construction to avoid damage. Removal of
damaged, aged, or diseased trees must be approved by the Parks Department.
• If a significant tree must be removed, replace it with the same or similar species in coordination
with the Parks Department.
• The removal of non-historic planting schemes is encouraged.
• Consider restoring the original landscape if information is available, including original plant
materials.
P22
IV.A.
Page 6 of 15
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
1.23 Re-grading the site in a manner that changes historic grade is generally not allowed and will be
reviewed on a case by case basis.
9.2 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
• In general, on-site relocation has less of an impact on individual landmark structures than those
in a historic district.
• In a district, where numerous adjacent historic structures may exist, the way that buildings were
placed on the site historically, and the open yards visible from the street are characteristics that
should be respected in new development.
• Provide a figure ground study of the surrounding parcels to demonstrate the effects of a building
relocation.
• In some cases, the historic significance of the structure, the context of the site, the construction
technique, and the architectural style may make on-site relocation too impactful to be
appropriate. It must be demonstrated that on-site relocation is the best preservation alternative
in order for approval to be granted.
• If relocation would result in the need to reconstruct a substantial area of the original exterior
surface of the building above grade, it is not an appropriate preservation option.
9.3 Site a relocated structure in a position similar to its historic orientation.
• It must face the same direction and have a relatively similar setback. In general, a forward
movement, rather than a lateral movement is preferred. HPC will consider setback variations
where appropriate.
• A primary structure may not be moved to the rear of the parcel to accommodate a new building
in front of it.
• Be aware of potential restrictions against locating buildings too close to mature trees. Consult
with the City Forester early in the design process. Do not relocate a building so that it becomes
obscured by trees.
9.5 A new foundation shall appear similar in design and materials to the historic foundation.
• On modest structures, a simple foundation is appropriate. Constructing a stone foundation
on a miner’s cottage where there is no evidence that one existed historically is out of
character and is not allowed.
• Exposed concrete or painted metal flashing are generally appropriate.
• Where a stone or brick foundation existed historically, it must be replicated, ideally using
stone salvaged from the original foundation as a veneer. The replacement must be similar in
the cut of the stone and design of the mortar joints.
• New AspenModern foundations shall be handled on a case by case basis to ensure
preservation of the design intent.
9.6 Minimize the visual impact of lightwells.
• The size of any lightwell that faces a street should be minimized.
• Lightwells must be placed so that they are not immediately adjacent to character defining
features, such as front porches.
• Lightwells must be protected with a flat grate, rather than a railing or may not be visible from
a street.
P23
IV.A.
Page 7 of 15
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
• Lightwells that face a street must abut the building foundation and generally may not “float”
in the landscape except where they are screened, or on an AspenModern site.
Staff finds the proposal for relocating the outbuilding meets the HP Design Guidelines and
recommends approval. During design review, staff did reach out to the Parks Department to discuss
the impacts of retaining the trees in the south east corner of the lot and how it relates to staff
concerns about moving the historic house. The Parks Department has agreed to allow for the
removal of the trees in the south east corner. Staff anticipates a revised proposal from the applicant
eliminating the forward move, however, an eastward move of the historic house is still a concern.
Staff requests the applicant provide preliminary plans for stormwater mitigation and restudy the
proposed skylight to meet HP Design Guidelines.
2. Historic Landmark – Alterations: The applicant proposes to remove the enclosed porch on the
rear (south) of the historic house and reconstruct the wall and exterior finishes to match the
historic exterior finishes. HPC typically looks at the 1904 Sanborn map to determine historic
significance (10.2) but staff has come across inconsistencies in the historic documentation of the
rear addition to the historic house. The 1893 historic Sanborn map (Figure 3) shows no feature
attached to the rear of the house, however, the 1893 Bird’s Eye View of the historic building
depicts an enclosed rear addition with a pitched roof form that is significantly different from what
is there currently (Figure 4). The Sanborn maps from 1898 and 1904 indicate several new
structures were built very close to the rear of the house and the footprint of a rear porch appears.
Over the years, significant alterations were made specifically to this rear feature and the
historical documents present conflicting information making it unclear if the existing roof form
is, in fact, original. The Design Guidelines do provide guidance for reconstructing an original
porch, by keeping the style simple with minimal decorative elements (5.4), however, staff finds it
difficult to support a reconstruction of the porch when there is conflicting documentation. It is
Figure 3 – 1893 Historic Sanborn Map Figure 4 – 1893 Bird’s Eye View Map
P24
IV.A.
Page 8 of 15
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
equally difficult to insist on maintaining the existing feature because of the uncertainty of its form
being historic. The applicant intends to remove this enclosed space and restore the rear of the
historic house to the conditions found on the 1893 Sanborn map and the floor plans depicted in
the pattern book. In this process, the floor area for this space will be recapture for the new
addition. This area is approximately 142 square feet.
Changes are proposed to alter windows on the west elevation of the historic house (Figure 6).
The historic window type seen throughout the historic building is a double hung window. On the
west elevation there is a grouping of three windows that reveal a window type and opening size
that are not associated with the rest of the building (Figure 5). The applicant plans to remove
the grouping of windows and introduce two new double hung windows on this façade. The
selected new windows are to match existing historic windows. It is unclear how the location for
the new window openings was determined but changes to fenestration may only be seen as a
restoration if an enclosed historic opening is being reopened (3.5). Additional investigation of
the original framing is needed to determine if the existing grouping of windows is not original,
and if there are any enclosed openings on this façade that are original. The Design Guidelines
do provide more flexibility for adding new windows to a historic building if it is proposed on a
rear or secondary wall (3.7). Staff recommends additional investigation of the framing evidence
prior to any changes.
Figure 5 – Existing West Elevation Figure 6 – Proposed West Elevation
On the east elevation, the applicant proposes to remove a set of non-historic sliding doors and
restore the area with matching historic siding. This elevation is the only elevation that will not
be visible from the street. The Design Guidelines do not specifically address the removal of non-
historic doors but the applicant is expected to match the original material in composition, scale
and finish of the siding once the doors are removed (2.3).
P25
IV.A.
Page 9 of 15
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
The south elevation has a set of French doors located on the second story that is non-functional.
The applicant proposes to remove the non-historic doors and replace them with two side by side
double hung windows with proportions derived from the main window on the north elevation.
Similar to fenestration concerns on the west elevation, the size and shape of the new opening is
not based on any historic documentation and the size of the proposed opening is not seen
anywhere else on the historic building. The Design Guidelines does provide more flexibility for
new openings on rear walls (3.7), however, staff recommends further investigation of the historic
framing.
The Historic Preservation Design Guidelines state:
2.3 Match the original material in composition, scale and finish when replacing materials on primary
surfaces.
• If the original material is wood clapboard for example, then the replacement material must be
wood as well. It should match the original in size, and the amount of exposed lap and finish.
• Replace only the amount required. If a few boards are damaged beyond repair, then only those
should be replaced, not the entire wall. For AspenModern buildings, sometimes the replacement
of a larger area is required to preserve the integrity of the design intent.
3.5 Preserve the size and proportion of a historic window opening.
• Changing the window opening is not permitted.
• Consider restoring an original window opening that was enclosed in the past.
3.7 Adding new openings on a historic structure is generally not allowed.
• Greater flexibility in installing new windows may be considered on rear or secondary walls.
• New windows should be similar in scale to the historic openings on the building, but should in
some way be distinguishable as new, through the use of somewhat different detailing, etc.
• Preserve the historic ratio of window openings to solid wall on a façade.
• Significantly increasing the amount of glass on a character defining façade will negatively affect
the integrity of a structure.
5.4 If reconstruction is necessary, match the original in form, character and detail.
• Match original materials.
• When reconstructing an original porch or balcony without historic photographs, use dimensions
and characteristics found on comparable buildings. Keep style and form simple with minimal, if
any, decorative elements.
10.2 A more recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed.
• For Aspen Victorian properties, HPC generally relies on the 1904 Sanborn Fire Insurance maps
to determine which portions of a building are historically significant and must be preserved.
• HPC may insist on the removal of non-historic construction that is considered to be detrimental
to the historic resource in any case when preservation benefits or variations are being approved.
P26
IV.A.
Page 10 of 15
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
Staff acknowledges that the Design Guidelines do not support the demolition or removal of features
that may be deemed historic, however, staff does support the removal of the enclosed rear porch
feature due to the conflicting historic information discovered. Staff recommends the applicant
investigate the historic framing for historic openings before pursuing new openings on the west and
south elevations, and staff finds the proposed removal of the non-historic sliding doors is
appropriate so long as the applicant match the historic siding.
3. New Addition – Connecting Element & Form/Materials/Fenestration: The proposed new
addition includes an 8’ long connecting element and a one story above grade addition. The
above grade addition is approximately 617 square feet.
Connecting Element: The proposed connecting element is one story with a flat roof. There are
sliding glass doors on the west elevation that is visible on Third Street. Unless the new addition
is completely detached from the historic building, a corner lot requires a 10’ long connecting
element, but if the project meets at least two of the listed conditions in the Design Guideline 10.5
an exception can be made. The proposed project meets the following three conditions: The one
story addition has a minimal footprint that is smaller than the two story historic residence, the
same number of usable floors as existed historically is maintained, and the property is affected
by site specific conditions related to tree preservation. The interior remodel indicates that the
connecting element will have operating doors that are street facing. A secondary pathway is
permitted, however, the design needs to comply with Design Guideline 10.4 ensuring that the
main entry point located in the historic building. Staff recommends that the applicant restudy
the proposed pathway from the street to the connecting element. Engineering also mentioned
the need to open the existing culvert pipes and restore the ditch by making it open to the air.
See Exhibit B for more details.
The design of the new addition needs to be recognized as a product of its own time, but visual
compatibility between the historic and the new is still required. In order to promote
compatibility, the Design Guidelines requires two of the following characteristics to relate back
to the historic resource: form, material and fenestration. In particular, corner lots need to
consider form as a high design priority (10.6).
Roof Form: The proposed addition has a roof form with a pitch that is unrelated to the historic
buildings. The roof form of the new addition reads different for every elevation because the
apex of the relatively flat roof is located at a diagonal and the horizontal element of the roof is
on a slant. The roof also encroaches onto the connecting element seen from the west elevation.
This design intentionally amplifies the contrast between the new and old by creating tension
through diverging roof lines. The Design Guidelines call for a simple roofscape that is compatible
with the historic building (10.11). There is a lack of congruence between the two forms. The
Design Guidelines place a stronger emphasis on the character defining features of the historic
P27
IV.A.
Page 11 of 15
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
buildings for corner lots and offer less flexibility for new designs to prevent competition between
the two structures. The proposed roof form for the new one story addition is a complete
departure from the historic buildings.
Figure 7 – Proposed West Elevation Figure 8 – Proposed South Elevation
Materials/Fenestration: The materials selected for the connecting element and the new addition
consists of mostly glazing, but sandstone and horizontal wood siding is incorporated into the
design. The ratio of wall to openings is more reflective of this time. The references made to
historic building materials are subtle and simple. Details related to dimensions and surface
finishes are not represented, however, material choice relates back to the historic building.
The design approach to fenestration is similarly concerning to that of form in that there was a
conscious choice made to deviate from the historic building. The fenestration type and size that
was selected for the new addition was to maximize transparency and light. A majority of the
openings span from floor to ceiling with no mechanical obstructions. All of the proposed
windows and doors for the addition do not reference the historic resource and a level of
compatibility between the addition and the historic landmark through fenestration is not
achieved.
The Historic Preservation Design Guidelines state:
10.4 The historic resource is to be the focus of the property, the entry point, and the predominant
structure as viewed from the street.
• The historic resource must be visually dominant on the site and must be distinguishable against
the addition.
• The total above grade floor area of an addition may be no more than 100% of the above grade
floor area of the original historic resource. All other above grade development must be
completely detached. HPC may consider exceptions to this policy if two or more of the following
are met:
o The proposed addition is all one story
P28
IV.A.
Page 12 of 15
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
o The footprint of the new addition is closely related to the footprint of the historic
resource and the proposed design is particularly sensitive to the scale and proportions
of the historic resource
o The project involves the demolition and replacement of an older addition that is
considered to have been particularly detrimental to the historic resource
o The interior of the resource is fully utilized, containing the same number of usable floors
as existed historically
o The project is on a large lot, allowing the addition to have a significant setback from the
street
o There are no variance requests in the application other than those related to historic
conditions that aren’t being changed
o The project is proposed as part of a voluntary AspenModern designation, or
o The property is affected by non-preservation related site specific constraints such as
trees that must be preserved, Environmentally Sensitive Areas review, etc.
10.5 On a corner lot, no portion of an addition to a one story historic resource may be more than
one story tall, directly behind that resource, unless completely detached above grade by a distance
of at least 10 feet.
HPC may consider exceptions to this policy if two or more of the following are met:
• The connector element that links the new and old construction is a breezeway or transparent
corridor, well recessed from the streetfacing side(s) of the historic resource and the area of two
story construction that appears directly behind the one story historic resource is minimal
• The footprint of the new addition is closely related to the footprint of the historic resource and
the proposed design is particularly sensitive to the scale and proportions of the historic resource
• The project involves the demolition and replacement of an older addition that is considered to
have been particularly detrimental to the historic resource
• The interior of the resource is fully utilized, containing the same number of usable floors as
existed historically
• There are no variance requests in the application other than those related to historic conditions
that aren’t being changed
• The project is proposed as part of a voluntary AspenModern designation, or
• The property is affected by non-preservation related site specific constraints such as trees that
must be preserved, Environmentally Sensitive Areas review, etc.
10.6 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time.
• An addition shall be distinguishable from the historic building and still be visually compatible with
historic features.
•
P29
IV.A.
Page 13 of 15
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
• A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material, or a
modern interpretation of a historic style are all techniques that may be considered to help define
a change from historic construction to new construction.
• Do not reference historic styles that have no basis in Aspen.
• Consider these three aspects of an addition; form, materials, and fenestration. An addition must
relate strongly to the historic resource in at least two of these elements. Departing from the
historic resource in one of these categories allows for creativity and a contemporary design
response.
• Note that on a corner lot, departing from the form of the historic resource may not be allowed.
• There is a spectrum of appropriate solutions to distinguishing new from old portions of a
development. Some resources of particularly high significance or integrity may not be the right
instance for a contrasting addition.
10.11 Roof forms shall be compatible with the historic building.
• A simple roof form that does not compete with the historic building is appropriate.
• On Aspen Victorian properties, a flat roof may only be used on an addition to a gable roofed
structure if the addition is entirely one story in height, or if the flat roofed areas are limited, but
the addition is primarily a pitched roof.
Staff finds that components of the proposed materials relate back to the historic landmark, but
when it comes to form and fenestration, there is a deliberate departure that is not appropriate.
The proposed roof form and fenestration do not reference the historic buildings, but rather
highlight the contrast between the old and the new. As a corner lot, the Design Guidelines
indicate that it is critical for the new addition to relate strongly to the historic resource in order
to achieve visual compatibility, therefore, staff recommends restudy.
4. Historic Outbuilding & Setback Variations: There is a historic outbuilding that once functioned
as a detached garage located towards the rear of the property. The garage door is located off
Third Street with an existing curb that prohibits direct access. The applicant would like to utilize
this space as a detached garage and rotate the structure to gain access from the alley, as
required by the Design Guidelines (1.3 and 8.2). Through relocation the applicant will gain floor
area exemption as calculated in Section 26.575.020.D.7 because the garage will have access from
the alley. The applicant proposes to remove the non-historic skylights on the outbuilding.
The applicant requests setback variations for the relocated outbuilding so that it may sit 1’ away
from the rear (south) and side (west) yard setback. A 5’ setback is required for both the side and
rear yard in the R-6 zone district. A 9’ combined side yard setback variation is requested for the
P30
IV.A.
Page 14 of 15
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
two historic buildings. HPC may grant a setback variation if one of the two criteria is met (Section
26.415.110.C):
In granting a variance, the HPC must make a finding that such a variance:
a) Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district;
and/or
b) Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural
character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or
historic district.
The Land Use code and the Design Guidelines both encourage garage and carport access from
the alley. Staff finds that the proposed relocation of the outbuilding reinforces the pattern in
the district to locating parking access to the alley. See Exhibit A.2 for setback variation criteria.
In addition, the trees designated for preservation by the Parks Department does create a defined
area for where an addition may be permitted.
The Historic Preservation Design Guidelines state:
1.2 Preserve the system and character of historic streets, alleys, and ditches.
When HPC input is requested, the following bullet points may be applicable.
• Retain and preserve the variety and character found in historic alleys, including retaining historic
ancillary buildings or constructing new ones.
• Retain and preserve the simple character of historic ditches. Do not plant flowers or add
landscape.
• Abandoning or re-routing a street in a historic area is generally discouraged.
• Consider the value of unpaved alleys in residential areas.
• Opening a platted right of way which was abandoned or never graded may be encouraged on
a case by case basis.
8.2 Preserve a historic secondary building as a detached structure.
• Any proposal to attach a secondary structure is reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
• The position and orientation of the structure.
Staff finds that the proposal to relocate the historic outbuilding meets the intent of the Design
Guidelines to ensure historic outbuilding have a viable use and are preserved as detached
structures. Staff also finds the relocation meets the criteria for granting setback variations.
REFERRAL COMMENTS:
The application was referred out to other City departments with requirements that will significantly
affect the permit review. The following is a summary of comments received. See Exhibit B for more
details.
P31
IV.A.
Page 15 of 15
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
Engineering Department:
1. The proposed relocation of the outbuilding reconfigures the culvert pipes along Third street.
The ditch should be open to the air and a bridge should be utilized where the walkway is
proposed. This issue may be addressed during building permit.
Parks Department:
1. Retain the following trees on the property: three Cottonwood trees in the right-of-way, two
Spruce trees to the north, three trees to the southeast corner of the property.
Zoning Department:
1. Clarifications related to building height and details about proposed top floor to consider
exemption.
2. Completed Building permits to receive floor area credit for sheds and trash.
3. Details regarding mechanical and exterior lighting.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Historic Preservation Commission continue the application for further restudy of
the following:
1.) Restudy the relocation of the historic house by considering the impacts of the large trees along
Bleeker Street. Forward move not necessary. Eastward move appears to have negative impacts
on visibility and must be studied.
2.) Restudy the proposed skylights along the east side yard for the basement by reducing size
and/or relocating along new construction.
3.) Provide preliminary plans for stormwater mitigation to ensure all stormwater features, such as
drywells/man holes, are located in areas with the least visible impact.
4.) Restudy the proposed secondary walkway from the Third Street to the connecting element and
work closely with relevant City departments on requirements for the restoration of the ditch.
5.) A condition of Final approval will be to investigate the historic framing on the west and south
elevations for any evidence of historic material and openings before changes are approved.
6.) Restudy the new addition to meet the Design Guidelines that require the addition to achieve
visual compatibility with the historic building.
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution #____, Series of 2019
Exhibit A.1 – Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Criteria /Staff Findings
Exhibit A.2 – Setback Variation Review Criteria /Staff Findings
Exhibit B – Referral Comments
Exhibit C – Land Use Application
P32
IV.A.
HPC Resolution #___, Series of 2019
Page 1 of 4
RESOLUTION #__, SERIES OF 2019
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
GRANTING CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, RELOCATION AND
SETBACK VARIATIONS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 333 WEST BLEEKER
STREET, LOT 1, BLEEKER STREET PARTNERS HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT
SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION PLAT, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO
PARCEL ID: 2735-124-01-401
WHEREAS, the applicant, Bleeker & 3rd LLC, Mark S. Moussa, manager, represented by Haas
Land Planning, LLC, has requested HPC approval for Major Development and Setback
Variation for the property located at 333 West Bleeker Street, Lot 1, Bleeker Street Partners
Historic Landmark Lot Split Subdivision Exemption Plat, City and Townsite of Aspen,
Colorado; and
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that “no building or structure
shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a
designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been
submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the
procedures established for their review;” and
WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the
application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the
project’s conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per
Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections.
The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to
obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and
WHEREAS, for approval of Relocation, the application shall meet the requirements of Aspen
Municipal Code Section 26.415.090.C, Relocation of a Designated Property; and
WHEREAS, for approval of Setback Variation, the application shall meet the requirements of
Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.415.110.C, Setback Variations; and
WHEREAS, HPC reviewed the project on February 13, 2018. HPC considered the application,
the staff memo and public comments, and found the proposal consistent with the review
standards and granted approval with conditions by a vote of __ to __.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That HPC hereby approves Conceptual Major Development, Relocation and Setback Variations
for 333 West Bleeker Street, Lot 1, Bleeker Street Partners Historic Landmark Lot Split
Subdivision Exemption Plat, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO with the following conditions:
P33
IV.A.
HPC Resolution #___, Series of 2019
Page 2 of 4
Section 1: Conceptual Major Development Review, Relocation and Setback Variations
HPC hereby approves Conceptual Major Development and Setback Variations as proposed with
the with the following conditions:
1.) Restudy the relocation of the historic house by considering the impacts of the large
trees along Bleeker Street. Forward move not necessary. Eastward move appears to
have negative impacts on visibility and must be studied.
2.) Restudy the proposed skylights along the east side yard for the basement by reducing
size and/or relocating along new construction.
3.) Provide preliminary plans for stormwater mitigation to ensure all stormwater features,
such as drywells/man holes, are located in areas with the least visible impact.
4.) Restudy the proposed secondary walkway from the Third Street to the connecting
element and work closely with relevant City departments on requirements for the
restoration of the ditch.
5.) A condition of Final approval will be to investigate the historic framing on the west
and south elevations for any evidence of historic material and openings before
changes are approved.
6.) Restudy the new addition to meet the Design Guidelines that require the addition to
achieve visual compatibility with the historic building.
Section 2: Material Representations
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the
development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or
documentation presented before the Community Development Department, the Historic
Preservation Commission, or the Aspen City Council are hereby incorporated in such plan
development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless
amended by other specific conditions or an authorized authority.
Section 3: Existing Litigation
This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement
of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or
amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such
prior ordinances.
Section 4: Severability
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall
be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of
the remaining portions thereof.
Section 5: Vested Rights
The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development plan
vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order.
P34
IV.A.
HPC Resolution #___, Series of 2019
Page 3 of 4
However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall
result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise exempted or extended,
failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded, as specified herein,
within 180 days of the effective date of the development order shall also result in the forfeiture
of said vested property rights and shall render the development order void within the meaning of
Section 26.104.050 (Void permits). Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific
development plan shall not result in the creation of a vested property right.
No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to
obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be
published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of
Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan
and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in
the following form:
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan,
and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years, pursuant to the
Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes,
pertaining to the following described property: 333 West Bleeker Street.
Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews and
approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City
of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this approval.
The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; the
period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the
date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required under Section
26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the Colorado
Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 13th day of February,
2019.
Approved as to Form: Approved as to Content:
_________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________
Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Gretchen Greenwood, Chair
P35
IV.A.
HPC Resolution #___, Series of 2019
Page 4 of 4
ATTEST:
_________________________________________________________________
Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk
P36
IV.A.
Page 1 of 13
Exhibit A.1
Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Criteria
Staff Findings
26.415.070.D Major Development. No building, structure or landscape shall be erected, constructed,
enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or a property
located within a Historic District until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the
Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for
their review. An application for a building permit cannot be submitted without a development order.
1. The review and decision on the issuance of a certificate of appropriateness for major development
shall begin with a determination by the Community Development Director that the proposed project
constitutes a major development. A major development includes one or more of the following
activities:
a) The construction of a new structure within a historic district; and/or
b) Alterations to more than three (3) elements of a building façade including its windows, doors, roof
planes or materials, exterior wall material, dormers, porches, exterior staircase, balcony or
ornamental trim; and/or
c) The expansion of a building increasing the floor area by more than two hundred and fifty (250)
square feet; and/or
d) Any new development that has not been determined to be minor development.
2. The procedures for the review of major development projects include a two-step process requiring
approval by the HPC of a conceptual development plan and then a final development plan. If a major
development project involves additional City Land Use approvals, the Community Development
3. b.) The procedures for the review of conceptual development plans for major development
projects are as follows:MET NOT MET DOES NOT
APPLY
2.) Staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a report that analyzes the project's
conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code sections. This report
will be transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a
recommendation to approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the
recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the report and the evidence presented at the
hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City Historic Preservation Design
Guidelines.
NOT MET
Review Criteria for 333 West Bleeker Street
The applicant is requesting a Major Development reivew for relocation of the historic resources and the construction of a new one-story above
grade addition. As a historically designated landmark, the proposed design must meet applicable Historic Preservation Design Guidelines.
Summary of Review Criteria for Section 26.415.070.D - Certificate of Appropriateness for a Major Development
26.415.070 No building, structure or landscape shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved
involving a designated historic property or a property located within a Historic District until plans or sufficient information have been
submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review. An
application for a building permit cannot be submitted without a development order.
D. Certificate of appropriateness for a major development.
P37
IV.A.
Page 2 of 13
Director may consolidate or modify the review process accordingly, pursuant to Subsection
26.304.060.B.
3. Conceptual Development Plan Review
b) The procedures for the review of conceptual development plans for major development projects
are as follows:
1) The Community Development Director shall review the application materials submitted
for conceptual or final development plan approval. If they are determined to be complete,
the applicant will be notified in writing of this and a public hearing before the HPC shall
be scheduled. Notice of the hearing shall be provided pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E.3
Paragraphs a, b and c.
2) Staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a report that analyzes the project's
conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code sections.
This report will be transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed
project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with
conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application,
the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the
project's conformance with the City Historic Preservation Design Guidelines.
3) The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application
to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny.
4) A resolution of the HPC action shall be forwarded to the City Council in accordance with
Section 26.415.120 - Appeals, notice to City Council, and call-up. No applications for Final
Development Plan shall be accepted by the City and no associated permits shall be issued
until the City Council takes action as described in said section
P38
IV.A.
Page 3 of 13
Summary of Review Criteria for Historic Preservation Design Guidelines MET NOT MET DOES NOT
APPLY
1.1 All projects shall respect the historic development pattern or context of the block, neighborhood or
district.
1.2 Preserve the system and character of historic streets, alleys, and ditches.
1.3 Remove driveways or parking areas accessed directly from the street if they were not part of the
original development of the site.
1.4 Design a new driveway or improve an existing driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual impact.
1.6 Provide a simple walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry on residential
projects.
1.8 Consider stormwater quality needs early in the design process.NOT MET
1.11 Preserve and maintain historically significant landscaping on site, particularly landmark trees and
shrubs.
1.12 Provide an appropriate context for historic structures. See diagram.
1.13 Additions of plant material to the landscape that could interfere with or block views of historic
structures are inappropriate.
1.23 Re-grading the site in a manner that changes historic grade is generally not allowed and will be
reviewed on a case by case basis.
2.1 Preserve original building materials.
2.3 Match the original material in composition, scale and finish when replacing materials on primary
surfaces.
2.4 Do not use synthetic materials as replacements for original building materials.
3.3 Match a replacement window to the original in its design.
3.5 Preserve the size and proportion of a historic window opening.NOT MET
3.7 Adding new openings on a historic structure is generally not allowed.NOT MET
5.2 Avoid removing or covering historic materials and details.
7.3 Minimize the visual impacts of skylights and other rooftop devices.
7.7 Preserve original roof materials.
7.8 New or replacement roof materials should convey a scale, color and texture similar to the original.
8.1 If an existing secondary structure is historically significant, then it must be preserved.YES
8.2 Preserve a historic secondary building as a detached structure.YES
9.1 Developing a basement by underpinning and excavating while the historic structure remains in
place may help to preserve the historic fabric. YES
9.2 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis.NOT MET
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
Review Criteria for 333 West Main Street
The applicant is requesting a Major Development reivew for relocation of the historic resources and the construction of a new one-story above
grade addition. As a historically designated landmark, the proposed design must meet applicable Historic Preservation Design Guidelines.
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
P39
IV.A.
Page 4 of 13
Relevant Historic Preservation Design Guidelines:
1.1 All projects shall respect the historic development pattern or context of the block,
neighborhood or district.
• Building footprint and location should reinforce the traditional patterns of the neighborhood.
• Allow for some porosity on a site. In a residential project, setback to setback development is typically
uncharacteristic of the historic context. Do not design a project which leaves no useful open space
visible from the street.
1.2 Preserve the system and character of historic streets, alleys, and ditches.
When HPC input is requested, the following bullet points may be applicable.
• Retain and preserve the variety and character found in historic alleys, including retaining historic
ancillary buildings or constructing new ones.
• Retain and preserve the simple character of historic ditches. Do not plant flowers or add landscape.
• Abandoning or re-routing a street in a historic area is generally discouraged.
Summary of Review Criteria for Historic Preservation Design Guidelines MET NOT MET DOES NOT
APPLY
9.3 Site a relocated structure in a position similar to its historic orientation.YES
9.4 Position a relocated structure at its historic elevation above grade.YES
9.5 A new foundation shall appear similar in design and materials to the historic foundation.YES
9.6 Minimize the visual impact of lightwells.NOT MET
9.7 All relocations of designated structures shall be performed by contractors who specialize in moving
historic buildings, or can document adequate experience in successfully relocating such buildings.YES
10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary
building is maintained.NOT MET
10.4 The historic resource is to be the focus of the property, the entry point, and the predominant
structure as viewed from the street.
10.5 On a corner lot, no portion of an addition to a one story historic resource may be more than one
story tall, directly behind that resource, unless completely detached above grade by a distance of at
least 10 feet.
10.6 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time.NOT MET
10.8 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building.
10.10 Place an addition at the rear of a primary building or set it back substantially from the front to
minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character
to remain prominent.
10.11 Roof forms shall be compatible with the historic building.NOT MET
10.12 Design an addition to a historic structure that does not destroy or obscure historically important
architectural features.YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
Review Criteria for 333 West Main Street
The applicant is requesting a Major Development reivew for relocation of the historic resources and the construction of a new one-story above
grade addition. As a historically designated landmark, the proposed design must meet applicable Historic Preservation Design Guidelines.
P40
IV.A.
Page 5 of 13
• Consider the value of unpaved alleys in residential areas.
• Opening a platted right of way which was abandoned or never graded may be encouraged on a case by case
basis.
1.3 Remove driveways or parking areas accessed directly from the street if they were not part of
the original development of the site.
• Do not introduce new curb cuts on streets.
• Non-historic driveways accessed from the street should be removed if they can be relocated to the alley.
1.4 Design a new driveway or improve an existing driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual
impact.
• If an alley exists at the site, the new driveway must be located off it.
• Tracks, gravel, light grey concrete with minimal seams, or similar materials are appropriate for driveways
on Aspen Victorian properties.
1.6 Provide a simple walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry on
residential projects.
• Meandering walkways are not allowed, except where it is needed to avoid a tree or is typical of the
period of significance.
• Use paving materials that are similar to those used historically for the building style and install them in
the manner that they would have been used historically. For example on an Aspen Victorian landmark
set flagstone pavers in sand, rather than in concrete. Light grey concrete, brick or red sandstone are
appropriate private walkway materials for most landmarks.
• The width of a new entry sidewalk should generally be three feet or less for residential properties. A
wider sidewalk may be appropriate for an AspenModern property.
1.8 Consider stormwater quality needs early in the design process.
• When included in the initial planning for a project, stormwater quality facilities can be better integrated
into the proposal. All landscape plans presented for HPC review must include at least a preliminary
representation of the stormwater design. A more detailed design must be reviewed and approved by
Planning and Engineering prior to building permit submittal.
• Site designs and stormwater management should provide positive drainage away from the historic
landmark, preserve the use of natural drainage and treatment systems of the site, reduce the generation
of additional stormwater runoff, and increase infiltration into the ground. Stormwater facilities and
conveyances located in front of a landmark should have minimal visual impact when viewed from the
public right of way.
• Refer to City Engineering for additional guidance and requirements.
1.11 Preserve and maintain historically significant landscaping on site, particularly landmark trees
and shrubs.
P41
IV.A.
Page 6 of 13
• Retaining historic planting beds and landscape features is encouraged.
• Protect historically significant vegetation during construction to avoid damage. Removal of damaged,
aged, or diseased trees must be approved by the Parks Department.
• If a significant tree must be removed, replace it with the same or similar species in coordination with the
Parks Department.
• The removal of non-historic planting schemes is encouraged.
• Consider restoring the original landscape if information is available, including original plant materials.
1.12 Provide an appropriate context for historic structures. See diagram.
• Simplicity and restraint are required. Do not overplant a site, or install a landscape which is overtextured
or overly complex in relationship to the historic resource, particularly in Zone A. In Zone A, new planting
shall be species that were used historically or species of similar attributes.
• In areas immediately adjacent to the landmark, Zone A and Zone B, plants up 42” in height, sod, and low
shrubs are often appropriate.
• Contemporary planting, walls and other features are not appropriate in Zone A. A more contemporary
landscape may surround new development or be located in the rear of the property, in Zone C.
• Do not cover areas which were historically unpaved with hard surfaces, except for a limited patio where
appropriate.
• Where residential structures are being adapted to commercial use, proposals to alter the landscape will
be considered on a case-by-case basis. The residential nature of the building must be honored.
• In the case of a historic landmark lot split, careful consideration should be given so as not to over plant
either property, or remove all evidence of the landscape characteristics from before the property was
divided.
• Contemporary landscapes that highlight an AspenModern architectural style are encouraged.
1.13 Additions of plant material to the landscape that could interfere with or block views of historic
structures are inappropriate.
• Low plantings and ground covers are preferred.
• Do not place trees, shrubs, or hedgerows in locations that will obscure, damage, or block significant
architectural features or views to the building. Hedgerows are not allowed as fences.
• Consider mature canopy size when planting new trees adjacent to historic resources. Planting trees too
close to a landmark may result in building deteriorate or blocked views and is inappropriate.
• Climbing vines can damage historic structures and are not allowed.
1.23 Re-grading the site in a manner that changes historic grade is generally not allowed and will
be reviewed on a case by case basis.
2.1 Preserve original building materials.
• Do not remove siding that is in good condition or that can be repaired in place.
P42
IV.A.
Page 7 of 13
• Masonry features that define the overall historic character, such as walls, cornices, pediments, steps and
foundations, should be preserved.
• Avoid rebuilding a major portion of an exterior wall that could be repaired in place. Reconstruction
may result in a building which no longer retains its historic integrity.
• Original AspenModern materials may be replaced in kind if it has been determined that the weathering
detracts from the original design intent or philosophy.
2.3 Match the original material in composition, scale and finish when replacing materials on
primary surfaces.
• If the original material is wood clapboard for example, then the replacement material must be wood as
well. It should match the original in size, and the amount of exposed lap and finish.
• Replace only the amount required. If a few boards are damaged beyond repair, then only those should
be replaced, not the entire wall. For AspenModern buildings, sometimes the replacement of a larger
area is required to preserve the integrity of the design intent.
2.4 Do not use synthetic materials as replacements for original building materials.
• Original building materials such as wood siding and brick should not be replaced with synthetic materials.
3.3 Match a replacement window to the original in its design.
• If the original is double-hung, then the replacement window must also be double-hung. If the sash have
divided lights, match that characteristic as well.
3.5 Preserve the size and proportion of a historic window opening.
• Changing the window opening is not permitted.
• Consider restoring an original window opening that was enclosed in the past.
3.7 Adding new openings on a historic structure is generally not allowed.
• Greater flexibility in installing new windows may be considered on rear or secondary walls.
• New windows should be similar in scale to the historic openings on the building, but should in some way
be distinguishable as new, through the use of somewhat different detailing, etc.
• Preserve the historic ratio of window openings to solid wall on a façade.
• Significantly increasing the amount of glass on a character defining façade will negatively affect the
integrity of a structure.
5.2 Avoid removing or covering historic materials and details.
• Removing an original balustrade, for example, is inappropriate.
7.3 Minimize the visual impacts of skylights and other rooftop devices.
P43
IV.A.
Page 8 of 13
• Skylights and solar panels are generally not allowed on a historic structure. These elements may be
appropriate on an addition.
7.7 Preserve original roof materials.
• Avoid removing historic roofing material that is in good condition. When replacement is necessary, use
a material that is similar to the original in both style as well as physical qualities and use a color that is
similar to that seen historically.
7.8 New or replacement roof materials should convey a scale, color and texture similar to the
original.
• If a substitute is used, such as composition shingle, the roof material should be earth tone and have a
matte, non-reflective finish.
• Flashing should be in scale with the roof material.
• Flashing should be tin, lead coated copper, galvanized or painted metal and have a matte, non-reflective
finish.
• Design flashing, such as drip edges, so that architectural details are not obscured.
• A metal roof is inappropriate for an Aspen Victorian primary home but may be appropriate for a
secondary structure from that time period.
• A metal roof material should have a matte, non-reflective finish and match the original seaming.
8.1 If an existing secondary structure is historically significant, then it must be preserved.
• When treating a historic secondary building, respect its character-defining features. These include its
materials, roof form, windows, doors, and architectural details.
• If a secondary structure is not historically significant, then its preservation is optional. The determination
of significance is based on documentation of the construction date of the outbuilding and/or physical
inspection. A secondary structure that is related to the period of significance of the primary structure
will likely require preservation.
8.2 Preserve a historic secondary building as a detached structure.
• Any proposal to attach a secondary structure is reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
• The position and orientation of the structure
• should be maintained except when HPC finds that an alternative is the best preservation option.
• Some AspenModern properties incorporated garages and carports into the architecture. This pattern
should be maintained.
9.1 Developing a basement by underpinning and excavating while the historic structure remains in
place may help to preserve the historic fabric.
• This activity will require the same level of documentation, structural assessment, and posting of financial
assurances as a building relocation.
P44
IV.A.
Page 9 of 13
9.2 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
• In general, on-site relocation has less of an impact on individual landmark structures than those in a
historic district.
• In a district, where numerous adjacent historic structures may exist, the way that buildings were placed
on the site historically, and the open yards visible from the street are characteristics that should be
respected in new development.
• Provide a figure ground study of the surrounding parcels to demonstrate the effects of a building
relocation.
• In some cases, the historic significance of the structure, the context of the site, the construction
technique, and the architectural style may make on-site relocation too impactful to be appropriate. It
must be demonstrated that on-site relocation is the best preservation alternative in order for approval
to be granted.
• If relocation would result in the need to reconstruct a substantial area of the original exterior surface of
the building above grade, it is not an appropriate preservation option.
9.3 Site a relocated structure in a position similar to its historic orientation.
• It must face the same direction and have a relatively similar setback. In general, a forward movement, rather
than a lateral movement is preferred. HPC will consider setback variations where appropriate.
• A primary structure may not be moved to the rear of the parcel to accommodate a new building in front of
it.
• Be aware of potential restrictions against locating buildings too close to mature trees. Consult with the City
Forester early in the design process. Do not relocate a building so that it becomes obscured by trees.
9.4 Position a relocated structure at its historic elevation above grade.
• Raising the finished floor of the building slightly above its original elevation is acceptable if needed to
address drainage issues. A substantial change in position relative to grade is inappropriate.
• Avoid making design decisions that require code related alterations which could have been avoided. In
particular, consider how the relationship to grade could result in non-historic guardrails, etc.
9.5 A new foundation shall appear similar in design and materials to the historic foundation.
• On modest structures, a simple foundation is appropriate. Constructing a stone foundation on a miner’s
cottage where there is no evidence that one existed historically is out of character and is not allowed.
• Exposed concrete or painted metal flashing are generally appropriate.
• Where a stone or brick foundation existed historically, it must be replicated, ideally using stone salvaged
from the original foundation as a veneer. The replacement must be similar in the cut of the stone and
design of the mortar joints.
• New AspenModern foundations shall be handled on a case by case basis to ensure preservation of the
design intent.
9.6 Minimize the visual impact of lightwells.
P45
IV.A.
Page 10 of 13
• The size of any lightwell that faces a street should be minimized.
• Lightwells must be placed so that they are not immediately adjacent to character defining features, such
as front porches.
• Lightwells must be protected with a flat grate, rather than a railing or may not be visible from a street.
• Lightwells that face a street must abut the building foundation and generally may not “float” in the
landscape except where they are screened, or on an AspenModern site.
9.7 All relocations of designated structures shall be performed by contractors who specialize in
moving historic buildings, or can document adequate experience in successfully relocating such
buildings.
• The specific methodology to be used in relocating the structure must be approved by the HPC.
• During the relocation process, panels must be mounted on the exterior of the building to protect existing
openings and historic glass. Special care shall be taken to keep from damaging door and window frames
and sashes in the process of covering the openings. Significant architectural details may need to be
removed and securely stored until restoration.
• The structure is expected to be stored on its original site during the construction process. Proposals for
temporary storage on a different parcel will be considered on a case by case basis and may require
special conditions of approval.
• A historic resource may not be relocated outside of the City of Aspen.
10.2 A more recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed.
• For Aspen Victorian properties, HPC generally relies on the 1904 Sanborn Fire Insurance maps to
determine which portions of a building are historically significant and must be preserved.
• HPC may insist on the removal of non-historic construction that is considered to be detrimental to the
historic resource in any case when preservation benefits or variations are being approved.
10.3 Design a new addition such that one’s ability to interpret the historic character of the primary
building is maintained.
• A new addition must be compatible with the historic character of the primary building.
• An addition must be subordinate, deferential, modest, and secondary in comparison to the architectural
character of the primary building.
• An addition that imitates the primary building’s historic style is not allowed. For example, a new faux
Victorian detailed addition is inappropriate on an Aspen Victorian home.
• An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate.
• Proposals on corner lots require particular attention to creating compatibility.
P46
IV.A.
Page 11 of 13
10.4 The historic resource is to be the focus of the property, the entry point, and the predominant
structure as viewed from the street.
• The historic resource must be visually dominant on the site and must be distinguishable against the addition.
• The total above grade floor area of an addition may be no more than 100% of the above grade floor area of
the original historic resource. All other above grade development must be completely detached. HPC
may consider exceptions to this policy if two or more of the following are met:
o The proposed addition is all one story
o The footprint of the new addition is closely related to the footprint of the historic resource and
the proposed design is particularly sensitive to the scale and proportions of the historic resource
o The project involves the demolition and replacement of an older addition that is considered to
have been particularly detrimental to the historic resource
o The interior of the resource is fully utilized, containing the same number of usable floors as existed
historically
o The project is on a large lot, allowing the addition to have a significant setback from the street
o There are no variance requests in the application other than those related to historic conditions
that aren’t being changed
o The project is proposed as part of a voluntary AspenModern designation, or
o The property is affected by non-preservation related site specific constraints such as trees that
must be preserved, Environmentally Sensitive Areas review, etc.
10.5 On a corner lot, no portion of an addition to a one story historic resource may be more than
one story tall, directly behind that resource, unless completely detached above grade by a distance
of at least 10 feet.
HPC may consider exceptions to this policy if two or more of the following are met:
• The connector element that links the new and old construction is a breezeway or transparent corridor,
well recessed from the streetfacing side(s) of the historic resource and the area of two story construction
that appears directly behind the one story historic resource is minimal
• The footprint of the new addition is closely related to the footprint of the historic resource and the
proposed design is particularly sensitive to the scale and proportions of the historic resource
• The project involves the demolition and replacement of an older addition that is considered to have been
particularly detrimental to the historic resource
• The interior of the resource is fully utilized, containing the same number of usable floors as existed
historically
• There are no variance requests in the application other than those related to historic conditions that
aren’t being changed
• The project is proposed as part of a voluntary AspenModern designation, or
P47
IV.A.
Page 12 of 13
• The property is affected by non-preservation related site specific constraints such as trees that must be
preserved, Environmentally Sensitive Areas review, etc.
10.6 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time.
• An addition shall be distinguishable from the historic building and still be visually compatible with historic
features.
• A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material, or a modern
interpretation of a historic style are all techniques that may be considered to help define a change from
historic construction to new construction.
• Do not reference historic styles that have no basis in Aspen.
• Consider these three aspects of an addition; form, materials, and fenestration. An addition must relate
strongly to the historic resource in at least two of these elements. Departing from the historic resource
in one of these categories allows for creativity and a contemporary design response.
• Note that on a corner lot, departing from the form of the historic resource may not be allowed.
• There is a spectrum of appropriate solutions to distinguishing new from old portions of a development.
Some resources of particularly high significance or integrity may not be the right instance for a
contrasting addition.
10.8 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building.
• An addition that is lower than, or similar to the height of the primary building, is preferred.
10.10 Place an addition at the rear of a primary building or set it back substantially from the front
to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and
character to remain prominent.
• Locating an addition at the front of a primary building is inappropriate.
• Additions to the side of a primary building are handled on a case-by-case basis and are approved based
on site specific constraints that restrict rear additions.
• Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not alter the
exterior mass of a building.
10.11 Roof forms shall be compatible with the historic building.
• A simple roof form that does not compete with the historic building is appropriate.
• On Aspen Victorian properties, a flat roof may only be used on an addition to a gable roofed structure
if the addition is entirely one story in height, or if the flat roofed areas are limited, but the addition is
primarily a pitched roof.
P48
IV.A.
Page 13 of 13
10.12 Design an addition to a historic structure that does not destroy or obscure historically
important architectural features.
• Loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices, and eavelines must be avoided.
Staff Finding: The applicable sections of the design guidelines are as follows: site planning, relocation,
building materials, windows, doors, roofs, building additions, accessory buildings.
Staff is concerned that the proposed relocation of the historic house may potentially compromise the
longevity of the resource over time by putting it closer to the tree roots and drip line of the large Spruce
trees along the front property line. Staff requests the applicant provide preliminary plans for
stormwater mitigation, especially since space may be limited with this below grade design and the tree
roots. It is important that stormwater features such as drywells/man holes are not located in areas that
will create visual impact. Staff recommends the applicant provide a preliminary plan that identifies the
location of individual features in areas with the least visual impact. Staff also recommends the restudy
of the proposed skylights on the ground along the east side yard and minimize visual impact.
Staff acknowledges that the Design Guidelines do not support the demolition or removal of features
that may be deemed historic, however, staff does support the removal of the enclosed rear porch
feature due to the conflicting historic information discovered. Staff recommends the applicant
investigate the historic framing for historic openings before pursuing new openings on the west and
south elevations, and staff finds the proposed removal of the non-historic sliding doors is appropriate
so long as the applicant match the historic siding. Before proposals to the historic house are evaluated,
review all historical documents and perform necessary material investigation.
The proposed new addition is located towards the rear of the historic house but will be partially
revealed from the west elevation since this is a corner lot. Staff finds that components of the
proposed materials for the new addition relate back to the historic landmark, but when it comes to
roof form and fenestration, the proposed design highlights the contrast between the old and the new,
which is not appropriate. It is critical that the new addition relates strongly to the historic resource, as
required by the Design Guidelines, in order to achieve visual compatibility.
Staff finds that the proposal to relocate the historic outbuilding meets the intent of the Design
Guidelines to ensure historic outbuilding have a viable use and are preserved as detached structures.
Staff also finds the relocation meets the criteria for granting setback variations. (See Exhibit A.2).
In summary, staff recommends restudy to meet design guidelines mainly dealing with the relocation of
the house and the design of the new addition.
P49
IV.A.
Page 1 of 1
Exhibit A.2
Setback Variation Criteria
Staff Findings
26.415.110.C: Variances:
Dimensional variations are allowed for projects involving designated properties to create development
that is more consistent with the character of the historic property or district than what would be required
by the underlying zoning's dimensional standards.
1. The HPC may grant variances of the Land Use Code for designated properties to allow:
a) Development in the side, rear and front setbacks;
b) Development that does not meet the minimum distance requirements between buildings;
c) Up to five percent (5%) additional site coverage;
d) Less public amenity than required for the on-site relocation of commercial historic properties.
2. In granting a variance, the HPC must make a finding that such a variance:
a) Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district; and/or
b) Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character of the
historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district.
Staff Finding: The applicant requests setback variations for the relocated historic outbuilding so that it
may sit 1’ away from the rear (south) and side (west) yard setback. A 5’ setback is required for both the
side and rear yard in the R-6 zone district. A 9’ combined side yard setback variation is requested for
the two historic buildings. Staff finds that review criteria a.) is met for the request of setback
variations because the zone district encourages garage access from the alley and other surrounding
properties adhere to this pattern.
2. In granting a variance, the HPC must make a finding that such a variance:MET NOT MET DOES NOT
APPLY
a.) Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district; and/or
b.) Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural
character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district.NOT MET
YES
Review Criteria for 333 West Bleeker Street
As a historically designated property, HPC may grant dimensional variations of the Land Use Code to allow for
development in the side, rear and front setbbacks. The applicant is requesting Setback Variations for relocating the historic outbuilding.
Summary of Review Criteria for Setback Variation Request
26.415.110.C - Variances. Dimensional variations are allowed for projects involving designated properties to create development
that is more consistent with the character of the historic property or district than what would be requried by the underlying
zoning's dimensional standards.
P50
IV.A.
From:Ian Gray
To:Sarah Yoon
Subject:RE: Referral of HPC Projects - 333 W. Bleeker
Date:Monday, January 14, 2019 3:19:30 PM
Attachments:image001.png
image005.png
Hi Sarah,
Over the course of a few site visits with the applicants, retention and protection of several trees on
the site was agreed upon with Parks. 3 Large ROW cottonwoods to the West, 2 large spruce to the
North and 1 spruce, 1 cottonwood and 1 chokecherry on the south east corner will be retained. The
remainder of the trees on the property can be permitted by Parks for removal to accommodate the
location of the historic pieces and the construction of new elements. Specific distances for limits of
disturbance were called out. Pneumatic excavation in certain areas will be specified.
Regards,
Ian Gray
City Forester
Parks Department
585 Cemetery Lane
Aspen, CO 81611
p: 970.429.2031
ian.gray@cityofaspen.com
www.cityofaspen.com
To apply for a Tree Removal/Dripline Excavation Permit, register here:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/SFNewUser
Tree Removal/Dripline Excavation Permit Online Permit Application:
https://cityofaspen.force.com/applicantportal/s/login/?
startURL=%2Fapplicantportal%2Fs%2F&ec=302
If you need assistance for the online portal, please contact customer support:
sfsupport@cityofaspen.com or call 970-920-5065
P51
IV.A.
From:Ian Gray
To:Sarah Yoon
Subject:333 Bleeker
Date:Wednesday, January 23, 2019 7:39:03 AM
Attachments:image001.png
Good morning,
Here are the limits of disturbance (as measured from the outside edge of the tree trunk 1’ foot
above grade) agreed with the applicant at 333 Bleeker:
3 Cottonwoods on West side – 15’ feet
2 Spruce trees on the North side – 15’ feet
1 Cottonwood in the South East corner – 10’ feet
1 Spruce and 1 chokecherry in the South East corner – 8’ feet
Best,
Ian Gray
City Forester
Parks Department
585 Cemetery Lane
Aspen, CO 81611
p: 970.429.2031
ian.gray@cityofaspen.com
www.cityofaspen.com
To apply for a Tree Removal/Dripline Excavation Permit, register here:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/SFNewUser
Tree Removal/Dripline Excavation Permit Online Permit Application:
https://cityofaspen.force.com/applicantportal/s/login/?
startURL=%2Fapplicantportal%2Fs%2F&ec=302
If you need assistance for the online portal, please contact customer support:
sfsupport@cityofaspen.com or call 970-920-5065
P52
IV.A.
From:Mike Horvath
To:Sarah Yoon
Subject:RE: Referral of HPC Projects - 333 W. Bleeker
Date:Thursday, January 24, 2019 3:04:37 PM
Attachments:HPC CONCEPTUAL PLANS SET-Engr Comments.pdf
image009.png
image002.png
Sarah,
Attached are my comments for 333 W Bleeker. The only comment is on page 8. The comment does
not need to be addressed until building permit, but thought a heads up would be helpful to the
applicant.
Mike Horvath, PE, CFM
City Engineer II
Engineering Department
201 N. Mill St.
Aspen, CO 81611
970-429-2776
www.cityofaspen.com
For Information about the
CASTLE CREEK BRIDGE/HALLAM ST IMPROVEMENTS:
p: 970.618.5379
e: info@castlecreekbridge.com
www.castlecreekbridge.com
PAGE 8- Sheet A1.07 Comment: "Northern portion of alley culvert to be removed at well as driveway culvert.
The ditch should be open to the air adjacent to the property. The walkway should utilize a bridge, not a culvert.
This can be addressed at building permit."
P53
IV.A.
From:Jim Pomeroy
To:Sarah Yoon
Subject:RE: Referral of HPC Projects - 333 W. Bleeker
Date:Wednesday, February 6, 2019 4:17:28 PM
Attachments:image025.png
image003.png
image009.png
Zoning comments on the application for redevelopment of 333 W. Bleeker:
1. Sheds & Trash – In order to receive credit for the FA of the shed and the trash area, Zoning
will require a completed building permit be furnished for those improvements. Even then, we
will probably provide no credit for the trash because it is less than 32 sq. ft.
2. Height – The way they are showing height changes from the existing elevation to the
proposed drawings. They are not measuring from the same point of each drawing. Also, they
are not measuring to where we measure height to (1/3 or ½ points), and instead are showing
height to the ridge. Based on what they do show, the proposed house is likely above the
height limit, and the existing may be as well, but it is impossible with what has been provided
to tell if height is proposed to increase.
3. On the top story of the proposed plan, it appears that a large portion of the existing story is
being closed off. We will need details on the height of this area, as well as how it is accessed,
to determine if can be considered exempt.
4. I did not see any details on exterior lighting or mechanical equipment.
Cheers,
Jim Pomeroy
Zoning Enforcement Officer
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
p 970.429.2745
c 970.618.3790
www.cityofaspen.com
www.aspencommunityvoice.com
Notice and Disclaimer:
This message is intended only for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is
confidential and exempt from disclosure pursuant to applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, please reply to the
sender that you have received the message in error and then delete it. Further, the information or opinions contained in this
email are advisory in nature only and are not binding on the City of Aspen. If applicable, the information and opinions
contained in the email are based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual
representations that may or may not be accurate. The opinions and information contained herein do not create a legal or
vested right or any claim of detrimental reliance.
P54
IV.A.
January 7, 2019
Ms. Amy Simon
City of Aspen Historic Preservation Officer
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Conceptual Major Development HPC Application for 333 W. Bleeker
Street, Lots A and B, Block 44, City and Townsite of Aspen (a/k/a, the D.E.
Frantz House; Lot 1, Bleeker Street Partners Historic Landmark Lot Split
Subdivision Exemption; Parcel ID # 2735-124-01-401)
Dear Amy:
Please consider this letter and the accompanying plans from Rally Dupps
Architect to constitute a formal request for Major Development - Conceptual
Approval to allow for a remodel and addition to the historic Victorian home at
333 W. Bleeker Street, Aspen. Further, the applicant also proposes on-site
relocation of the two existing structures --- the residence and the detached
outbuilding/garage.
The property at 333 W. Bleeker Street is a designated historic landmark on a
6,000 square foot corner lot in Aspen’s West End neighborhood. The two-story
Victorian residence has relatively ornate architectural detailing on the exterior.
The historic 1893 Sanborn Map suggests that the home is in its original location
and the 1904 Sanborn Map suggests there was at one time an open porch at the
rear of the building (said porch was not indicated/did not exist at the time of
the 1893 Sanborn Map). Today there is no such open porch at the rear of the
resource but, instead, there is something of an enclosed, inappropriately scaled
appendage where such a porch might have once been. The property also has
several large trees that are required to be preserved. There is an existing
outbuilding along the alley, but this structure is clearly not the same as the much
larger outbuilding or shed depicted on the 1904 Sanborn Map. It is believed that
the current outbuilding/garage structure was moved from its original location
on Lot C, as shown on the 1904 Sanborn Map, to its present-day location at the
HAAS LAND PLANNING, LLC
• 420 E. MAIN STREET, SUITE 220 • ASPEN, COLORADO • 81611 •
• PHONE: (970) 925-7 819 • MITCH@HLPASPEN.COM •
P55
IV.A.
333 W. Bleeker Street (PID#2735-124-01-401) Page 2
very southwesterly corner of the subject property (zero west side and rear yard
setbacks).
The applicant is proposing to relocate the historic residence onto a new
basement and foundation, add a one-story addition with a connecting element,
and rotate the existing detached garage so that it will have access from the alley.
Most of the second level interior space will remain intact, and the
inappropriately scaled and poorly constructed rear/south porch appendage
(added after the 1893 Sanborn Map) will be removed. The applicant is
requesting rear yard and side yard setback variations to accommodate the
relocated garage outbuilding.
This application is submitted by Bleeker & 3rd, LLC (the “applicant”), owner
and end-user of the subject property, pursuant to the following sections of the
Aspen Land Use Code (hereinafter the Code): 26.304, Common Development
Review Procedures; 26.415.070.D, Certificate of Appropriateness for Major
Develop-ment; 26.415.090, Relocation of Designated Historic Properties;
26.415.110, Historic Preservation – Benefits; 26.575.020, Calculations and
Measurements, and 26.710.040, Medium-Density Residential (R-6) Zone
District.
For the reviewer’s convenience all pertinent supporting documents relating to
the project are provided in the various exhibits to the application, as follows:
• Exhibit 1: Proof of the Applicant’s Ownership;
• Exhibit 2: Pre-Application Conference Summary prepared by Sara Yoon;
• Exhibit 3: Authorization for Haas Land Planning, LLC (HLP) and Rally
Dupps Architect (RDA) to represent the applicant;
• Exhibit 4: Land Use Application and HOA Compliance Policy forms;
• Exhibit 5: An executed application fee agreement;
• Exhibit 6: Mailing addresses of record for all property owners located within
300 feet of the subject property; and
• Exhibit 7: Vicinity Map at 8.5” x 11”.
In addition, architectural plans prepared by Rally Dupps Architect accompany
this application.
While the applicant has attempted to address all relevant provisions of the Code
and to provide sufficient information to enable a thorough evaluation of the
application, questions may arise which require further information and/or
clarification. Upon request, Haas Land Planning, LLC and Rally Dupps
Architect will gladly provide such additional information as may be required in
the course of the review.
P56
IV.A.
333 W. Bleeker Street (PID#2735-124-01-401) Page 3
Existing Conditions
The property is located on the southeast corner of North Third (3rd) Street and
West Bleeker Street, in Aspen’s West End neighborhood. Its Parcel
Identification Number is 2735-124-01-401 and the property is legally described
as Lot 1, according to the Plat of the Bleeker Street Partners Historic Landmark
Lot Split Subdivision Exemption as recorded in Book 64 at Page 7 of the Pitkin
County records. It is a 6,000 square foot, corner lot in the R-6 zone district. Its
location relative to the surrounding area is depicted on the vicinity map below
(also see Exhibit 7).
Vicinity Map – 333 W. Bleeker Street
The existing conditions are depicted graphically on the copies of the Lot Split
Plat and Improvement Survey provided on the following page, with larger
versions of these documents provided under separate cover as well.
P57
IV.A.
333 W. Bleeker Street (PID#2735-124-01-401) Page 4
Bleeker Street Partners Historic Landmark Lot Split Plat
Improvement Survey (excerpt)
P58
IV.A.
P59IV.A.
P60IV.A.
333 W. Bleeker Street (PID#2735-124-01-401) Page 5
The Bleeker Street Partners Historic Landmark Lot Split Plat created the 6,000
square foot Lot 1 and established its allowable floor area, per Plat Note 4, at
2,280 square feet. Nevertheless, current floor area calculations (see Plan Sheet
Z1.01) demonstrate an existing floor area of 2,435 square feet, which exceeds the
limit set on the Lot Split Plat by 155 square feet. All existing floor area was
legally established and the overage results from changes in the codified
requirements for calculating floor area and/or possible errors made by both the
then property owner/applicant at the time of the lot split application and the
City’s review of information provided by said applicant/owner.
The Proposal
As mentioned above, the applicant is proposing to relocate the historic
residence onto a new basement, add a one-story addition with a connecting
element, and rotate the existing garage to gain alley access. Most of the second
level interior space will remain intact while areas with inadequate height due
to roof pitches will be removed. This application requests partial demolition of
a non-original, south-facing, enclosed porch appendage as well as setback
variations to accommodate the addition and the relocated outbuilding. The
outbuilding is currently nonconforming with regard to side and rear yard
setback requirements.
By any reasonable reading of the regulations, the existing development includes
two structures that are nonconforming by virtue of having been legally
established but since rendered noncompliant with regard to floor area by
changes enacted to the Code. The fact that the allowable floor area is established
by a prior approval and stated on a plat, as opposed to having been based
strictly on the codified R-6 zoning dimensional standards, is irrelevant in this
determination. Nonetheless, while Code Section 26.312.030 explicitly allows the
applicant to maintain the floor area nonconformity through a remodel, the
applicant will instead reduce the existing, nonconforming floor area by more
than 155 square feet to within the 2,280 square foot limit established by the lot
split approval and plat. Further, the applicant is not requesting a floor area
bonus.
The ability to construct a connecting link and associated, modest addition while
decreasing the floor area on the property is achieved by virtue of three
appropriate, creative and laudable means. First, the Code provides a floor area
exemption that is currently not possible simply by rotating the garage to face
the alley, as encouraged throughout the Land Use Code. Not only does rotating
the garage to allow alley access for vehicles free up some floor area, but it also
provides an opportunity to reclaim the streetscape by having the historic
P61
IV.A.
333 W. Bleeker Street (PID#2735-124-01-401) Page 6
structures take prominence while simultaneously obscuring views of the new
construction. Second, certain expanses of impractical and basically useless floor
area will be eliminated from below the steeply pitched second floor rooflines
without having any affect whatsoever on the outward appearance of the
resource. Finally, the inappropriately-scaled and enclosed “porch” appendage
will be removed from the rear of the resource and a properly scaled connecting
link will be added in its place. Since the link is not nearly the full width of the
resource, the siding on the flanking walls and the original building corners will
be restored.
With these changes, the gravel driveway off 3rd Street will be completely
removed, and the affected area will be appropriately restored. Similarly, the
gravel driveway that would serve the existing garage --- but which does not
since the City built a full curb in front of it --- will also be removed and
appropriately restored. These two changes, coupled with the City’s desired
removal of the evergreens that have been planted in the 3rd Street right-of-way
and along the ditch, will restore the streetscape to a more befitting historic
character. While these inappropriate evergreens will be removed at the
applicant’s expense, the cottonwood street trees will remain, and appropriate
building setbacks are being provided to ensure the health of these trees and
their root systems.
Similarly, the two large evergreen trees at the front (Bleeker Street side) of the
property will be maintained and appropriate building and excavation setbacks
are being provided to ensure their continued health. Finally, the Parks
Department has insisted on the preservation of three additional trees located at
the southeast corner of the property, along the alley, and adequate setback
distances to ensure the continued health of these trees has also been provided.
Consequently, the area available for an addition to the historic resource is
severely constrained; the applicant cannot use the otherwise available front
yard setback area, must provide an excessive side yard setback on the west, and
must adhere to an excessive rear/south setback along the alley in the vicinity of
the trees. Only the east side yard can be used to the typical degree allowed
under the R-6 zoning.
Finally, the applicant will improve and restore fenestration patterns on the
resource. Namely, a pair of non-historic sliding doors will be removed from the
east elevation and the siding will be repaired in kind. On the street-facing west
elevation, a three (3) ganged/grouped and inappropriately scaled and located
windows will be removed and replaced with a pair of appropriately scaled,
double-hung windows spaced and sized to match the original windows found
on the ground level of the residence. On the second floor of the south/rear
elevation, above the enclosed rear porch appendage, a pair of grossly
P62
IV.A.
333 W. Bleeker Street (PID#2735-124-01-401) Page 7
inappropriate and dangerous French doors will be removed and replaced with
a pair of double-hung windows of the same size and design as those found on
the ground floor of the north/front elevation of the Victorian.
Review Requirements
Conceptual Approval of a Major Development
Code Section 26.415.070 addresses development involving historically
designated properties. Said Code section provides that,
No building, structure or landscape shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered,
repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or a
property located within a Historic District until plans or sufficient information have
been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in
accordance with the procedures established for their review. An application for a
building permit cannot be submitted without a development order.
The proposed remodel of/addition to the property is considered a major
development. The procedures for the review of major development projects
include a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of, first, a conceptual
development plan and then a final development plan. All applications for
Conceptual and Final approval of a Major Development project must receive a
determination of consistency with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation
Design Guidelines (the “HP Guidelines”) to be approved by the HPC.
Historic Preservation Design Guidelines
The applicable Guidelines are discussed below relative to the current proposal.
Responses are provided immediately below each applicable design guideline.
Chapter 1: Site Planning & Landscape Design
1.2 Preserve the system and character of historic streets, alleys, and ditches.
1.3 Remove driveways or parking areas accessed directly from the street if they were
not part of the original development of the site.
1.4 Design a new driveway or improve an existing driveway in a manner that
minimizes its visual impact.
The historic character of streets, alleys and ditches along the subject property
has been improperly altered and eroded over time. The ditch along 3rd Street
has been obscured by the inappropriate planting of several evergreen trees
and the streetscape has been further degraded by a curb cut serving a gravel
P63
IV.A.
333 W. Bleeker Street (PID#2735-124-01-401) Page 8
driveway into the middle of the lot, and a separate but unusable driveway (the
City built a curb in front of the driveway) to the historic outbuilding.
As part of the proposed development, the gravel driveway off 3rd Street will be
completely removed, and the affected area will be appropriately restored.
Similarly, the gravel driveway that would serve the existing garage --- but
which does not since the City built a full curb in front of it --- will also be
removed and appropriately restored. Also, the one-car garage structure will be
turned 90 degrees so that vehicular access is moved from the street side to the
alley side and all “driveways” can be eliminated completely. These changes,
coupled with the City’s desired removal of the evergreens that have been
planted in the 3rd Street right-of-way and along the ditch, will restore the
streetscape to a more befitting historic character. While these inappropriate
evergreens will be removed at the applicant’s expense, the cottonwood street
trees will remain, and appropriate building setbacks are being provided to
ensure the health of these trees and their root systems.
The proposal is also consistent with Guidelines 1.5 through 1.11. The historic
hierarchy of public, semi-public and private spaces will be maintained. A
simple walkway is being maintained to the front door of the resource. Without
competing with the walkway to the front/primary entry, an additional,
understated and simple walkway will be installed in the west side yard to
provide access from the historic outbuilding to the rear of the residence. The
site will unavoidably contain positive open space as a result of preserving so
many significant trees and their root systems. No built-in furnishings are
currently proposed or envisioned.
1.12 Provide an appropriate context for historic structures. See diagram.
The design of the addition to the
historic resource is in complete and
total harmony with the referenced
diagram for a corner lot. “Zone A” is
being left as-is and undeveloped while
“Zone B” will contain only the historic
resource. The proposed connecting
link and non-historic addition are fully
within the “unrestricted Zone C.” A
secondary historic resource will reside
in “Zone B,” where it can obscure
views of the non-historic addition.
P64
IV.A.
The remaining Guidelines of Chapter 1 are inapplicable at this time and will
be further addresses as part of the Final HPC application and review process.
Similarly, Chapter 2 addresses Building Materials, which is a topic for
consideration during the Final HPC application and review process, as
Conceptual Review focuses on only mass, scale, height, setbacks and site plan.
Th same is true of Chapter 3, which deals with windows, but these are
preliminarily addressed below, as appropriate.
Chapter 3: Windows
3.1 Preserve the functional and decorative features of a historic window.
3.2 Preserve the position, number, and arrangement of historic windows in a
building wall.
3.3 Match replacement window t the original in its design.
3.4 When replacing an original window, use materials that are the same as the
original.
3.5 Preserve the size and proportion of a historic window opening.
3.6 Match, as closely as possible, the profile of the sash and its components to that
of the original window.
3.7 Adding new openings on a historic structure is generally not allowed.
Guidelines 3.1 through 3.6 will be more thoroughly addresses as part of the
Final HPC application and review. For the time being, suffice to say that nothing
about the proposal runs counter to any of these guidelines.
With regard to Guideline 3.7, no new openings are proposed on the historic
structure. The applicant will be removing non-historic sliding doors from the
east elevation, removing non-historic triple-ganged windows on the west
elevation, and replacing grossly inappropriate and dangerous French doors on
the second level with new windows that match those found historically on the
Victorian.
Chapter 4: Doors
4.1 Preserve historically significant doors.
4.2 Maintain the original size of a door and its opening.
4.3 [Not applicable at this time]
4.4 [Not applicable at this time]
4.5 Adding new doors on a historic building is generally not allowed.
4.6 [Not applicable at this time]
4.7 Preserve historic hardware.
The historically significant front door to the residence is being maintained in
its historic location and at its original size. Inappropriately added doors will
be removed such as the sliding doors on the east side, and the dangerous
French doors on the second floor of the south side, which do not at all comply
P65
IV.A.
333 W. Bleeker Street (PID#2735-124-01-401) Page 10
with life safety requirements of the adopted building codes. No new doors are
proposed for adding to the historic building; rather, all new entry doors will
be on the proposed addition rather than as an alteration of the historic
resource.
Chapter 5: Porches & Balconies
5.1 Preserve the original porch or balcony.
5.2 Avoid removing or covering historic materials and details.
5.3 Enclosing a porch or balcony is not appropriate.
5.4 If reconstruction is necessary, match the original in form, character and detail.
5.5 [Not applicable at this time]
5.6 [Not applicable at this time]
The original front entry porch is being preserved without alteration and without
covering or removing historic materials or details. The porch will not be
enclosed but the unoriginal, enclosed rear porch will be removed entirely. This
appendage to the rear of the resource was not part of the original construction,
is poorly built, and it is completely out of scale with the resource. It is simply
too low with a 7’-6” ceiling and does not even align with the resource’s 9’-plus
first floor ceiling heights. While it is admittedly old, it is not a well or even
decently done or appropriate addition and reconstruction matching its original
form, character and detail would be totally hypothetical. Instead, this
appendage will be removed, and the rear of the original resource will be
restored to accommodate a more appropriately sized and scaled linking element
to an addition.
Chapter 6: Architectural Details
6.1 Preserve significant architectural features.
6.2 When disassembly of a historic element is necessary for its restoration, use
methods that minimize damage to the original material.
6.3 Remove only the portion of the detail that is deteriorated and must be replaced.
6.4 Repair or replacement of missing or deteriorated features are required to be
based on original designs.
6.5 Do not guess at “historic” designs for replacement parts.
It is the applicant’s intention to preserve all significant architectural features and
the subject property has a great deal more architectural detailing than found on
most historic Victorians in Aspen. Guidelines 6.1 through 6.5 will be further
addressed at the time of Final HPC application and review. However, Guideline
6.5 is consistent with the applicant’s rationale for removing the so-called
enclosed rear porch appendage from the historic resource; whatever it might
have originally looked like has been long since lost and there are no available
pictures or records that could be found to provide any such insight. Any
attempt to preserve or restore this area would, contrary to Guideline 6.5,
P66
IV.A.
333 W. Bleeker Street (PID#2735-124-01-401) Page 11
amount to mere guessing and could never correct its lack of appropriate scale
unless it were completely demolished and re-constructed in an altered form
with a guessed design.
Chapter 7: Roofs
7.1 Preserve the original form of a roof.
7.2 Preserve the original eave depth.
7.3 Minimize the visual impacts of skylights and other rooftop devices.
7.4 New vents should be minimized, carefully placed and painted a dark color.
7.5 Preserve original chimneys, even if they are made non-functional.
7.6 A new dormer should remain subordinate to the historic roof in scale and
character.
7.7 Preserve original roof materials.
7.8 New or replacement roof materials should convey a scale, color and texture
similar to the original.
7.9 Avoid using conjectural features on a roof.
7.10 Design gutters so that their visibility on the structure is minimized to the extent
possible.
The original/existing roof form and eave depths on the main house will be
unaltered. The existing chimney will also remain and be preserved. No new
dormers are proposed and those already existing will be maintained without
change. The appendage at the rear of the house and its out-of-character roof
form and gutters will be eliminated, and the four existing skylights on the
garage structure will be removed. Where the skylights are removed, the
replacement roofing will convey a scale, color and texture similar to the original.
Chapter 8: Secondary Structures
8.1 If an existing secondary structure is historically significant, then it must be
preserved.
8.2 Preserve a historic secondary building as a detached structure.
8.3 Do not add detailing or features to a secondary structure that are conjectural
and not in keeping with its original character as a utilitarian structure.
8.4 When adding on to a secondary structure, distinguish the addition as new
construction and minimize removal of historic fabric.
8.5 Preserve the original building materials, or match in kind when necessary.
8.6 Preserve original door and window openings and minimize new openings.
8.7 If a new garage door is added, it must be compatible with the character of the
historic structure.
8.8 Adaptation of an obsolete secondary structure to a functional use is
encouraged.
The original outbuilding is being preserved and rotated ninety degrees to allow
for appropriate alley access while removing its vehicular entrance from the
streetscape. (See Sanborn Map, 1904 diagram below.) The garage will remain a
completely detached, independent building and rotating it not only enables
P67
IV.A.
333 W. Bleeker Street (PID#2735-124-01-401) Page 12
alley access, but it also positions the structure favorably to obscure views of the
new construction. Further, this actually allows the encouraged adaptation of
this structure back to functioning as a garage, as the City has built a full curb in
front of its current garage doors and, in doing so, effectively rendered the
structure obsolete. The storage and trash enclosure structures that have been
appended to the outbuilding will also be removed as part of this structure’s
restoration. The structure will remain simple with no added features or
detailing, and the non-original skylights will be removed. Where the skylights
are removed, the replacement roofing will match in kind. No new wall openings
are proposed but those in existence, including the windows, door and garage
door will be maintained.
Chapter 9: Excavation, Building Relocation, & Foundations
9.1 [Not applicable]
9.2 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
9.3 Site a relocated structure in a position similar to its historic orientation.
9.4 Position a relocated structure at its historic elevation above grade.
9.5 A new foundation shall appear similar in design and materials to the historic
foundation.
9.6 Minimize the visual impact of lightwells.
9.7 All relocations of designated structures shall be performed by contractors who
specialize in moving historic buildings, or can document adequate experience in
successfully relocating such buildings.
9.8 Proposals to relocate a building to a new site are highly discouraged.
Both historic structures will be retained on-site during construction. The
drawing HPC2 provided herewith shows the relocation plan prepared by Rally
Dupps Architect and is accompanied by a written description. In essence, the
historic house will be moved only five feet (5’) forward/north and three-feet-
seven-inches (3’-7”) to the east, thus maintaining its historic orientation to
Bleeker Street. The primary structure will remain the prominent street facing
structure along Bleeker Street.
The accessory structure will also be relocated on site as it will be rotated ninety
degrees to allow vehicular access from the alley side, as opposed to maintaining
an inappropriate driveway off of 3rd Street. The rotation will restore a proper
orientation to the street and what is firmly believed to be a restoration of its
historic orientation, as depicted below on the 1904 Sanborn Map (see Lot C
immediately to the east of the subject property).
P68
IV.A.
333 W. Bleeker Street (PID#2735-124-01-401) Page 13
While a new foundation will be developed for the primary structure and the
outbuilding will be rotated ninety degrees, the finished floor level of both
structures will be unchanged.
No lightwells are proposed to be located in a position that would be visible from
the surrounding public ways. As the proposed site plan indicates, any lightwell
that could be at all visible from a street will be screened with shrubs so as to
effectively minimize their potential visual impact. Lightwells will be protected
with a flat grate, rather than a railing, and will not be visible from a street. All
proposed lightwells have been located such that they are not immediately
adjacent to character defining features, such as front porches. All lightwells
adjoin the building foundation except for the one on the east side, which is in
the 5-foot east yard setback, and this lightwell will be screened from view.
The specific methodology to be used in relocating the structure will be
approved by the HPC. During the relocation process, panels will be mounted
on the exterior of the building to protect existing openings and historic glass.
Special care will be taken to keep from damaging door and window frames and
sashes in the process of covering the openings. Significant architectural details
that may need to be removed will be securely stored until restoration.
The structures are expected to be temporarily stored on-site (and/or the
adjoining right-of-way) during the construction process. The historic resources
will not be relocated off-site or outside of the City of Aspen. This application
does not propose that the historic resources to be moved to a new site.
P69
IV.A.
333 W. Bleeker Street (PID#2735-124-01-401) Page 14
Chapter 10: Building Additions
10.1 Preserve an older addition that has achieved historic significance in its own
right.
10.2 A more recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed.
10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character
of the primary building is maintained.
10.4 The historic resource is to be the focus of the property, the entry point, and the
predominant structure as viewed from the street.
10.5 On a corner lot, no portion of an addition to a one story historic resource may
be more than one story tall, directly behind that resource, unless completely
detached above grade by a distance of at least 10 feet.
10.6 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time.
10.7 [Not applicable – not in a historic district]
10.8 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building.
10.9 If the addition is taller than a historic building, set it back from significant
facades and use a “connector” to link it to the historic building. [Not applicable
– the proposed addition is a full story shorter than the historic structure]
10.10 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back substantially from the
front to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the
original proportions and character to remain prominent.
10.11 Roof forms shall be compatible with the historic building.
10.12 Design an addition to a historic structure that does not destroy or obscure
historically important architectural features.
10.13 through 10.15 [Not applicable – no rooftop additions proposed]
While certain additions and modifications have been made to the primary
historic resource on the property, the only one that will be removed is not
believed by the applicant to have achieved historic significance in its own right.
That is, the unoriginal, enclosed rear porch appendage will be removed entirely.
The design of this resource was taken directly from an old pattern book, as
Design No. 17, Plan No. 1. The corresponding page from the pattern book is
shown on the diagram provided on the following page hereof. Note that the
plan was flipped to a mirror image on the subject property and the ornate roof
details (lightning rods and such) were never installed. The second-floor plan
was expanded at some point such that the roof depicted in the pattern book has
long since ceased to exist.
P70
IV.A.
333 W. Bleeker Street (PID#2735-124-01-401) Page 15
As the pattern book floor plan clearly shows, the original design never included
a back porch, enclosed or otherwise. Indeed, the current appendage to the rear
of the resource was not part of the original construction (also see 1893 Sanborn
Map), is poorly built, and it is completely out of scale with the resource. (See
photos provided below, as well as the existing South Elevation on Plan Sheet
A1.04.) It is simply too low with a 7’-6” ceiling and does not even align with the
resource’s first floor ceiling heights. While it is admittedly old, it is not a well or
even decently done or appropriate addition and reconstruction would be based
totally on hypothetical guesses as to its original design. Whatever it might have
originally looked like has been long since lost and there are no available pictures
or records that could be found to provide any such insight. Any attempt to
preserve or restore this area would, contrary to Guideline 6.5, amount to mere
guessing and could never correct its lack of appropriate scale unless it were
completely demolished and re-constructed in an altered form with a guessed
design. Instead, this appendage will be removed, and the rear of the original
resource will be restored to accommodate a more appropriately sized and
scaled linking element to an addition.
P71
IV.A.
333 W. Bleeker Street (PID#2735-124-01-401) Page 16
Moving on to the guidelines for new additions, the proposed one-story addition
is compatible with yet distinct from the historic character of the primary
building. The proposed addition is one story in height and is stepped back on
all side from the historic resource. The new addition will thus be subordinate,
deferential, modest, and secondary in comparison to the architectural character
of the primary building.
The proposal does not involve any new additions to the historic portions of the
buildings on the lot. All proposed additions are to the rear of an existing, non-
historic addition. The proposed addition will not be at all mistaken as historic
and will only serve to more clearly and further differentiate the old from the
new. The design of the proposed addition does not replicate, imitate or in any
way mimic the style of the historic resources. The proposed addition is located
in the least visible, most internal area of the property, away from the
surrounding streets. Indeed, the location of the addition is the only available
place on the property to develop as the City’s requirements for tree preservation
effectively eliminate other possible locations for an addition.
P72
IV.A.
333 W. Bleeker Street (PID#2735-124-01-401) Page 17
The rotated garage will serve to obscure views toward the new one-story
addition from North 3rd Street, leaving a streetscape that will be appropriately
dominated by the two historic structures on the lot. The roof form on the
addition will be low and gently pitched, and the roof over the new rear
connector element is flat and merely 9-feet tall. These roof forms will ensure that
the addition remains secondary and subordinate to the resources while still
maintaining compatibility without confusion as to what is old versus what is
new.
Similarly, the new fenestration patterns will further help to differentiate the
simple form of the modern addition from the architecture of the historic
resource. The ornate detailing of the resource is also accentuated as a result. The
proposed remodel and addition will provide for compatibility in character
without mimicking the details of the historic resource. The end result will
greatly increase one’s ability to interpret the original, historic character of the
Victorian home.
As viewed from both adjacent streets, the prominence of the historic resources
will not change as a result of the proposed addition and relocation. The
resources are and will remain the focus of the property and the far more
predominant structures as viewed from the streets. The primary entry point will
not change.
Guideline 10.4 requires that the total above grade floor area of an addition be
no more than 100% of the total above grade floor area of “the original historic
resource.” The total above grade floor area of the addition will be approximately
617 square feet, or roughly 30% of that in the historic resource. The attached
one-car garage does not add any floor area to the property as it measures less
than 250 square feet and will be accessed from the alley, thereby exempting its
floor area from City calculations.
A connector link is not required due to the proposed addition being only one-
story in height. Nevertheless, a connector is used to provide visual separation
from the historic resource, to reestablish and reveal the original rear corners of
the structure, and to set the addition back from significant facades. It also serves
to provide a clear visual demarcation between historic and new construction.
Due to the small stature of the proposed one-story addition and its low 9-foot,
flat roof connector, no existing historic house features will be obscured. In fact,
just the opposite, since the unoriginal rear porch appendage will be removed,
more of the historic Victorian will be revealed than is the case today.
P73
IV.A.
333 W. Bleeker Street (PID#2735-124-01-401) Page 18
Chapter 11 of the HP Guidelines addresses new buildings on landmarked
properties and, therefore, does not apply to the current proposal. As
appropriate, all aspects of Chapter 12 will be addressed as part of the Final HPC
application and review process.
Dimensional Variations
Pursuant to Section 26.415.110.C of the Code,
Dimensional variations are allowed for projects involving designated
properties to create development that is more consistent with the character of
the historic property or district than what would be required by the underlying
zoning's dimensional standards.
1. The HPC may grant variances of the Land Use Code for designated
properties to allow:
a) Development in the side, rear and front setbacks;
b) Development that does not meet the minimum distance requirements
between buildings;
c) Up to five percent (5%) additional site coverage;
d) Less public amenity than required for the on-site relocation of
commercial historic properties.
No variations from the east side yard setback, front yard setback, minimum
distance between buildings, site coverage, or public amenity requirements are
needed or requested. The proposed development requires only the following
setback variations:
• For the relocated, historic outbuilding, a 4-foot rear yard setback
variation is requested to allow a 1-foot setback where 5-feet would
otherwise be required
• For the relocated, historic outbuilding, a 9-foot west side yard setback
variation is requested to allow a 1-foot setback where 10-feet would
otherwise be required; and
• For the two historic structures combined, a 9-foot combined side yard
setbacks variation is requested to allow 6-feet of combined side yard
areas where 15-feet are otherwise required.
P74
IV.A.
333 W. Bleeker Street (PID#2735-124-01-401) Page 19
Existing Plan Proposed Plan
As explained earlier, the gravel driveway off 3rd Street is being completely
removed and the affected area will be appropriately restored. Similarly, the
gravel driveway that would serve the existing garage --- but which does not
since the City built a full curb in front of it --- will also be removed and
appropriately restored. These two changes, coupled with the City’s desired
removal of the evergreens that have been planted in the 3rd Street right-of-way
and along the ditch, will restore the streetscape to a more befitting historic
character. While these inappropriate evergreens will be removed, the
cottonwood street trees will remain, and appropriate building setbacks are
being provided to ensure the health of these trees and their root systems.
Similarly, the two large evergreen trees at the front (Bleeker Street side) of the
property will be maintained and appropriate building and excavation setbacks
are being provided to ensure their continued health. Finally, the Parks
Department has insisted on the preservation of three additional trees located at
the southeast corner of the property, along the alley, and adequate setback
distances to ensure the continued health of these trees has also been provided.
Consequently, the area available for an addition to the historic resource is
severely constrained; the applicant cannot use the otherwise available front
yard setback area, must provide an excessive side yard setback on the west, and
must adhere to an excessive rear/south setback along the alley in the vicinity of
the trees. Only the east side yard can be used to the typical degree allowed
under the R-6 zoning.
P75
IV.A.
333 W. Bleeker Street (PID#2735-124-01-401) Page 20
Pursuant to Code Section 26.415.110(C)(2),
2. In granting a variation, the HPC must make a finding that such a variation:
a) Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property
or district; and/or
b) Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or
architectural character of the historic property, an adjoining
designated historic property or historic district.
These two criteria are provided as an “and/or” meaning an applicant is
welcome to comply with both but only one of the two must be satisfied for the
variation to be approved.
With regard to the proposed rear yard and west side yard setback variations
for the relocated accessory outbuilding, its proposed location has been chosen
for two primary reasons: a) to locate the historic outbuilding to a location
appropriate for its use and similar to and closely approximating its original
character and pattern, and b) to provide as much separation distance as
reasonably practicable between the relocated outbuilding, the primary historic
resource on the property, and the proposed addition. The proposed location
allows for a separation distance of approximately 6’-7” between the structures
while providing open yard area along the street and around the structures. In
total, the proposed rear yard setback variation is de minimis in nature while
providing for a pattern and character that is consistent with and enhances the
historic property and simultaneously mitigates against the potential for adverse
impact to the historic significance and architectural character of the two
resources on this property.
Additionally, with respect to the proposed combined side yards setback
variation, the rationales for allowing the proposed side yard setback variation
(discussed above) are identical to those applicable to the needed combined side
yards setback variation. That is, as mentioned above, the existing improvements
basically maintain the same side yard setbacks as now proposed. The garage
outbuilding resides within one foot of both the east and rear property lines. The
only thing that would be new within the existing combined side yard setback
areas are the orientation of the relocated historic outbuilding that will
simultaneously deliver this historic structure to prominence and allow it to
screen views of the new construction. There are no historic structures on the
adjoining property and the site is not within a historic district. This requested
variation is not only similar to the patterns, features and character of the historic
property, it actually matches the existing patterns, features and character of the
historic property while enhancing the historic significance and architectural
character of the subject site, particularly as viewed from the surrounding streets.
P76
IV.A.
333 W. Bleeker Street (PID#2735-124-01-401) Page 21
Pursuant to Section 26.415.110.C of the Code,
Dimensional variations are allowed for projects involving designated properties to
create development that is more consistent with the character of the historic
property or district than what would be required by the underlying zoning's
dimensional standards.
1. The HPC may grant variances of the Land Use Code for designated properties
to allow:
a) Development in the side, rear and front setbacks;
b) Development that does not meet the minimum distance requirements between
buildings;
c) Up to five percent (5%) additional site coverage;
d) Less public amenity than required for the on-site relocation of commercial
historic properties.
No variations from the east side yard setback, rear setback, front yard setback,
minimum distance between buildings, site coverage, or public amenity
requirements are needed or requested. The proposed development requires
variances only for the relocated garage from only the individual west side-yard
setback and the combined side-yard setback requirements. The historic house
and its new addition require no variances whatsoever. More specifically, the
following variances are requested only for the garage:
• The west side-yard setback requires a 9-foot variance to accommodate the
garage where a 10-foot setback is otherwise required; and
• The rear yard setback requires a 4-foot variance to accommodate the garage
where a 5-foot setback is otherwise required, and
• The required combined side-yard setback for this 6,000 square foot property
is 15 feet but the two existing side yard setbacks total to just 6 feet, resulting
in the need for a 9-foot variance to allow for the relocated garage.
All of these nonconformities already exist and were legally
established/approved during prior HPC reviews. The existing development
maintains the same setbacks as currently proposed but by virtue of relocating
the garage it is considered a nonconforming setback and requires something of
a technical variation from the HPC.
Additionally, pursuant to Code Section 26.415.110(C)(2),
2. In granting a variance, the HPC must make a finding that such a variance:
a) Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property
or district; and/or
b) Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or
architectural character of the historic property, an adjoining
designated historic property or historic district.
P77
IV.A.
333 W. Bleeker Street (PID#2735-124-01-401) Page 22
Not only are the variances requested herein similar to the patterns, features and
character of the historic property, they actually are the patterns, features and
character of the historic property as they exist now. That is, as mentioned above,
the proposal merely memorializes the previously approved setback variations
without pushing any further into the setback areas than does the existing
structure. In fact, we are moving the garage off off the west and south property
lines which brings some relief to the alley and North 3rd St since the relocated
garage is 1’ off this corner where currently today there is no separation, the
garage sits exactly on the property lines at this corner. Further, the granting of
the requested variations will allow the proposed remodel, which greatly
improves differentiation between the historic asset and the modern additions
while, in turn, substantially enhancing and mitigating the potential for adverse
impacts to the historic significance and architectural character of the historic
property/resource. There are no historic structures on the adjoining property
and the site is not within an historic district.
Dimensional Requirements of the R-6 Zone
The existing and proposed conditions and dimensional requirements of/for the
subject property, as compared with the R-6 Zone District requirements are as
follows:
• Minimum Lot Size:
- R-6 Zoning: 6,000 square feet; 3,000 square feet for lots created by
Historic Landmark Lot Split.
- Existing Condition: 6,000 square feet.
- Proposed: No change.
• Minimum Net Lot Area Per Dwelling Unit:
- R-6 Zoning: For detached residential dwellings or duplexes: 4,500
square feet, but 3,000 square feet for Historic Landmarked
Properties.
- Existing Condition: Single-family home on 6,000 square feet of net
lot area.
- Proposed: No change.
• Minimum Lot Width:
- R-6 Zoning: 60 feet or 30 feet for Historic Landmark Properties.
- Existing Condition: 60 feet.
- Proposed: No change.
• Minimum Front Yard:
- R-6 Zoning: 10 feet for principal buildings, and 15 feet for
accessory buildings.
- Existing Condition: 20.5 feet.
- Proposed: More than 15.5 feet.
P78
IV.A.
333 W. Bleeker Street (PID#2735-124-01-401) Page 23
• Minimum Rear Yard:
- R-6 Zoning: 10 feet for principal buildings, but only 5 feet for that
portion of a principal building used solely as a garage (if
applicable), and 5 feet for accessory buildings.
- Existing Condition: >10 feet for the primary structure, but 0 feet for
the accessory structure.
- Proposed: 14-feet for the primary structure and 1 foot for the
accessory building.
• Minimum Side Yard:
- R-6 Zoning: 5 feet.
- Existing Condition: 0’ on the west side for the garage and 13’-8” on
the east side for the house.
- Proposed: 1 foot on the west side for the garage and 5 feet on the
east side for the house basement.
• Combined Side Yard:
- R-6 Zoning: 5 feet, but the minimum combined side yard setbacks
for this property are 15 feet.
- Existing Condition: 0’ on the west side for the garage and 13’-8” on
the east side. Total = 13’-8” (< 15’).
- Proposed: 1 foot on the west side for the garage and 5 feet on the
east side for the basement (10-plus feet for the house). Total = 6’-
0” (< 15’).
• Maximum Height:
- R-6 Zoning: 25 feet.
- Existing Condition: 24’-0” for the home and 12’-0” for the
accessory structure.
- Proposed: No change to the home or the accessory structure.
• Minimum Distance between Detached Buildings on the Lot:
- R-6 Zoning: 5 feet.
- Existing Condition: 16’-6”.
- Proposed: 6’-7”.
• Floor Area Ratio (FAR):
- R-6 Zoning: For one single-family dwelling = 3,240 square feet
(but this amount has been reduced to 2,280 in association with
the previously approved lot split).
- Existing Condition: 2,435 square feet.
- Proposed: 2,274 square feet.
All requested setback variations are described in detail above.
P79
IV.A.
333 W. Bleeker Street (PID#2735-124-01-401) Page 24
Demolition, Section 26.415.080(A)(4)
Section 26.415.080(A)(4) of the Code provides that the HPC shall review the
application, 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 original design of the subject home never included a back porch, enclosed
or otherwise. Indeed, the current appendage to the rear of the resource was not
part of the original construction (also see 1893 Sanborn Map), is poorly built,
and it is completely out of scale with the resource. (See photos provided on
pages 13-15, above.) The enclosed appendage is simply too low with a 7’-6”
ceiling and does not even align with the resource’s 9-plus feet high first floor
ceiling heights.
While it is admittedly old, it is not a well or even decently done or appropriate
addition and reconstruction would be based totally on hypothetical guesses as
to its original design. Whatever it might have originally looked like has been
long since lost and there are no available pictures or records that could be found
to provide any such insight. Any attempt to preserve or restore this area would,
P80
IV.A.
333 W. Bleeker Street (PID#2735-124-01-401) Page 25
contrary to Guideline 6.5, amount to mere guessing and could never correct its
lack of appropriate scale unless it were completely demolished and re-
constructed in an altered form with a guessed design. Instead, this appendage
will be removed, and the rear of the original resource will be restored to
accommodate a more appropriately sized and scaled linking element to an
addition.
The non-historic elements of the historic home do not contribute to the
significance of the parcel, and the loss of this enclosed rear porch appendage
will not adversely affect the integrity of either the resource or its relationship to
adjacent designated properties. The proposed demolition plans are
inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the area. The overall
historic integrity and resource value of the property will be greatly enhanced
by development of the proposed plans.
On-Site Relocation, Section 26.415.090(C)
The intent of Chapter 26.415 is to preserve designated historic properties in their
original locations as much of their significance is embodied in their setting and
physical relationship to their surroundings as well as their association with
events and people with ties to particular site. However, it is recognized that
occasionally the relocation of a property may be appropriate as it provides an
alternative to demolition or because it only has a limited impact on the attributes
that make it significant.
Section 26.415.090(C) of the code provides the standards for the relocation of
designated properties and states that,
Relocation for a building, structure or object will be approved if it is
determined that it meets any one of the following standards:
1. It is considered a noncontributing element of a historic district and
its relocation will not affect the character of the historic district; or
2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district
or parcel on which it is located and its relocation will not have an
adverse impact on the Historic District or property; or
3. The owner has obtained a certificate of economic hardship; or
4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable
preservation method given the character and integrity of the
building, structure or object and its move will not adversely affect
the integrity of the Historic District in which it was originally
located or diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic
relationships of adjacent designated properties; and
P81
IV.A.
333 W. Bleeker Street (PID#2735-124-01-401) Page 26
Additionally, for approval to relocate all of the following criteria must be
met:
1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable
of withstanding the physical impacts of relocation;
2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and
3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe
relocation, repair and preservation of the building, structure or object
including the provision of the necessary financial security.
Please refer to the narratives provided above, on pages 10-13, in response to
Chapter 9 of the HPC Design Guidelines. Please also refer to the Site Plan for a
depiction of the proposed on-site relocation.
The applicant proposes only on-site relocation of the residence to allow
development of a proper foundation with a basement. Once the foundation is
completed, the historic structure will be placed 5-feet north and 3’-7” east of its
current location with little discernible change. By moving the historic home in
the manner prescribed above, the applicant will be better aligning this home
with the other historic homes on the street. Moreover, the structure is not built
on an adequate foundation and seems to be settling unevenly, adversely
affecting its structural integrity and long-term viability, and thereby
necessitating construction of a proper, engineered foundation. The ability to
develop livable basement space provides one of the main incentives to
undertaking the cost and endeavor of stabilizing, restoring, and relocating the
structure.
The garage building is somewhat of an unknown. A form reminiscent of the
current garage is shown on the 1904 Sanborn but in a different orientation and
different location than exists today. We believe that this garage could possibly
be the same structure shown as being located at the rear of Lot C on the 1904
Sanborn map but there is no way to prove as much. However, if this is indeed
the same structure, the orientation of that structure is north-south with its short
side along the alley. Therefore, rotating the garage to have alley access would
not only restore the historic orientation but it would also bring the existing
garage in compliance with the current land use code that requires accessory
buildings to be located to the rear of the property and have alley garage access.
Given the foregoing, it is fair to say that the relocation activity provides an
acceptable preservation method given the character and integrity of the
building. In fact, the relocation activity and ability to place usable basement
space below the structure provides an incentive for preservation. The move will
not diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of adjacent
P82
IV.A.
333 W. Bleeker Street (PID#2735-124-01-401) Page 27
designated properties as the structure will be moved minimally from its current
location with little to no visible or discernible change.
The structure will be properly supported prior to any relocation activity. A letter
from a building relocation expert will be provided with the Final HPC
application to substantiate that the structure is capable of withstanding the
physical impacts of the proposed relocation. Finally, a plan for safe relocation,
repair and preservation of the building, along with provision of the necessary
financial security will be provided with the Final HPC application and/or
building permit application, as required.
It is hoped that the information provided herein and in the accompanying plan
sets proves helpful in the review and approval of this exceptional project and
exemplary preservation effort. If you should have any questions or desire any
additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Truly yours,
Haas Land Planning, LLC
Mitch Haas
Owner/Manager
P83
IV.A.
P84
IV.A.
P85
IV.A.
P86
IV.A.
P87
IV.A.
P88
IV.A.
P89
IV.A.
P90
IV.A.
P91
IV.A.
•
•
•
•
•
P92
IV.A.
¼
P93
IV.A.
City of Aspen Community Development Department
City of Aspen|130 S. Galena Street| (970) 920 5090 Historic Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: November 2017
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.)
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
General Information
P94
IV.A.
City of Aspen Community Development Department
City of Aspen|130 S. Galena Street| (970) 920 5090 Historic Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: November 2017
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
0 0 Does the work you are planning include exterior work; including additions, demolitions,
new construction, remodeling, rehabilitation or restoration?
0 Does the work you are planning include interior work, including remodeling,
rehabilitation, or restoration?
0 0 Do you plan other future changes or improvements that could be reviewed at this time?
0 0 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?
0 0 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.)
0 0 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:
0 Rehabilitation Loan Fund 0 Conservation Easement Program 0 Dimensional Variances
0 Increased Density 0 Historic Landmark Lot Split 0 Waiver of Park Dedication Fees
0 Conditional Uses 0 Tax Credits
0 Exemption from Growth Management Quota System
ATTACHMENT 3 - Dimensional Requirements Form
(Item #10 on the submittal requirements key. Not necessary for all projects.)
P95
IV.A.
City of Aspen Community Development Department
City of Aspen|130 S. Galena Street| (970) 920 5090 Historic Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: November 2017
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): ______________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Matrix of the City of Aspen’s Historic Preservation Land Use Application Requirements
To review full procedures for all applications, reference 26.415 of the City of Aspen building code, Historic Preservation Ordinance.
When submitting multiple step applications, do not replicate submission materials. Two copies of the application are required for a
P96
IV.A.
P97
IV.A.
P98
IV.A.
Pitkin County Mailing List of 300 Feet Radius
Pitkin County GIS presents the information and data on this web
site as a service to the public. Every effort has been made to
ensure that the information and data contained in this electronic
system is accurate, but the accuracy may change. Mineral
estate ownership is not included in this mailing list. Pitkin County
does not maintain a database of mineral estate owners.
Pitkin County GIS makes no warranty or guarantee concerning
the completeness, accuracy, or reliability of the content at this
site or at other sites to which we link. Assessing accuracy and
reliability of information and data is the sole responsibility of the
user. The user understands he or she is solely responsible and
liable for use, modification, or distribution of any information or
data obtained on this web site.
This document contains a Mailing List formatted to be
printed on Avery 5160 Labels. If printing, DO NOT "fit to
page" or "shrink oversized pages." This will manipulate the
margins such that they no longer line up on the labels
sheet. Print actual size.
From Parcel: 273512401401 on 01/03/2019
Instructions:
Disclaimer:
http://www.pitkinmapsandmore.com
P99
IV.A.
JACOBY FAMILY LP
VERO BEACH, FL 32960
700 20TH ST
RICKEL DAVID
LANDSDALE, PA 19446
275 GOLDENROD DR
TATE ELIZABETH & CHARLES
SAINT GEORGE, UT 84790
1967 PINNACLE CIR
VANCE STEPHEN M 2017 TRUST
ASPEN, CO 81611
625 E MAIN ST #102B264
MOUNTAIN LODGE HOLDINGS LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
420 W MAIN LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
424 PARK CIR #TH5
233 WEST BLEEKER LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
400 E MAIN ST #2
JEWISH RESOURCE CENTER CHABAD OF ASPEN
ASPEN, CO 81612
435 W MAIN ST
TAD PROPERTIES LLC
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 9978
WHALEN JOSHUA L & KATHRYN M
DENVER, CO 80207
2256 ASH ST
TOLER MELANIE S TRUST
BRYAN , TX 77807
3013 HICKORY RIDGE CIR
BROWDE KRISTEN PRATA
CHAPPAQUA, NY 10514
604 QUAKER RD
A & H LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
332 W MAIN ST # 101 (A)
BLANK JEFFREY C TRST 2 FBO
ASPEN, CO 81611
101 S MILL ST #200
MOUNTAIN LODGE HOLDINGS LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
MOUNTAIN LODGE HOLDINGS LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
TAD PROPERTIES LLC
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 9978
420 W MAIN LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
424 PARK CIR #TH5
SHEEHAN WILLIAM J & NANCY E
FRANKFORT, IL 60423
10 GOLF VIEW LN
COLORADO MTN NEWS MEDIA
CARSON CITY, NV 89702
PO BOX 1927
GUNNING JANINE L
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 11705
ELKINS LESLIE KEITH TRUST
HOUSTON, TX 77002
1001 FANNIN #700
ROSENTHAL DIANNE
ASPEN, CO 81612-7311
PO BOX 10043
MOUNTAIN LODGE HOLDINGS LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
420 W MAIN LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
424 PARK CIR #TH5
KARP MICHAEL
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103
1630 LOCUST ST #200
MOUNTAIN LODGE HOLDINGS LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
CITY OF ASPEN
ASPEN, CO 81611
130 S GALENA ST
ASPEN MEDICAL CENTER CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
COMMON AREA
W MAIN ST
HERRON APARTMENTS CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
333 W MAIN ST
P100
IV.A.
ASPEN RETINA SURGEONS LLC
MINNETONKA, MN 55345
5014 WOODHURST LN
BLANK JEFFREY C TRST 3 FBO
DENVER, CO 80202
1801 CALIFORNIA ST #4400
SNYDER GARY
ELKINS PARK, PA 19027
8324 BROODSIDE RD
CARINTHIA CORP
ASPEN, CO 81611
45 E LUPINE DR
GIERTZ JAMES R & TAMARA J
KIAWAH ISLAND, SC 29455
144 FLYWAY DR
ASPEN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
ASPEN, CO 81611
311 W MAIN ST
MOUNTAIN LODGE HOLDINGS LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
MOUNTAIN LODGE HOLDINGS LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
CLICK JANE
ASPEN, CO 81611
333 W MAIN ST #2A
TWIN COASTS LTD
BOCA RATON, FL 33432
433 PLAZA REAL #275
330 WEST BLEEKER ST LLC
WASHINGTON, DC 20007
1000 POTOMAC ST NW #102
ASPEN CONDOS ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
COMMON AREA
311 W MAIN ST
323 W HALLAM LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
101 S MILL ST #200
CHOOKASZIAN DENNIS
WILMETTE, IL 60091
1100 MICHIGAN AVE
HEINEMAN S MARLENE
DALLAS, TX 753810323
PO BOX 810323
CRETE ASSOCIATES LP
BRYN MAWR, PA 19010
1062 E LANCASTER AVE #30B
LEVY ROBERT I
STUART, FL 34994
2099 NW PINE TREE WY
RISCOR INC
DALLAS, TX 75251
12221 MERIT DR #1400
320 W BLEEKER LLC
AUSTIN, TX 78703
1717 W 6TH ST # 470
CRETE ASSOCIATES LP
BRYN MAWR, PA 19010
1062 E LANCASTER AVE #30B
TEMPKINS HARRY & VIVIAN
MIAMI BEACH, FL 33139
605 LINCOLN RD #301
MOUNTAIN LODGE HOLDINGS LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
MOUNTAIN LODGE HOLDINGS LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
BLOCKER LAURA G
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 9213
TAD PROPERTIES LLC
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 9978
MOUNTAIN LODGE HOLDINGS LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
SEVEN SEAS INVESTMENT LLC
WILMETTE, IL 60091
1120 MICHIGAN AVE
MOUNTAIN LODGE HOLDINGS LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
FISCHER SISTIE
ASPEN, CO 81611
442 W BLEEKER
CRETE ASSOCIATES LP
BRYN MAWR, PA 19010
1062 E LANCASTER AVE #30B
P101
IV.A.
PENSCO TRUST COMPANY
WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33417
5114 OKEECHOBEE BLVD #203
420 W MAIN LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
424 PARK CIR #TH5
TAD PROPERTIES LLC
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 9978
3RD & MAIN CONDO ASSOCIATION
ASPEN, CO 81611
332 W MAIN ST
DOUBLE D CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
300 W BLEEKER ST
212 N SECOND ST LLC
TAMPA, FL 33613
509 GUISANDO DE AVILA #201
420 W MAIN LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
424 PARK CIR #TH5
MOUNTAIN LODGE HOLDINGS LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
SEAL MARK
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 9213
STILWELL REED & CLAIRE
DENVER, CO 80206
191 UNIVERSITY BLVD #304
JOSEPH RUSSELL C & ELISE E
HOUSTON, TX 77019
3682 WILLOWICK RD
NORTHWAY CONDO OWNERS ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
420 W MAIN ST
DAHL W ROBERT & LESLIE A
GREENWICH , CT 06831
83 PECKSLAND RD
403 W HALLAM STREET LLC
BASALT, CO 81621
PO BOX 3695
HOUSTON TRUST CO
HOUSTON, TX 77002
1001 FANNIN #700
TWIN COASTS LTD
BOCA RATON, FL 33432
433 PLAZA REAL #275
TAD PROPERTIES LLC
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 9978
420 W MAIN LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
424 PARK CIR #TH5
MOUNTAIN LODGE HOLDINGS LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
MOUNTAIN LODGE HOLDINGS LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
BLEVINS J RONALD & PHYLLIS
ASPEN, CO 81611
310 W BLEEKER ST
MOUNTAIN LODGE HOLDINGS LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
433 W BLEEKER LLC
CHICAGO, IL 60654
300N LASALLE #5600
MOUNTAIN LODGE HOLDINGS LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
MOUNTAIN LODGE HOLDINGS LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
LORENTZEN AMY L
HERMOSA BEACH , CA 90254
125 22ND ST
PIONEER PARTNERS LTD
ASPEN, CO 81611
617 W MAIN ST
TAD PROPERTIES LLC
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 9978
CRETE ASSOCIATES LP
BRYN MAWR, PA 19010
1062 E LANCASTER AVE #30B
TAD PROPERTIES LLC
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 9978
P102
IV.A.
SHC-ASPEN LLC
TULSA, OK 74103
15 E 5TH ST #3200
MOUNTAIN LODGE HOLDINGS LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
NATHAN REVOCABLE TRUST
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210
718 N LINDEN DR
MOUNTAIN LODGE HOLDINGS LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
ASPEN HOUSE LLC
IRVINE, CA 92614
17595 HARVARD AVE # C511
GUNNING RALPH
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 11912
DH ASE LLC
WILMINGTON, DE 19808
2711 CENTERVILLE RD # 400
MOUNTAIN LODGE HOLDINGS LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
KARBANK 430 LLC
MISSION, KS 66205
2000 SHAWNEE MISSION PKWY #400
331 W BLEEKER LLC
HOUSTON, TX 77019
2727 ALLEN PKY #1400
JACOBY FAMILY LP
VERO BEACH, FL 32960
700 20TH ST
CRETE ASSOCIATES LP
BRYN MAWR, PA 19010
1062 E LANCASTER AVE #30B
SILVERSTEIN PHILIP & ROSALYN
BRONX, NY 10463
25 KNOLLS CRESCENT APT 81
314 WEST MAIN LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
314 W MAIN ST
P103
IV.A.
P104IV.A.
A0.0
COVER
c 2019 RALLY DUPPS ARCHITECT - THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF CONSORTIUM ARCHITECTS. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED OR COPIED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF CONSORTIUM ARCHITECTS. CONSORTIUM ARCHITECTS SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND ALL OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED a r c h i t e c t rallydupps@gmail.com 720-481-7353rallyduppsarchitect.com POB 3662 Aspen, CO 81612RA L L Y DU P P SIssue Dates:333 WEST BLEEKER ST. REMODEL333 WEST BLEEKER STASPEN, CO 81611PARCEL ID# 273512401401-
JANUARY 4, 2019
HPC CONCEPTUAL REVIEW
333 WEST BLEEKER ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
PARCEL ID# 273512401401
SHEET INDEX:
A0.00 COVER SHEET
A1.01 EXISTING SITE PLAN
A1.02 EXISTING FLOOR PLANS
A1.03 EXISTING FLOOR PLANS
A1.04 EXISTING ELEVATIONS
A1.06 EXISTING GARAGE PLAN AND ELEVATIONS
A1.07 PROPOSED SITE PLAN
A1.08 PROPOSED FLOOR PLANS
A1.09 PROPOSED FLOOR PLANS
A1.10 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS
A1.11 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS
A1.12 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS
A1.13 PROPOSED GARAGE PLAN AND ELEVATIONS
Z1.01 EXISTING FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS
Z1.02 PROPOSED FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS
HPC1 NEIGHBORHOOD PICTURES
HPC2 RELOCATION PLANP105 IV.A.
P106IV.A.
2
3
6
1
4
8
14
10 12
7
5
16
11
9
20
13
21
18
1715
22
19
6,000 sq. ft.
0.137± Ac.
GARAGE
2 - STORY
FRAME HOUSE
333 E. BLEEKER
STREET
LOT 2
LOT 1
G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G
UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE
CTV CTV CTV CTV CTVCTV CTV CTV CTV CTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVUT UT UT UT UTUT UT UT
UTUTUEUE UE UE UE
UT UT UT
UE UE UE UECTVCTV
CTV CTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVGGGGGGGSS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SSSSSSSSSSSSUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEALLEY - BLOCK 44 20'-9 7/16"13'-9"
10' FRONT YARD SETBACK
5' SIDE YARD SETBACK10' SIDE YARD SETBACK5' REAR YARD
SETBACK PROPERTY LINETHIRD STREETBLEEKER STREET
ALLEY - BLOCK 44
2
1
14
10
7
16
21
1810' REAR YARD
SETBACK
A1.01
EXISTING SITE PLAN
c 2019 RALLY DUPPS ARCHITECT - THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF CONSORTIUM ARCHITECTS. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED OR COPIED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF CONSORTIUM ARCHITECTS. CONSORTIUM ARCHITECTS SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND ALL OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED a r c h i t e c t rallydupps@gmail.com 720-481-7353rallyduppsarchitect.com POB 3662 Aspen, CO 81612RA L L Y DU P P SIssue Dates:333 WEST BLEEKER ST. REMODEL333 WEST BLEEKER STASPEN, CO 81611PARCEL ID# 273512401401-
EXISTING SITE PLAN1
A1.01 1/8" = 1'-0"
NORTHP107 IV.A.
UPCRAWL SPACE
MECHANICAL
ROOM
CRAWL SPACE
CRAWL SPACEDNBATH 1
KITCHENUPLIVING
BEDROOM 1
FAMILY
DINING ROOM
ROOM
ROOM
ENTRY
GARAGE
TRASH
PORCH
LAUNDRY
STORAGESTEP
STEP
A1.02
EXISTING
PLANS
c 2019 RALLY DUPPS ARCHITECT - THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF CONSORTIUM ARCHITECTS. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED OR COPIED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF CONSORTIUM ARCHITECTS. CONSORTIUM ARCHITECTS SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND ALL OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED a r c h i t e c t rallydupps@gmail.com 720-481-7353rallyduppsarchitect.com POB 3662 Aspen, CO 81612RA L L Y DU P P SIssue Dates:333 WEST BLEEKER ST. REMODEL333 WEST BLEEKER STASPEN, CO 81611PARCEL ID# 273512401401-
EXISTING MAIN FLOOR PLAN2
A1.02 1/4" = 1'-0"
NORTH
EXISTING LOWER FLOOR PLAN1
A1.02 1/4" = 1'-0"
NORTHP108 IV.A.
SLOPESLOPE SLOPESLOPESLOPESLOPESLOPE SLOPESLOPE SLOPESLOPESLOPESLOPEBATH 3
CLOSET 2
LINEN
STORAGE
LINEN
BEDROOM 4
BEDROOM 3
BEDROOM 2
HALLWAY
BATH 2DNCLOSET 4CLOSET
3
SLOPESLOPEA1.03
EXISTING
PLANS
c 2019 RALLY DUPPS ARCHITECT - THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF CONSORTIUM ARCHITECTS. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED OR COPIED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF CONSORTIUM ARCHITECTS. CONSORTIUM ARCHITECTS SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND ALL OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED a r c h i t e c t rallydupps@gmail.com 720-481-7353rallyduppsarchitect.com POB 3662 Aspen, CO 81612RA L L Y DU P P SIssue Dates:333 WEST BLEEKER ST. REMODEL333 WEST BLEEKER STASPEN, CO 81611PARCEL ID# 273512401401-
EXISTING UPPER FLOOR PLAN1
A1.03 1/4" = 1'-0"
NORTH
EXISTING ROOF PLAN2
A1.03 1/4" = 1'-0"
NORTHP109 IV.A.
T.O. F.F. @ GROUND LEVEL
ELEV. 100'-0" SITE ELEV 7907.61'
T.O. F.F. @ UPPER LEVEL
ELEV. 109'-11" 9'-11"T.O. RIDGE @ LOWER ROOF
ELEV. 124' 9 1/2" VERIFY
T.O. RIDGE @ UPPER ROOF
ELEV. 127'- 10 1/2" VERIFY
14'-10 1/2"3'-1"27'-10 1/2"1
2
3
4
5
T.O. F.F. @ GROUND LEVEL
ELEV. 100'-0" SITE ELEV 7907.61'
T.O. F.F. @ UPPER LEVEL
ELEV. 109'-11" 9'-11"T.O. RIDGE @ LOWER ROOF
ELEV. 124' 9 1/2" VERIFY
T.O. RIDGE @ UPPER ROOF
ELEV. 127'- 10 1/2" VERIFY
14'-10 1/2"3'-1"27'-10 1/2"1
2
3
4
T.O. F.F. @ GROUND LEVEL
ELEV. 100'-0" SITE ELEV 7907.61'
T.O. F.F. @ UPPER LEVEL
ELEV. 109'-11" 9'-11"T.O. RIDGE @ LOWER ROOF
ELEV. 124' 9 1/2" VERIFY
T.O. RIDGE @ UPPER ROOF
ELEV. 127'- 10 1/2" VERIFY
14'-10 1/2"3'-1"27'-10 1/2"2
2
3
3
4
5
T.O. F.F. @ GROUND LEVEL
ELEV. 100'-0" SITE ELEV 7907.61'
T.O. F.F. @ UPPER LEVEL
ELEV. 109'-11" 9'-11"T.O. RIDGE @ LOWER ROOF
ELEV. 124' 9 1/2" VERIFY
T.O. RIDGE @ UPPER ROOF
ELEV. 127'- 10 1/2" VERIFY
14'-10 1/2"3'-1"27'-10 1/2"1
2
3
3
3
3
4
5
MATERIALS LEGEND:
REFERENCE SYMBOL:#
1. (E) PAINTED HORIZONTAL WOOD CLAPBOARD SIDING
2. (E) PAINTED WOOD FISH SCALE SIDING
3. (E) ALL VICTORIAN STYLE WOOD DETAILS, TRIM, BASEBOARDS
AND TRIM INCLUDING: DECORATIVE WOOD DETAILS, WOOD
HORIZONTAL BANDS, TURNED WOOD COLUMNS, WOOD BRACKETS
OR ALL OTHER APPLIED WOOD DECORATIVE FEATURES
4. (E) ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOFING
5. (E) STONE FOUNDATION
(N) = NEW
(E) = EXISTING
A1.04
EXISTING
ELEVATIONS
c 2019 RALLY DUPPS ARCHITECT - THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF CONSORTIUM ARCHITECTS. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED OR COPIED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF CONSORTIUM ARCHITECTS. CONSORTIUM ARCHITECTS SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND ALL OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED a r c h i t e c t rallydupps@gmail.com 720-481-7353rallyduppsarchitect.com POB 3662 Aspen, CO 81612RA L L Y DU P P SIssue Dates:333 WEST BLEEKER ST. REMODEL333 WEST BLEEKER STASPEN, CO 81611PARCEL ID# 273512401401-
EXISTING ELEVATION WEST1
A1.04 1/4" = 1'-0"
EXISTING ELEVATION SOUTH2
A1.04 1/4" = 1'-0"
EXISTING ELEVATION EAST3
A1.04 1/4" = 1'-0"
EXISTING ELEVATION NORTH4
A1.04 1/4" = 1'-0"P110IV.A.
T.O. F.F. @ GROUND LEVEL
ELEV. 100'-0" SITE ELEV 7907.61'
T.O. SLAB @ GARAGE
ELEV. 99'-3 5/8" SITE ELEV 7906.91'
T.O. GARAGE RIDGE
ELEV. 115'-3 5/8"8 3/8"15'-4 7/16"16'-0 7/8"T.O. F.F. @ GROUND LEVEL
ELEV. 100'-0" SITE ELEV 7907.61'
T.O. SLAB @ GARAGE
ELEV. 99'-3 5/8" SITE ELEV 7906.91'
T.O. GARAGE RIDGE
ELEV. 115'-3 5/8"8 3/8"15'-4 7/16"16'-0 7/8"1
13
3
3
4
SKYLIGHT
MATERIALS LEGEND:
REFERENCE SYMBOL:#
1. (E) PAINTED HORIZONTAL WOOD CLAPBOARD SIDING
2. (E) PAINTED WOOD FISH SCALE SIDING
3. (E) ALL VICTORIAN STYLE WOOD DETAILS, TRIM, BASEBOARDS
AND TRIM INCLUDING: DECORATIVE WOOD DETAILS, WOOD
HORIZONTAL BANDS, TURNED WOOD COLUMNS, WOOD BRACKETS
OR ALL OTHER APPLIED WOOD DECORATIVE FEATURES
4. (E) ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOFING
5. (E) STONE FOUNDATION
(N) = NEW(E) = EXISTING
T.O. F.F. @ GROUND LEVEL
ELEV. 100'-0" SITE ELEV 7907.61'
T.O. SLAB @ GARAGE
ELEV. 99'-3 5/8" SITE ELEV 7906.91'
T.O. GARAGE RIDGE
ELEV. 115'-3 5/8"8 3/8"15'-4 7/16"16'-0 7/8"T.O. F.F. @ GROUND LEVEL
ELEV. 100'-0" SITE ELEV 7907.61'
T.O. SLAB @ GARAGE
ELEV. 99'-3 5/8" SITE ELEV 7906.91'
T.O. GARAGE RIDGE
ELEV. 115'-3 5/8"8 3/8"15'-4 7/16"16'-0 7/8"1 1
3
3
3
4
SKYLIGHT
GARAGE
TRASHSTORAGE SLOPESLOPE1'-0" : 1'-0" 1'-0" : 1'-0"
A1.06
EXISTING GARAGE
PLANS AND
ELEVATIONS
c 2019 RALLY DUPPS ARCHITECT - THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF CONSORTIUM ARCHITECTS. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED OR COPIED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF CONSORTIUM ARCHITECTS. CONSORTIUM ARCHITECTS SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND ALL OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED a r c h i t e c t rallydupps@gmail.com 720-481-7353rallyduppsarchitect.com POB 3662 Aspen, CO 81612RA L L Y DU P P SIssue Dates:333 WEST BLEEKER ST. REMODEL333 WEST BLEEKER STASPEN, CO 81611PARCEL ID# 273512401401-
EXISTING GARAGE ELEVATION WEST2
A1.06 1/4" = 1'-0"
EXISTING GARAGE ELEVATION SOUTH1
A1.06 1/4" = 1'-0"
EXISTING GARAGE ELEVATION EAST4
A1.06 1/4" = 1'-0"
EXISTING GARAGE ELEVATION NORTH3
A1.06 1/4" = 1'-0"
EXISTING GARAGE FLOOR PLAN6
A1.06 1/4" = 1'-0"
NORTH
EXISTING GARAGE ROOF PLAN5
A1.06 1/4" = 1'-0"
NORTH
P111IV.A.
V.I.F.15'-9 7/16"V.I.F.
10'-1 3/16"
PERVIOUS
PAVERS
SCREENING
VEGETATION
V.I.F.
6'-7 1/2"1'-0"1'-0"
TREE PROTECTION NOTE:
TREE PROTECTION ZONE PER
SEPTEMBER 20, 2018 EMAIL
FROM IAN GRAY COA PARKS
DEPT.14'-0"SCREENING
VEGETATION
DASHED LINE OFBASEMENT BELOW12'-0"
5'-2 3/8"
10' FRONT YARD SETBACK
5' SIDE YARD SETBACK10' SIDE YARD SETBACK5' REAR YARD
SETBACK PROPERTY LINETHIRD STREETBLEEKER STREET
ALLEY - BLOCK 44
2
1
14
10
7
16
21
18
PER IAN GRAY
PARKS DEPT:
HOUSE IS MOVED
NORTH 5'-0"
FROM HISTORIC
LOCATION
HOUSE IS MOVED
EAST +/- 3'-7"
FROM HISTORIC
LOCATION
CANTILEVERED
FIREPLACE
10' FRONT YARD SETBACK
5' SIDE YARD SETBACK10' SIDE YARD SETBACK5' REAR YARD
SETBACK PROPERTY LINETHIRD STREETBLEEKER STREET
ALLEY - BLOCK 44
2
1
14
10
7
16
21
1810' REAR YARD
SETBACK
ENTRY WALKWAY
STEP
STEPS
ENTRY
PORCH
EXISTING
CULVERT
PIPE
PER IAN
GRAY
PARKS
DEPT. TREE
PROTECTION
ZONE - TYP.
A1.07
PROPOSED SITE
PLAN
c 2019 RALLY DUPPS ARCHITECT - THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF CONSORTIUM ARCHITECTS. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED OR COPIED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF CONSORTIUM ARCHITECTS. CONSORTIUM ARCHITECTS SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND ALL OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED a r c h i t e c t rallydupps@gmail.com 720-481-7353rallyduppsarchitect.com POB 3662 Aspen, CO 81612RA L L Y DU P P SIssue Dates:333 WEST BLEEKER ST. REMODEL333 WEST BLEEKER STASPEN, CO 81611PARCEL ID# 273512401401-
PROPOSED SITE PLAN1
A1.07 1/8" = 1'-0"
NORTHP112 IV.A.
5'-3"GUEST
BEDROOM 1
GUEST
CLOSETGUEST
BATH 1
LAUNDRY /
STORAGE
STAIR
LINE OF LEVEL ABOVE
GAME ROOM
30"
WASHER
30"DRYER
UP
POWDER
BAR
DEN
FITNESS
ROOM
LINE OF LEVEL ABOVE
30'-0"11'-0"70'-2 1/2"52'-6"12'-5 1/2"41'-0"70'-2 1/2"LIGHT
WELL
LIGHT
WELL
LIGHT
WELL
41'-0"
34'-2"6'-10"
MECH
CLOSET
GUEST
BEDROOM 2
GUEST
BEDROOM 3
GUEST
BATH 2
GUEST
BATH 3
CLOSET CLOSET
19R @ 7.57"17R @ 10"
DASHED LINE OF
CEILING ABOVE
DASHED LINE OF
SKYLIGHT ABOVE
DASHED LINE OF
SKYLIGHT ABOVE
STAIR
SALON
ENTRY
PORCH
ENTRY
KITCHENDINING
PANTRY
GARAGE VERIFY8'-0 7/8"18'-11"VERIFY
3'-0 11/16"
VERIFY
8'-11 9/16"
POWDER
CONNECTOR
LIVING
ROOM
BENCH
26'-0"18'-0"7'-10"DASHED LINE OFBASEMENT BELOWCANTILEVERED
FIREPLACE
DASHED LINE OF
STAIR ABOVE
OPEN TO BELOW
2'-2"
27'-1"
9'-1"7'-1"
9'-6 1/2"8'-0"9'-6 1/2"5'-5 1/2"8'-0"5'-5 1/2"5'-5 1/2"5'-5 1/2"8'-0"26x36
INTERIOR
CLOSET
26x36
INTERIORCLOSET
1'-3"18R @ 6.61"17R @ 10"
UP
DN
GARAGE DOOR
ABOVE
DASHED LINE
OF BASEMENT
BELOW
DASHED LINE OF
CEILING ABOVE
DASHED LINE OF
CEILING ABOVE
A1.08
PROPOSED FLOOR
PLAN
c 2019 RALLY DUPPS ARCHITECT - THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF CONSORTIUM ARCHITECTS. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED OR COPIED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF CONSORTIUM ARCHITECTS. CONSORTIUM ARCHITECTS SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND ALL OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED a r c h i t e c t rallydupps@gmail.com 720-481-7353rallyduppsarchitect.com POB 3662 Aspen, CO 81612RA L L Y DU P P SIssue Dates:333 WEST BLEEKER ST. REMODEL333 WEST BLEEKER STASPEN, CO 81611PARCEL ID# 273512401401-
PROPOSED MAIN FLOOR PLAN2
A1.08 1/4" = 1'-0"
NORTH
PROPOSED LOWER FLOOR PLAN1
A1.08 1/4" = 1'-0"
NORTHP113 IV.A.
THIS
FLOOR
AREA TO
BE
REMOVED
/ ATTICOPEN
TO BELOW
24"
STACKW/D
SLOPE
12:12
SLOPE
12:12
MASTER
BEDROOM
MASTER
BATHROOM
STAIR DN
SLOPE
1:12
SLOPE
0.25:12EXEMPT INACCESSIBLE SPACE(2) NEW WINDOWS -
WINDOW SIZE TAKEN
FROM MAIN LEVEL NORTH
"SALON" ROOM
DASHED LINE
OF CEILING
TRANSITION ABOVE
4'-1"
DASHED LINE OF
ROOF ABOVE
SLOPE1.5:12SLOPESLOPE14:12SLOPE14:12SLOPESLOPESLOPE14:1212:12
14:12
14:1214:12SLOPE
SLOPE 14:1214:12
12:12
SLOPE14:12SLOPE
0.25:12 SLOPESLOPE14:12SLOPE
A1.09
PROPOSED PLANS
c 2019 RALLY DUPPS ARCHITECT - THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF CONSORTIUM ARCHITECTS. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED OR COPIED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF CONSORTIUM ARCHITECTS. CONSORTIUM ARCHITECTS SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND ALL OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED a r c h i t e c t rallydupps@gmail.com 720-481-7353rallyduppsarchitect.com POB 3662 Aspen, CO 81612RA L L Y DU P P SIssue Dates:333 WEST BLEEKER ST. REMODEL333 WEST BLEEKER STASPEN, CO 81611PARCEL ID# 273512401401-
PROPOSED ROOF PLAN2
A1.09 1/4" = 1'-0"
NORTH
PROPOSED UPPER FLOOR PLAN1
A1.09 1/4" = 1'-0"
NORTHP114 IV.A.
T.O. F.F. @ GROUND LEVEL
ELEV. 100'-0" SITE ELEV 7907.61'
T.O. F.F. @ UPPER LEVEL
ELEV. 109'-11" 9'-11"T.O. RIDGE @ LOWER ROOF
ELEV. 124' 9 1/2" VERIFY
T.O. RIDGE @ UPPER ROOF
ELEV. 127'- 10 1/2" VERIFY
14'-10 1/2"3'-1"27'-10 1/2"1
2
3
4
5
NEW WINDOW TO MATCH
HISTORIC WINDOWS NEW WINDOW TO MATCH
HISTORIC WINDOWS
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL
ELEV. 88'-0"
T.O. F.F. @ GROUND LEVEL
ELEV. 100'-0" SITE ELEV 7907.61'
T.O. PL. @ LIVING ROOMELEV. 109'-3"
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL
ELEV. 89'-0" 12'-0"8'-0"T.O. PL. @ CONNECTORELEV. 108'-0" 1'-3"12
1.5
DASHED LINE OF GARAGE
12'-0"T.O. ROOF @ LIVING ROOMELEV. 112'-9 1/4" VERIFY 12'-9 1/4"3'-6 1/4"29'-2"DASHED LINE OF FOUNDATION
LINE OF FINISH GRADE
MATERIALS LEGEND:
REFERENCE SYMBOL:#
1. (E) PAINTED HORIZONTAL WOOD CLAPBOARD SIDING
2. (E) PAINTED WOOD FISH SCALE SIDING
3. (E) ALL VICTORIAN STYLE WOOD DETAILS, TRIM, BASEBOARDS
AND TRIM INCLUDING: DECORATIVE WOOD DETAILS, WOOD
HORIZONTAL BANDS, TURNED WOOD COLUMNS, WOOD BRACKETS
OR ALL OTHER APPLIED WOOD DECORATIVE FEATURES
4. (E) ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOFING
5. (E) STONE FOUNDATION
(N) = NEW(E) = EXISTING
T.O. F.F. @ GROUND LEVEL
ELEV. 100'-0" SITE ELEV 7907.61'
T.O. F.F. @ UPPER LEVEL
ELEV. 109'-11" 9'-11"T.O. RIDGE @ LOWER ROOF
ELEV. 124' 9 1/2" VERIFY
T.O. RIDGE @ UPPER ROOF
ELEV. 127'- 10 1/2" VERIFY
14'-10 1/2"3'-1"27'-10 1/2"T.O. F.F. @ GROUND LEVEL
ELEV. 100'-0" SITE ELEV 7907.61'
T.O. PL. @ LIVING ROOM
ELEV. 109'-3"
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL
ELEV. 89'-0" 12'-0"8'-0"T.O. PL. @ CONNECTORELEV. 108'-0" 1'-3"T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL
ELEV. 88'-0" 12'-0"3'-0"ELEV. 112'-9 1/4" VERIFY 12'-9 1/4"T.O. ROOF @ LIVING ROOM12
1
14'-0 5/8"DASHED LINE OF GARAGE
DASHED LINE OF FOUNDATION
LINE OF FINISH GRADE
A1.10
PROPOSED
ELEVATIONS
c 2019 RALLY DUPPS ARCHITECT - THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF CONSORTIUM ARCHITECTS. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED OR COPIED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF CONSORTIUM ARCHITECTS. CONSORTIUM ARCHITECTS SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND ALL OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED a r c h i t e c t rallydupps@gmail.com 720-481-7353rallyduppsarchitect.com POB 3662 Aspen, CO 81612RA L L Y DU P P SIssue Dates:333 WEST BLEEKER ST. REMODEL333 WEST BLEEKER STASPEN, CO 81611PARCEL ID# 273512401401-
PROPOSED ELEVATION WEST1
A1.10 1/4" = 1'-0"
PROPOSED ELEVATION SOUTH2
A1.10 1/4" = 1'-0"P115IV.A.
T.O. F.F. @ GROUND LEVEL
ELEV. 100'-0" SITE ELEV 7907.61'
T.O. F.F. @ UPPER LEVEL
ELEV. 109'-11" 9'-11"T.O. RIDGE @ LOWER ROOF
ELEV. 124' 9 1/2" VERIFY
T.O. RIDGE @ UPPER ROOF
ELEV. 127'- 10 1/2" VERIFY
14'-10 1/2"3'-1"27'-10 1/2"T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL
ELEV. 88'-0" 12'-0"NEW WINDOW TO MATCH
HISTORIC WINDOWS
CONNECTOR 8'-0"T.O. F.F. @ GROUND LEVEL
ELEV. 100'-0" SITE ELEV 7907.61'
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL
ELEV. 89'-0" 12'-0"8'-0"T.O. PL. @ CONNECTORELEV. 108'-0"
T.O. ROOF @ CONNECTORELEV. 109'-6" 1'-6"9'-6"10'-9 1/2"1
2
3
4
(2) NEW WINDOWS -
WINDOW SIZE TAKEN
FROM MAIN LEVEL NORTH
"SALON" ROOM
LINE OF FINISH GRADE
MATERIALS LEGEND:
REFERENCE SYMBOL:#
1. (E) PAINTED HORIZONTAL WOOD CLAPBOARD SIDING
2. (E) PAINTED WOOD FISH SCALE SIDING
3. (E) ALL VICTORIAN STYLE WOOD DETAILS, TRIM, BASEBOARDS
AND TRIM INCLUDING: DECORATIVE WOOD DETAILS, WOOD
HORIZONTAL BANDS, TURNED WOOD COLUMNS, WOOD BRACKETS
OR ALL OTHER APPLIED WOOD DECORATIVE FEATURES
4. (E) ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOFING
5. (E) STONE FOUNDATION
(N) = NEW
(E) = EXISTING8'-0"T.O. F.F. @ GROUND LEVEL
ELEV. 100'-0" SITE ELEV 7907.61'
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL
ELEV. 89'-0" 12'-0"8'-0"T.O. PL. @ CONNECTORELEV. 108'-0"
T.O. ROOF @ CONNECTORELEV. 109'-6" 1'-6"9'-6"T.O. F.F. @ GROUND LEVEL
ELEV. 100'-0" SITE ELEV 7907.61'
T.O. PL. @ LIVING ROOMELEV. 109'-3"
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL
ELEV. 89'-0" 12'-0"8'-0"T.O. PL. @ CONNECTORELEV. 108'-0" 1'-3"ELEV. 112'-9 1/4" VERIFY 12'-9 1/4"T.O. ROOF @ LIVING ROOM
DASHED LINE OF GARAGE
LINE OF FINISH GRADE
A1.11
PROPOSED
ELEVATIONS
c 2019 RALLY DUPPS ARCHITECT - THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF CONSORTIUM ARCHITECTS. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED OR COPIED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF CONSORTIUM ARCHITECTS. CONSORTIUM ARCHITECTS SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND ALL OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED a r c h i t e c t rallydupps@gmail.com 720-481-7353rallyduppsarchitect.com POB 3662 Aspen, CO 81612RA L L Y DU P P SIssue Dates:333 WEST BLEEKER ST. REMODEL333 WEST BLEEKER STASPEN, CO 81611PARCEL ID# 273512401401-
PROPOSED ELEVATION SOUTH1
A1.11 1/4" = 1'-0"
PROPOSED ELEVATION NORTH2
A1.11 1/4" = 1'-0"P116IV.A.
T.O. F.F. @ GROUND LEVEL
ELEV. 100'-0" SITE ELEV 7907.61'
T.O. F.F. @ UPPER LEVEL
ELEV. 109'-11" 9'-11"T.O. RIDGE @ LOWER ROOF
ELEV. 124' 9 1/2" VERIFY
T.O. RIDGE @ UPPER ROOF
ELEV. 127'- 10 1/2" VERIFY
14'-10 1/2"3'-1"27'-10 1/2"T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL
ELEV. 88'-0" 12'-0"T.O. F.F. @ GROUND LEVEL
ELEV. 100'-0" SITE ELEV 7907.61'
T.O. PL. @ LIVING ROOMELEV. 109'-3"
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL
ELEV. 89'-0" 12'-0"8'-0"T.O. PL. @ CONNECTORELEV. 108'-0" 1'-3"ELEV. 112'-9 1/4" VERIFY 12'-9 1/4"T.O. ROOF @ LIVING ROOM
2
2
3
3
4
5
DASHED LINE OF GARAGE
NEW ADDITION
BEYOND
DASHED LINE OF FOUNDATION
LINE OF FINISH GRADE
MATERIALS LEGEND:
REFERENCE SYMBOL:#
1. (E) PAINTED HORIZONTAL WOOD CLAPBOARD SIDING
2. (E) PAINTED WOOD FISH SCALE SIDING
3. (E) ALL VICTORIAN STYLE WOOD DETAILS, TRIM, BASEBOARDS
AND TRIM INCLUDING: DECORATIVE WOOD DETAILS, WOOD
HORIZONTAL BANDS, TURNED WOOD COLUMNS, WOOD BRACKETS
OR ALL OTHER APPLIED WOOD DECORATIVE FEATURES
4. (E) ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOFING
5. (E) STONE FOUNDATION
(N) = NEW
(E) = EXISTING
T.O. F.F. @ GROUND LEVEL
ELEV. 100'-0" SITE ELEV 7907.61'
T.O. PL. @ LIVING ROOMELEV. 109'-3"
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL
ELEV. 89'-0" 12'-0"8'-0"T.O. PL. @ CONNECTORELEV. 108'-0" 1'-3"T.O. ROOF @ LIVING ROOMELEV. 112'-9 1/4" VERIFY 12'-9 1/4"3'-6 1/4"3'-0"3'-0"T.O. F.F. @ GROUND LEVEL
ELEV. 100'-0" SITE ELEV 7907.61'
T.O. F.F. @ UPPER LEVEL
ELEV. 109'-11" 9'-11"T.O. RIDGE @ LOWER ROOF
ELEV. 124' 9 1/2" VERIFY
T.O. RIDGE @ UPPER ROOF
ELEV. 127'- 10 1/2" VERIFY
14'-10 1/2"3'-1"27'-10 1/2"T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL
ELEV. 88'-0" 12'-0"1
2
3
3
3
3
4
5
DASHED LINE OF GARAGE
DASHED LINE OF FOUNDATION
LINE OF FINISH GRADE
A1.12
PROPOSED
ELEVATIONS
c 2019 RALLY DUPPS ARCHITECT - THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF CONSORTIUM ARCHITECTS. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED OR COPIED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF CONSORTIUM ARCHITECTS. CONSORTIUM ARCHITECTS SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND ALL OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED a r c h i t e c t rallydupps@gmail.com 720-481-7353rallyduppsarchitect.com POB 3662 Aspen, CO 81612RA L L Y DU P P SIssue Dates:333 WEST BLEEKER ST. REMODEL333 WEST BLEEKER STASPEN, CO 81611PARCEL ID# 273512401401-
PROPOSED ELEVATION NORTH1
A1.12 1/4" = 1'-0"
PROPOSED ELEVATION EAST2
A1.12 1/4" = 1'-0"P117IV.A.
T.O. F.F. @ GROUND LEVEL
ELEV. 100'-0" SITE ELEV 7907.61'
T.O. SLAB @ GARAGE
ELEV. 99'-3 5/8" SITE ELEV 7906.91'
T.O. GARAGE RIDGE
ELEV. 115'-3 5/8"8 3/8"15'-4 7/16"16'-0 7/8"T.O. F.F. @ GROUND LEVEL
ELEV. 100'-0" SITE ELEV 7907.61'
T.O. SLAB @ GARAGE
ELEV. 99'-3 5/8" SITE ELEV 7906.91'
T.O. GARAGE RIDGE
ELEV. 115'-3 5/8"8 3/8"15'-4 7/16"16'-0 7/8"1
13
3
3
4
REMOVE SKYLIGHT
LINE OF FINISH GRADE
MATERIALS LEGEND:
REFERENCE SYMBOL:#
1. (E) PAINTED HORIZONTAL WOOD CLAPBOARD SIDING
2. (E) PAINTED WOOD FISH SCALE SIDING
3. (E) ALL VICTORIAN STYLE WOOD DETAILS, TRIM, BASEBOARDS
AND TRIM INCLUDING: DECORATIVE WOOD DETAILS, WOOD
HORIZONTAL BANDS, TURNED WOOD COLUMNS, WOOD BRACKETS
OR ALL OTHER APPLIED WOOD DECORATIVE FEATURES
4. (E) ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOFING
5. (E) STONE FOUNDATION
(N) = NEW(E) = EXISTING
GARAGE
GARAGE DOOR
ABOVE
DASHED LINE
OF BASEMENT
BELOW
T.O. F.F. @ GROUND LEVEL
ELEV. 100'-0" SITE ELEV 7907.61'
T.O. SLAB @ GARAGE
ELEV. 99'-3 5/8" SITE ELEV 7906.91'
T.O. GARAGE RIDGE
ELEV. 115'-3 5/8"8 3/8"15'-4 7/16"16'-0 7/8"T.O. F.F. @ GROUND LEVEL
ELEV. 100'-0" SITE ELEV 7907.61'
T.O. SLAB @ GARAGE
ELEV. 99'-3 5/8" SITE ELEV 7906.91'
T.O. GARAGE RIDGE
ELEV. 115'-3 5/8"8 3/8"15'-4 7/16"16'-0 7/8"1 1
3
3
3
4
REMOVE SKYLIGHT
LINE OF FINISH GRADE SLOPE
12:12
SLOPE
12:12
A1.13
PROPOSED GARAGE
PLANS AND
ELEVATIONS
c 2019 RALLY DUPPS ARCHITECT - THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF CONSORTIUM ARCHITECTS. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED OR COPIED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF CONSORTIUM ARCHITECTS. CONSORTIUM ARCHITECTS SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND ALL OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED a r c h i t e c t rallydupps@gmail.com 720-481-7353rallyduppsarchitect.com POB 3662 Aspen, CO 81612RA L L Y DU P P SIssue Dates:333 WEST BLEEKER ST. REMODEL333 WEST BLEEKER STASPEN, CO 81611PARCEL ID# 273512401401-
PROPOSED GARAGE ELEVATION SOUTH2
A1.13 1/4" = 1'-0"
PROPOSED GARAGE ELEVATION EAST1
A1.13 1/4" = 1'-0"
PROPOSED GARAGE ELEVATION NORTH4
A1.13 1/4" = 1'-0"
PROPOSED GARAGE ELEVATION WEST3
A1.13 1/4" = 1'-0"
PROPOSED GARAGE FLOOR PLAN6
A1.13 1/4" = 1'-0"
NORTH
PROPOSED GARAGE ROOF PLAN5
A1.13 1/4" = 1'-0"
NORTHP118
IV.A.
1
2
3
4
68.68
68.68
79.91
79.91
CRAWL SPACE
MECHANICAL
ROOM4
1
2
3
112.02
CRAWL SPACE
CRAWL SPACE
BATH 1
KITCHEN
LIVING
BEDROOM 1
FAMILY
DINING ROOM
ROOM
ROOM
ENTRY 1104.22
EXEMPT
329.24
23.76
PATIO =
25.94 S.F.
PATIO =
16.56 S.F.
GARAGE
TRASH
PORCH
LAUNDRY
41.79STORAGEBATH 3
CLOSET 2
LINEN
STORAGE
LINEN
BEDROOM 4
BEDROOM 3
BEDROOM 2
HALLWAY
BATH 2CLOSET 4CLOSET3
GROSS S.F.=
962.74
EXEMPT =
26.11EXEMPT VOID / ATTIC SPACEUPPER LEVEL
GROSS F.A. =
962.74
NET F.A. =
936.63
AREA LESS THAN 30" TOTAL FAR = 2435.64 S.F. < 2280 S.F.
FLOOR AREA HATCH LEGEND
ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA - REF. 26.575.020.C, 26.710.040.D.11
GROSS LOT AREA = 6000 S.F.
AREAS OF SLOPES BETWEEN 20% - 30% = O S.F.
AREAS OF SLOPES > 30% = O S.F.
AREAS BELOW HIGH WATER LINE = 0 SF.
AREAS DEDICATED TO ANY KIND OF EASEMENTS PER 26.575.020-1 = 0 S.F.
NET LOT AREA = 6000 S.F.
NET LOT AREA R-6 ZONE ALLOWABLE FAR 3000-6000 S.F. = 2400 S.F. + 28 S.F. PER 100 S.F =
6000 S.F. - 3000 S.F = 3000 S.F. / 100 = 30 x 28 = 840 S.F.
ALLOWABLE FAR = 840 S.F. + 2400 = 3240.00 S.F. HOWEVER...
ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA ESTABLISHED BY ORDINANCE 43 SERIES 2002 PER
HISTORIC LOT SPLIT = 2280 S.F.
PATIOS & DECKS > 6" ABV. GRADE:
HOUSE FAR:DETACHED STORAGE FAR:
ABOVE GRADE FAR - REF. 26.575.020.D.1
MAIN LEVEL =1104.22 S.F.
UPPER LEVEL = 936.63 S.F.
GARAGE FAR:
SHEDS, STORAGE AREAS AND SIMILAR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES FAR - REF. 26.575.020.D.11
DETACHED STORAGE S.F. = 23.76 S.F. + 41.79 S.F. = 65.55 S.F.
STORAGE EXEMPTION = 65.55 S.F. < 32 S.F.
TOTAL STORAGE FAR = 65.55 S.F.
EXISTING FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS
GARAGE FAR - REF. 26.575.020.D.7
GARAGE GROSS S.F. = 329.24 S.F.
NO ALLEY ACCESS = NOT ELIGIBLE FOR GARAGE EXEMPTION, THEREFORE:
GARAGE FLOOR AREA = 329.24 S.F..
DECKS, BALCONIES, LOGGIAS, TRELLIS, GAZEBOS, EXTERIOR STAIRWAY, NON STREET FACING PORCHES FAR
REF. 26.575.020.D.4, 27.575.020.D.5, 26.575.020.D.6
ALLOWABLE DECK = 2280 X 15% = 342 S.F
COVERED PATIO < 4' PER 26.575.020.D.6 = 0 S.F.
TOTAL PORCH + PATIO > 6" ABOVE FINISH GRADE
= 16.56 + 24.94 S.F. = 41.50 S.F. < 342 S.F. = 0 S.F.
SUBGRADE FAR - REF. 26.575.020.D.8
WALL LABEL:WALL AREA S.F. EXPOSED WALL S.F.
1 68.68 0
2 79.91 0
3 68.68 0
4 79.91 0
TOTALS = 297.18 0
WALL AREA / EXPOSED WALL AREA = 297.18 / 0 S.F. = 0
% EXPOSED WALL AREA = 0%
TOTAL SUBGRADE GROSS AREA = 112.02 S.F.
SUBRAGE FAR = 0% X 112.06 S.F. = 0 S.F.
Z1.01
EXISTING FLOOR
AREA
CALCULATIONS
c 2019 RALLY DUPPS ARCHITECT - THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF CONSORTIUM ARCHITECTS. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED OR COPIED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF CONSORTIUM ARCHITECTS. CONSORTIUM ARCHITECTS SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND ALL OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED a r c h i t e c t rallydupps@gmail.com 720-481-7353rallyduppsarchitect.com POB 3662 Aspen, CO 81612RA L L Y DU P P SIssue Dates:333 WEST BLEEKER ST. REMODEL333 WEST BLEEKER STASPEN, CO 81611PARCEL ID# 273512401401-
UPPER LEVEL FLOOR AREA - EXISTING3
Z1.01 1/8" = 1'-0"
NORTH
MAIN LEVEL FLOOR AREA - EXISTING2
Z1.01 1/8" = 1'-0"
NORTH
LOWER LEVEL FLOOR AREA - EXISTING1
Z1.01 1/8" = 1'-0"
NORTH
LOWER LEVEL WALL ELEVATIONS - EXISTING4
Z1.01 1/8" = 1'-0"
FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS - EXISTING5
Z1.01P119 IV.A.
1
2
3
280.00
20.50
116.27
489.972'-6"4
102.65
20.50
2'-6"9'-4"1
2
3
4
8
SUBGRADE
GROSS F.A. =
2705.55 S.F.
56
7
GUESTBEDROOM 1
GUESTCLOSETGUESTBATH 1
LAUNDRY /STORAGE
STAIR
GAME ROOM
POWDER
DEN
FITNESSROOM
LIGHTWELL
LIGHTWELL
LIGHTWELL
GUEST
BEDROOM 2
GUEST
BEDROOM 3
GUESTBATH 2
GUESTBATH 3
CLOSET CLOSET
STAIR
SALON
ENTRYPORCH
ENTRY
KITCHENDINING
PANTRY
GARAGE
GARAGE
GROSS F.A. =
329.24 S.F.
NET =
39.62 S.F.
72.75
S.F.
EXEMPT
MAIN LEVEL
GROSS F.A. =
1587.29
NET F.A. =
1514.54 S.F.
POWDER
CONNECTOR
LIVING
ROOM
MASTERBEDROOM
MASTERBATHROOM
STAIR
134.34 S.F.167.20 S.F.UPPER LEVEL
GROSS F.A. =
941.27
NET F.A. =
639.73 S.F.
SUBGRADE FLOOR AREA - REF. 26.575.020.D.8
WALL LABEL WALL S.F. EXPOSED WALL S.F.
WALL 1 = 280.00 0
WALL 2 = 116.27 20.50
WALL 3 = 102.65 0
WALL 4 = 489.97 20.50
WALL 5 = 63.78 0
WALL 6 = 49.02 0
WALL 7 = 318.87 20.50
WALL 8 = 655.27 0
TOTALS = 2075.83 61.50
EXPOSED WALL AREA = 61.50 / 2075.83 S.F. = 0.0296
% EXPOSED WALL AREA = 2.96%
SUBGRADE GROSS S.F. = 2705.55 S.F.
SUBRAGE FAR = 2.96% X 2705.55 S.F. = 80.15 S.F.
TOTAL FAR = 2274.04 S.F. < 2280 S.F.
FLOOR AREA HATCH LEGEND
ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA - REF. 26.575.020.C, 26.710.040.D.11
GROSS LOT AREA = 6000 S.F.
AREAS OF SLOPES BETWEEN 20% - 30% = O S.F.
AREAS OF SLOPES > 30% = O S.F.
AREAS BELOW HIGH WATER LINE = 0 SF.
AREAS DEDICATED TO ANY KIND OF EASEMENTS PER 26.575.020-1 = 0 S.F.
NET LOT AREA = 6000 S.F.
NET LOT AREA R-6 ZONE ALLOWABLE FAR 3000-6000 S.F. = 2400 S.F. + 28 S.F. PER 100 S.F =
6000 S.F. - 3000 S.F = 3000 S.F. / 100 = 30 x 28 = 840 S.F.
ALLOWABLE FAR = 840 S.F. + 2400 = 3240.00 S.F. HOWEVER...
ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA ESTABLISHED BY ORDINANCE 43 SERIES 2002 PER
HISTORIC LOT SPLIT = 2280 S.F.
PATIOS & DECKS > 6" ABV. GRADE:
HOUSE FAR:DETACHED STORAGE FAR:
ABOVE GRADE FLOOR AREA - REF. 26.575.020.D.1
MAIN LEVEL =1514.54 S.F.
UPPER LEVEL = 639.73 S.F.
GARAGE FAR:
SHEDS, STORAGE AREAS AND SIMILAR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES FAR - REF. 26.575.020.D.11
DETACHED STORAGE S.F. = 23.76 S.F.
STORAGE EXEMPTION = 23.76 S.F. < 32 S.F.
TOTAL STORAGE FAR = 0 S.F.
EXISTING FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS
DECKS, BALCONIES, LOGGIAS, TRELLIS, GAZEBOS, EXTERIOR STAIRWAY, NON STREET FACING PORCHES FAR
REF. 26.575.020.D.4, 27.575.020.D.5, 26.575.020.D.6
ALLOWABLE DECK = 2280 X 15% = 342 S.F
COVERED PATIO < 4' PER 26.575.020.D.6 = 0 S.F.
TOTAL PORCH + PATIO > 6" ABOVE FINISH GRADE
= 41.48 S.F. + 45.10 S.F. = 86.58 S.F. < 342 S.F. = 0 S.F.
GARAGE FLOOR AREA - REF. 26.575.020.D.7
GARAGE GROSS S.F. = 329.24 S.F.
ALLEY ACCESS = ELIGIBLE FOR GARAGE EXEMPTION, THEREFORE:
329.24 S.F. - 250 S.F. EXEMPTION = 79.24 S.F.
NEXT 250 S.F. COUNTS HALF = 79.24 S.F. / 2 =39.62 S.F..
6
5
49.02
655.278
63.78
7 318.8720.50
2'-6"Z1.02
PROPOSED FLOOR
AREA
CALCULATIONS
c 2019 RALLY DUPPS ARCHITECT - THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF CONSORTIUM ARCHITECTS. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED OR COPIED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF CONSORTIUM ARCHITECTS. CONSORTIUM ARCHITECTS SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND ALL OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED a r c h i t e c t rallydupps@gmail.com 720-481-7353rallyduppsarchitect.com POB 3662 Aspen, CO 81612RA L L Y DU P P SIssue Dates:333 WEST BLEEKER ST. REMODEL333 WEST BLEEKER STASPEN, CO 81611PARCEL ID# 273512401401-
UPPER LEVEL FLOOR AREA - PROPOSED3
Z1.02 1/8" = 1'-0"
NORTH
MAIN LEVEL FLOOR AREA - PROPOSED2
Z1.02 1/8" = 1'-0"
NORTH
LOWER LEVEL FLOOR AREA - PROPOSED1
Z1.02 1/8" = 1'-0"
NORTH
LOWER LEVEL WALL ELEVATIONS - PROPOSED4
Z1.02 1/8" = 1'-0"
FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS - PROPOSED5
Z1.02P120
IV.A.
HPC1
NEIGHBORHOOD
PICTURES
c 2019 RALLY DUPPS ARCHITECT - THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF CONSORTIUM ARCHITECTS. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED OR COPIED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF CONSORTIUM ARCHITECTS. CONSORTIUM ARCHITECTS SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND ALL OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED a r c h i t e c t rallydupps@gmail.com 720-481-7353rallyduppsarchitect.com POB 3662 Aspen, CO 81612RA L L Y DU P P SIssue Dates:333 WEST BLEEKER ST. REMODEL333 WEST BLEEKER STASPEN, CO 81611PARCEL ID# 273512401401-P121IV.A.
2
3
6
1
4
8
14
10 12
7
5
16
11
9
20
13
21
18
1715
22
19
REMOVE TREES
3,4,5 AND 6
REMOVE TREES
8 AND 9
REMOVE TREES
13 - 18
REMOVE TREES
19 AND 20
REMOVE TREE 12
REMOVE TREE 11
THIRD STREETBLEEKER STREET
FORMER LOCATION
OF GARAGE
FORMER LOCATION
OF HOUSE
TEMPORARY LOCATION
OF GARAGE
TEMPORARY LOCATION
OF HOUSE
8.5'W x 18'D x 7'H
PARKING
8.5'W x 18'D x 7'H
PARKING
8.5'W x 18'D x 7'H
PARKING RENT 3 STREET PARKING SPACES
FROM THE CITY OF ASPEN FOR THE
DURATION OF THE TEMPORARY HOUSE
RELOCATION
HPC2
RELOCATION SITE
PLAN
c 2019 RALLY DUPPS ARCHITECT - THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF CONSORTIUM ARCHITECTS. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED OR COPIED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF CONSORTIUM ARCHITECTS. CONSORTIUM ARCHITECTS SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND ALL OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED a r c h i t e c t rallydupps@gmail.com 720-481-7353rallyduppsarchitect.com POB 3662 Aspen, CO 81612RA L L Y DU P P SIssue Dates:333 WEST BLEEKER ST. REMODEL333 WEST BLEEKER STASPEN, CO 81611PARCEL ID# 273512401401-
RELOCATION SITE PLAN1
HPC2 1/8" = 1'-0"
NORTHP122 IV.A.
POB 3662
Aspen, CO 81612
Phone 720 481 7353
Re: 333 W Bleeker Street - HPC Relocation Plan
November 27, 2018
Please refer to drawing HPC2 for the site relocation plan that goes with this written
description. The historic house will be relocated on site. The garage will also be
relocated on site.
The first step of the relocation will begin with the removal of trees as agreed with
the City of Aspen Parks Department and the HPC. Please refer to drawing HPC2 for
which trees will be removed.
The historic garage will be the first structure to be moved. It will be temporarily
relocated onto the city right of way (ROW), betrween the 3rd Street curb and the
property line, and will need a temporary encroachment license for the duration of
construction. The garage will be relocated along the alley to the extreme south
west corner of the ROW along 3rd Street as it junctions with the alley. Since the
garage will utilize a slab on grade foundation, it will be moved back into place along
the alley after the historic house has been moved into its final position.
In the alternative, the applicant may temporarily relocate the garage structure in
the manner described above but then set it back onto its new, on-site slab
foundation for use during the construction process for storage or materials, staging
purposes and/or as a construction office.
The historic house will be prepared for moving in accordance with the
recommendations of the house moving contractor. It is anticipated that this will
involve stripping out all finish floor and wall materials down to the wood studs, roof
beams and floor joists, as approved by HPC. All appliances, cabinets, plumbing
fixtures, lighting, and other interior finish items will be removed as necessary and
salvaged per the demolition plan. Cross bracing will be installed for the move to
secure the house per the General Contractor and Structural Engineer so that walls
do not rack or move. All utilities will be disconnected.
Steel beams supplied by the house moving contractor will run through the historic
house stone foundation and just below the existing floor joists. The house and steel
supporting beams will be moved north towards Bleeker St and rotated to fit
between the existing tress along Bleeker St. and located within the city ROW. The
owner will rent 3 City of Aspen parking spaces along Bleeker St while the historic
house is temporarily located on Bleeker St during foundation construction. A ROW
temporary encroachment license will also be required from the COA Engineering
Department.
R A L L Y D U P P S
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
a r c h I t e c t
P123
IV.A.
The house and supporting beams are placed on temporary cribbing located at key
structural points along the perimeter of the foundation per the COA Parks
Department, the house relocation contractor and the Structural Engineer.
After the house is in place, micropiles will be installed as required to stabilize the
site and make it ready for construction of the foundation. After the micropiles have
been installed, excavation can begin, followed by foundation construction. In
addition to foundation construction, drywells and foundation drains will be installed
per the civil engineer and city of Aspen Engineering Department.
The slab will be poured and structural steel will be erected after the foundation and
footers are complete. After the steel has been erected, the house relocation
contractor will rotate the historic house into position and slide the historic house
into its final position on the new foundation.
These steps for relocation will need verification by the General Contractor using a
Construction Management Plan to be approved by the COA Engineering and Building
Departments. The particulars of the above-described relocation plans remain
subject to modification with staff and HPC monitor approval once the details of the
final approval become known and better understood.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns I can address.
Thank you,
Ralph Dupps
P124
IV.A.
PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATIONEXISTING NORTH ELEVATIONP125
IV.A.
PROPOSED EAST ELEVATIONEXISTING EAST ELEVATIONP126
IV.A.
PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATIONEXISTING SOUTH ELEVATIONP127
IV.A.
PROPOSED WEST ELEVATIONEXISTING WEST ELEVATIONP128
IV.A.
PROPOSED NORTH WEST ELEVATIONEXISTING NORTH WEST ELEVATIONP129
IV.A.
PROPOSED SOUTH EAST ELEVATIONEXISTING SOUTH EAST ELEVATIONP130
IV.A.
Page 1 of 1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director
RE: Wireless Regulations Code Amendments
DATE: February 13, 2019
LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
This meeting is to review potential changes to the City’s Land Use Code. Pursuant to Land Use Code
Section 26.310, City Council is the final review authority for all code amendments. This meeting with
the Historic Preservation Commission is to provide the Commission with an update of these proposed
amendments, which are a response to changing state and federal regulations. Staff will provide an
update on the technical and legal aspects of the code amendment, as well as an overview of the current
direction of the amendments. This is not a public hearing, but is an opportunity for HPC to discuss the
policy and regulatory issues related to wireless requirements, and to provide general direction to staff.
DISCUSSION:
Both state and federal regulations regarding the powers local government have related to wireless
regulations have evolved over the last year. Specific timeframes related to a local government’s review
of wireless facilities have been imposed. State laws have evolved to allow wireless facilities to locate in
the right-of-way on city infrastructure, such as traffic lights and light poles. Exhibit A outlines these
issues and potential options in more details.
Attached is draft code language that attempts to address the immediate need to comply with state and
federal regulations. This language is not finalized, but gives an idea of the complexity and
comprehensive nature these amendments will need to be in order to address the changing regulatory
landscape. Additional work to ensure this technology meets Aspen’s community aesthetic standards
will be needed and can be completed following the initial code amendment.
REFERRALS:
A work session with City Council was held on January 22, 2019. City staff have also been in
communication with wireless providers. Referral meetings with P&Z and HPC (this meeting) are
scheduled in February. The P&Z meeting was held on February 5th, and generally the P&Z supported
establishment of spacing requirements, design guidelines, and working to conceal new wireless
infrastructure as much as possible.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A – January 22, 2019 Work Session Memo
Exhibit B – Draft code language
P131
IV.B.
Small Cell Wireless Infrastructure
Page 1 of 6
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Skadron and Aspen City Council
FROM: Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney
Paul Schultz, Information Technology Director
THRU: Sara Ott, Assistant City Manager
Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director
RE: Small Cell & Wireless Infrastructure Update
DATE: January 22, 2019
PURPOSE & REQUEST OF COUNCIL:
The purpose of this work session is to provide City Council an update regarding small cell
technology and federal and state rules changes that necessitate updates to the City’s wireless
infrastructure regulations, and to get initial direction on next steps.
SMALL CELL BACKGROUND:
Wireless Communications Service Providers (e.g., AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, Verizon) are
“densifying” their wireless networks by installing many additional smaller cell sites. The
demand for more bandwidth, desire to improve wireless coverage and capacity, and the ability to
more efficiently use wireless spectrum are driving wireless network densification. The latest
generation of wireless technology, called “5G” (for Fifth Generation) promises faster wireless
data rates, reduced latency (i.e., the time it takes for data to get from one place to another) and
the ability to support many more wireless connections (e.g., supporting Smart Cities and the
“Internet of Things”).
5G deployments began in 2018 and are accelerating around the world, creating an even greater
demand for denser wireless networks and more small cells. These “small cells” can be on
buildings, light poles, mono-poles and can even be underground using special manhole covers. A
small cell site typically includes one or more antennas, radios, electrical connections and fiber
optic cable connections. Two out of four of the major wireless communications service providers
have already approached City of Aspen regarding small cell deployment.
Small cell infrastructure can be deployed tastefully and unobtrusively, or haphazardly and
intrusively. Community aesthetics, the integrity of historic districts, the character of commercial
and residential areas, and the natural character of parks may be undermined by the installation of
this above-grade infrastructure. Communities have approached regulations in a variety of ways,
some of which could be used as models for the City of Aspen, and others are a lesson in what
waiting to address the changing wireless landscape could result in.
P132
IV.B.
SMALL CELL EXAMPLES:
Staff is concerned that waiting to address this emerging technology could result in wireless
infrastructure that is inconsistent with Aspen’s small town and historic character. A potential
worst-case scenario would be unsightly
lowest priced contractor for each
traditional block length in Aspen is 270 feet. Additionally, e
cable (to carry the wireless data to and from the Small C
and/or boring for conduit, fiber optic cabling and electrical cabling
significant construction impacts.
The images below illustrate how th
implemented.
With some updates to the City’s review process and design requirements, it is possible to allow
5G small cell technology that is more consistent with Aspen’s
result in improved wireless communication services
Small Cell Wireless Infrastructure
Staff is concerned that waiting to address this emerging technology could result in wireless
infrastructure that is inconsistent with Aspen’s small town and historic character. A potential
case scenario would be unsightly wireless infrastructure installed every 150
lowest priced contractor for each wireless communications service provider.
traditional block length in Aspen is 270 feet. Additionally, each cell site requires fiber optic
wireless data to and from the Small Cell) and electricity, as well as trenching
and/or boring for conduit, fiber optic cabling and electrical cabling which can
The images below illustrate how this technology can look when updated regulations are not
Unsightly Small Cells
With some updates to the City’s review process and design requirements, it is possible to allow
5G small cell technology that is more consistent with Aspen’s community character. This could
wireless communication services delivered via compact wireless
Small Cell Wireless Infrastructure
Page 2 of 6
Staff is concerned that waiting to address this emerging technology could result in wireless
infrastructure that is inconsistent with Aspen’s small town and historic character. A potential
wireless infrastructure installed every 150 feet by the
For reference, a
ach cell site requires fiber optic
as well as trenching
which can all result in
is technology can look when updated regulations are not
With some updates to the City’s review process and design requirements, it is possible to allow
community character. This could
compact wireless
P133
IV.B.
infrastructure that leverages existing built infrastructure,
communications service providers
Camouflaging or “stealthing” wireless infrastructure may be accomplished using technologies
including radio frequency (RF) “transparent” materials that can be matched to a wide variety of
textures and colors. The images below illustrate how other communities have achieved this type
of camouflaging.
Camouflaged Building
Pole-mounted wireless infrastructure
or underground next to poles, as illustrated in the images below
palate or style of pole that providers would be
method. For instance, this could become part of the City’s standard light pole des
Small Cell Pole Concealment & Example Poles
Small Cell Wireless Infrastructure
existing built infrastructure, that is shared by all wireless
roviders, and that is appropriately hidden and/or camouflaged
Camouflaging or “stealthing” wireless infrastructure may be accomplished using technologies
including radio frequency (RF) “transparent” materials that can be matched to a wide variety of
images below illustrate how other communities have achieved this type
Camouflaged Building-Mounted Small Cells
mounted wireless infrastructure may be concealed by locating wireless infrastructure inside,
, as illustrated in the images below. The City could adopt a standard
palate or style of pole that providers would be “pre-approved” to use if utilizing this location
method. For instance, this could become part of the City’s standard light pole des
Small Cell Pole Concealment & Example Poles
Small Cell Wireless Infrastructure
Page 3 of 6
ireless
appropriately hidden and/or camouflaged.
Camouflaging or “stealthing” wireless infrastructure may be accomplished using technologies
including radio frequency (RF) “transparent” materials that can be matched to a wide variety of
images below illustrate how other communities have achieved this type
may be concealed by locating wireless infrastructure inside,
The City could adopt a standard
to use if utilizing this location
method. For instance, this could become part of the City’s standard light pole design.
P134
IV.B.
In some cases, like smaller areas
infrastructure can be implemented entirely underground
special manhole cover.[1] This may be an option
pedestrian malls, where pole mounted or building camouflage applications are more difficult or
less appropriate given historic and community context
Underground Small Cell Components &
Additional creative camouflaged Small Cell designs include “rocks”, flagpoles and
towers” in addition to more common “pine trees”, “cactuses”, etc.
considered for open space or landscaped areas.
Creative
Small Cell Wireless Infrastructure
In some cases, like smaller areas where wireless users congregate, low power wireless
infrastructure can be implemented entirely underground using an antenna module underneath a
This may be an option to explore in Aspen for areas such as the
pedestrian malls, where pole mounted or building camouflage applications are more difficult or
less appropriate given historic and community context.
Underground Small Cell Components & Example Location
Additional creative camouflaged Small Cell designs include “rocks”, flagpoles and
in addition to more common “pine trees”, “cactuses”, etc. These options could be
considered for open space or landscaped areas.
Creative Camouflaged Small Cells
Small Cell Wireless Infrastructure
Page 4 of 6
, low power wireless
an antenna module underneath a
in Aspen for areas such as the
pedestrian malls, where pole mounted or building camouflage applications are more difficult or
Example Location
Additional creative camouflaged Small Cell designs include “rocks”, flagpoles and “water
These options could be
P135
IV.B.
Small Cell Wireless Infrastructure
Page 5 of 6
LEGAL BACKGROUND:
The legal landscape surrounding rapidly-changing wireless infrastructure has also evolved in the
last few years. With respect to small cell infrastructure in particular, there have been several
recent developments in federal and state law under which Aspen must evaluate its wireless
infrastructure code, which was adopted before small cells existed.
First, state law, through HB 1193, was amended in 2017 to create a use-by-right for small cell
facilities in any zone district (subject to local police powers) and shortens the timeframe within
which the City must act on an application for a small cell facility to 90 days. It also gives
providers the right to locate or collocate small cell facilities on a City’s lights poles, traffic
signals, and similar infrastructure in the City’s rights-of-way, also subject to local police powers.
More recently, the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) approved new rules, which took
effect January 14, 2019 imposing new “shot clocks” for the processing of small cell applications
(within 90 days of the date the application is submitted for new stand-alone facilities or 60 days
for facilities collocated on city infrastructure) and limiting the permit fees municipalities can
charge providers, among other regulations. The new FCC order also clarifies that municipalities
are prohibited from adopting regulations that “materially inhibit” a particular small wireless
facility deployment.
This changing technology and legal landscape requires the City to quickly address wireless
regulations to be consistent with new laws while still protecting Aspen’s design and aesthetic
standards.
CODE AMENDMENT OPTIONS:
The City has engaged a telecommunications attorney to evaluate our current code and make
suggested changes. A first draft with his changes is attached as Exhibit A. This draft is in no
way intended to be a final draft, but merely a starting point to facilitate a discussion with Council
about where our wireless infrastructure code may need some change. Based upon feedback from
Council at the work session, staff will work with our attorneys to draft a code that addresses the
concerns and needs of Council, the community, and stakeholders. Staff will also be discussing
this issue with P&Z and HPC in February.
To summarize, the suggested code amendments mainly address the following:
- Adding and changing pertinent definitions to be consistent with state and federal law and
to reflect new technology like small cells
- Amending review procedures for specific wireless facilities requests, consistent with state
and federal law, including “Eligible Facilities Requests,” and requests for small cell
facilities in the public right-of-way, both of which require an expedited review process
pursuant to state and/or federal law. Based on direction from outside counsel, the review
process for these applications should be administrative.
P136
IV.B.
Small Cell Wireless Infrastructure
Page 6 of 6
- Adding additional design standards for wireless communications facilities, including
small cell facilities (see Section F. of proposed code amendments titled “Design
Standards”) that emphasize camouflaging and collocation of infrastructure. In addition to
adding design standards in our code, the City may also adopt additional supplemental
design guidelines, so long as they are published.
Notably, pursuant to the FCC order, local governments have until April 14, 2019 to adopt design
standards for small cell facilities, which means the City would need to pass an ordinance
adopting new code amendments with design standards by March 11, 2019 at the latest.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the city work with Wireless Communications Service and Technology
Providers to share/co-locate wireless infrastructure, leveraging existing city assets (e.g.,
buildings, electrical lines, fiber optic cables, conduit, light pole locations and manholes) for
wireless infrastructure and use appropriate wireless infrastructure stealthing technologies.
Staff also recommends continued work on code amendments to address small cell facilities, with
a goal of adopting the code amendments in late February/early March. In conjunction with the
code amendments, staff will also begin to review potential “master license agreements” (MLAs),
that would be executed between individual carriers and the City for use of the public rights-of-
way for small cells and which set forth the basic parameters for the application, permitting, and
designs that a carrier may use in the rights-of-way.
Staff also desires to meet with vendors to identify preferred designs that may be “pre-approved”
for small cells and begin the process of drafting design guidelines.
Attached is draft code language that addresses the immediate need to comply with state and
federal regulations. Additional work to ensure this technology meets Aspen’s community
aesthetic standards will be needed and can be completed following the initial code amendment.
To develop guidelines sufficient to protect community aesthetics, Community Development staff
will require outside assistance from consultants in the development of FCC-compliant design
guidelines to complement the design guidelines in the new wireless infrastructure code. This
will require a Spring 2019 Supplemental of at least $50,000 if Council desires this work to be
completed this calendar year.
QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL:
· Does Council support moving forward with the development and adoption of updated
regulations for small cell infrastructure in the City of Aspen?
· What are Council’s primary questions and concerns with the potential impacts of small
cell deployment in the community?
References
[1] M:\city\IT\Projects\Primelime-Wireless_Infrastructure_Info\Aspen Wireless Network
Infrastructure Possibilities v3.pdf
P137
IV.B.
EXHIBIT B - Draft Wireless Regulations
1
Definitions from 26.104.100
Sec. : DEFINITIONS
All words used in this Section, except where specifically defined herein, shall carry their
customary meanings when not inconsistent with the context. Definitions contained elsewhere in
this Code shall apply to this Section unless modified herein.
Accessory Equipment. Any equipment serving or being used in conjunction with a Wireless
Communications Facility (WCF), including, but not limited to, utility or transmission
equipment, power supplies, generators, batteries, cables, equipment buildings, cabinets and
storage sheds, shelters or other structures.
Alternative Tower Structure. Man-made trees, clock towers, water towers, bell steeples, light
poles, traffic signals, buildings, and similar alternative design mounting structures that are
intended to be compatible with the natural setting and surrounding structures, and camouflage or
conceals the presence of antennas or towers so as to make them architecturally compatible with
the surrounding area pursuant to this Section. This term also includes any antenna or antenna
array attached to an Alternative Tower Structure and a Replacement Pole. A stand-alone
Monopole in the Public Right-of-Way that accommodates Small Cell Wireless Facilities is
considered an Alternative Tower Structure to the extent it meets the camouflage and
concealment standards of this Chapter.
Antenna. Any device used to transmit and/or receive radio or electromagnetic waves such as,
but not limited to panel antennas, reflecting discs, microwave dishes, whip antennas, directional
and non-directional antennas consisting of one or more elements, multiple anten na
configurations, or other similar devices and configurations. Any exterior apparatus designed for
telephone, radio, or television communications through the sending and/or receiving of wireless
communications signals.
Base Station. A structure or equipment at a fixed location that enables Federal Communications
Commission ("FCC") licensed or authorized wireless communications between user equipment
and a communications network. The definition of base station does not include or encompass a
tower as defined herein or any equipment associated with a tower. Base station includes, without
limitation:
(1) Equipment associated with wireless communications services such as private broadcast,
and public safety services, as well as unlicensed wireless services and fixed wireless services
such as microwave backhaul that, at the time the relevant application is filed with the city
pursuant to this chapter has been reviewed and approved under the applicable zoning or siting
process, or under another state or local regulatory review process, even if the structure was not
built for the sole or primary purpose of providing such support; and
(2) Radio transceivers, antennas, coaxial or fiber-optic cable, regular and backup power
supplied, and comparable equipment, regardless of technological configuration (including
distributed antenna systems and small-cell networks) that, at the time the relevant application is
filed with the city pursuant to title 26 of the Code has been reviewed and approved under the
P138
IV.B.
2
EXHIBIT B
applicable zoning or siting process, or under another state or local regulatory review process,
even if the structure was not built for the sole or primary purpose of providing such support.
The definition of base station does not include any structure that, at the time the application is
filed with the city under this chapter, does not support or house equipment described herein in
sub-paragraphs 1 and 2 of this definition.
Camouflage, Concealment, Or Camouflage Design Techniques. A Wireless Communication
Facility (“WCF”) is camouflaged or utilizes Camouflage Design Techniques when any measures
are used in the design and siting of Wireless Communication Facilities with the intent to
minimize or eliminate the visual impact of such facilities to surrounding uses. A WCF site
utilizes Camouflage Design Techniques when it (i) is integrated in an outdoor fixture such as a
flagpole, or (ii) uses a design which mimics and is consistent with the nearby natural, or
architectural features (such as an artificial tree) or is incorporated into (including, without
limitation, being attached to the exterior of such facilities and painted to match it) or replaces
existing permitted facilities (including without limitation, stop signs or other traffic signs or
freestanding light standards) so that the presence of the WCF is not readily apparent.
Collocation. (1) mounting or installing a WCF on a pre-existing structure, and/or (2) modifying
a structure for the purpose of mounting or installing a WCF on that structure. Provided that, for
purposes of Eligible Facilities Requests, “Collocation” means the mounting or installation of
transmission equipment on an Eligible Support Structure for the purpose of transmitting and/or
receiving radio frequency signals for communications purposes.
Director. The Community Development Director, or his or her designee.
Eligible Facilities Request. Any request for modification of an Existing Tower that does not
Substantially Change the physical dimensions of such Tower involving: (i) collocation of new
Transmission Equipment, (ii) removal of Transmission Equipment, or (iii) replacement of
Transmission Equipment.
Eligible Support Structure. Any Tower or Base Station as defined in this Section, provided
that it is existing at the time the relevant application is filed with the city under this Section.
Existing Tower or Base Station. A constructed Tower or Base Station that was reviewed,
approved, and lawfully constructed in accordance with all requirements of applicable law as of
the time of an eligible facilities request, provided that a tower that exists as a legal, non-
conforming use and was lawfully constructed is existing for purposes of this definition.
Micro Cell Facility. A small wireless facility that is no larger than 24 inches in length, 15
inches in width, 12 inches in height, and that has an exterior antenna, if any, that is no more than
eleven inches in length.
Monopole. A single, freestanding pole-type structure supporting one or more Antennas.
P139
IV.B.
3
EXHIBIT B
Public right-of way. A dedicated strip or other area of land on or over which the City and/or
public may travel or use for passage and within which public utilities and/or streets, alleys,
trails, sidewalks and other ways may be installed.
Replacement Pole. A newly constructed and permitted traffic signal, utility pole, street light,
flagpole, electric distribution, or street light poles or other similar structure of proportions and
of equal height or such other height that would not constitute a Substantial Change to a pre-
existing pole or structure in order to support a WCF or Small Cell Facility or to accommodate
collocation and remove the pre-existing pole or structure.
Setback. An area commencing and extending horizontally and vertically from a lot line,
property line or other boundary which shall be unoccupied and unobstructed from the ground
upward, excepting trees, vegetation and/or fences or other structures or projections as allowed.
(See Supplementary Regulations — Section 26.575.040, Yards).
Small Cell Facility. A WCF where each Antenna is located inside an enclosure of no more than
three cubic feet in volume or, in the case of an Antenna that has exposed elements, the antenna
and all of its exposed elements could fit within an imaginary enclosure of no more than three
cubic feet; and primary equipment enclosures are no larger than seventeen cubic feet in volume.
The following associated equipment may be located outside of the primary equipment enclosure
and, if so located, is not included in the calculation of equipment volume: electric meter,
concealment, telecommunications demarcation box, ground-based enclosure, back-up power
systems, grounding equipment, power transfer switch and cut-off switch. Small cells may be
attached to Alternate Tower Structures, Replacement Pole, and Base Stations.
Substantial Change to a WCF. A modification substantially changes the physical dimensions
of an Eligible Support Structure if after the modification, the structure meets any of the following
criteria:
(i) For Towers, other than Alternative Tower Structures or Towers in the Right-of-Way, it
increases the height of the Tower by more than ten percent (10%) or by the height of one
(1) additional antenna array, with separation from the nearest existing antenna not to
exceed twenty feet, whichever is greater; for other Eligible Support Structures, it
increases the height of the structure by more than ten percent (10%) or more than ten (10)
feet, whichever is greater;
(ii) For Towers, other than Towers in the Right-of-Way, it involves adding an appurtenance
to the body of the Tower that would protrude from the Tower more than twenty (20) feet,
or more than the width of the Tower Structure at the level of the appurtenance, whichever
is greater; for Eligible Support Structures, it involves adding an appurtenance to the body
of the structure that would protrude from the side of the structure by more than six (6)
feet;
(iii) For any Eligible Support Structure, it involves installation of more than the standard
number of new equipment cabinets for the technology involved, but not to exceed four
cabinets; or
P140
IV.B.
EXHIBIT B
4
(iv) For Towers in the Right-of-Way and Base Stations, it involves installation of any new
equipment cabinets on the ground if there are no pre-existing ground cabinets associated
with the structure, or else involves installation of ground cabinets that are more than ten
percent (10%) larger in height or overall volume than any other existing, individual
ground cabinets associated with the structure;
(v) For any Eligible Support Structure, it entails any excavation or deployment outside the
current Site;
(vi) For any Eligible Support Structure, it would defeat the concealment elements of the
Eligible Support Structure. For purposes of this definition, any change that undermines
concealment elements of an eligible support structure shall be interpreted as defeating the
concealment elements of that structure; or
(vii) For any Eligible Support Structure, it does not comply with conditions associated with
the siting approval of the construction or modification of the Eligible Support Structure
equipment, unless the non-compliance is due to an increase in height, increase in width,
addition of cabinets, or new excavation that would not exceed the thresholds identified in
paragraphs (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) of this Definition. For purposes of determining whether a
Substantial Change exists, changes in height are measured from the original support
structure in cases where deployments are or will be separated horizontally, such as on
buildings’ rooftops; in other circumstances, changes in height are measured from the
dimensions of the tower or base station, inclusive of originally approved appurtenances
and any modifications that were approved prior to February 22, 2012.
Tower. Any structure that is designed and constructed for the sole or primary purpose of
supporting one or more any FCC-licensed or authorized Antennas and their associated facilities,
including structures that are constructed for wireless communications services including, but not
limited to, private, broadcast, and public safety services, as well as unlicensed wireless services
and fixed wireless services such as microwave backhaul, and the associated site. The term
includes self-supporting lattice towers, guyed towers, monopole towers, radio and television
transmission towers, microwave towers, common carrier towers, cellular telephone towers,
Alternative Tower Structures and the like.
Transmission Equipment. Equipment that facilitates transmission for any FCC licensed or
authorized wireless communication service, including, but not limited to, radio transceivers,
antennas, coaxial or fiber-optic cable, and regular and backup power supply. The term includes
equipment associated with wireless communications services including, but not limited to,
private, broadcast, and public safety services, as well as unlicensed wireless services and fixed
wireless services such as microwave backhaul.
Wireless Communications Facility Or WCF. A facility used to provide personal wireless
services as defined at 47 U.S.C. Section 332 (c)(7)(C); or wireless information services
provided to the public or to such classes of users as to be effectively available directly to the
public via licensed or unlicensed frequencies; or Smart City, Internet of Things, wireless utility
monitoring and control services. A WCF does not include a facility entirely enclosed within a
P141
IV.B.
5
EXHIBIT B
permitted building where the installation does not require a modification of the exterior of the
building; nor does it include a device attached to a building, used for serving that building only
and that is otherwise permitted under other provisions of the Code. A WCF includes an
Antenna or Antennas, including without limitation, direction, omni-directional and parabolic
antennas, support equipment, Alternative Tower Structures, and Towers. It does not include the
support structure to which the WCF or its components are attached if the use of such structures
for WCFs is not the primary use. The term does not include mobile transmitting devices used
by wireless service subscribers, such as vehicle or hand-held radios/telephones and their
associated transmitting Antennas, nor does it include other facilities specifically excluded from
the coverage of this Section.
26.575.130 Wireless communications facilities and equipment
Intent and purpose: The purpose of this chapter is to regulate the placement, construction, and
modification of towers and wireless communications facilities to protect the health, safety and
welfare of the public, while at the same time not unreasonably interfering with the development
of a competitive wireless communications marketplace in the city.
A. In order to accommodate the communications needs of residents and businesses while
protecting the public health, safety, and general welfare of the community, the City Council
finds that these regulations are necessary to:
1. Provide for the managed development and installation, maintenance, modification, and
removal of wireless communications infrastructure in the City with the fewest number of
WCFs to complete a network without unreasonably discriminating against wireless
communications providers of functionally equivalent services including all of those who
install, maintain, operate, and remove WCFs;
2. Promote and protect the public health, safety, and welfare by reducing the visibility of
WCFs to the fullest extent possible through techniques including, but not limited to,
camouflage design techniques, collocation and undergrounding of WCFs and the
equipment associated therewith;
3. Encourage the deployment of smaller, less intrusive WCFs to supplement existing larger
WCFs;
4. Encourage strongly the collocation of WCFs at new and existing locations; and
5. Effectively manage WCFs in the public Right-of-Way.
6. Preserve the character and aesthetics of areas which are in close proximity to WCFs and
equipment by minimizing the visual, aesthetic and safety impacts of such facilities
through careful design, siting and screening; placement, construction or modification of
such facilities;
P142
IV.B.
EXHIBIT B
6
7. Protect the health, safety and welfare of persons living or working in the area
surrounding such WCFs and equipment from possible adverse environmental effects
(within the confines of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996) related to the
placement, construction or modification of such facilities;
8. Provide development which is compatible in appearance with allowed uses of the
underlying zone;
9. Facilitate the City's permitting process to encourage fair and meaningful competition
and, to the greatest extent possible, extend to all people in all areas of the City high
quality wireless telecommunication services at reasonable costs to promote the public
welfare; and
10. Encourage the joint use and clustering of antenna sites and structures, when practical, to
help reduce the number of such facilities which may be required in the future to service
the needs of customers and thus avert unnecessary proliferation of facilities on private
and public property.
B.Applicability. All applications for the installation or development of WCFs and/or equipment
must receive building permits, prior to installation. Prior to the issuance of appropriate
building permits, WCFs and/or equipment shall be reviewed for approval by the Community
Development Director in conformance with the provisions and criteria of this Section. WCFs
and equipment subject to the provisions and criteria of this Section include without limitation,
WCFs within the Public Rights of Way, cellular telephone, paging, enhanced specialized
mobile radio (ESMR), personal communication services (PCS), commercial mobile radio
service (CMRS) and other wireless commercial telecommunication devices and all associated
structures and equipment including transmitters, antennas, monopoles, towers, masts and
microwave dishes, cabinets and equipment rooms. These provisions and criteria do not apply
to noncommercial satellite dish antennae, radio and television transmitters and antennae
incidental to residential use. All references made throughout this Section, to any of the
devices to which this Section is applicable, shall be construed to include all other devices to
which this Section 26.575.130 is applicable.
C.Operational Standards
1. Federal Requirements. All WCFs shall meet the current standards and regulations of the
FAA, the FCC and any other agency of the federal government with the authority to regulate
WCFs, including, without limitation, the requirement that WCFs shall not present a hazard to
air navigation under Part 77, Federal Aviation, Federal Aviation Regulations. If such
standards and regulations are changed, then the owners of the WCF shall bring such facility
into compliance with such revised standards and regulations within the time period mandated
by the controlling federal agency. Failure to meet such revised standards and regulations shall
constitute grounds for the removal of the WCF at the WCF owner’s expense.
2. Radio Frequency Standards. All WCFs shall comply with federal standards for radio
frequency emissions. If concerns regarding compliance with radio frequency emissions
standards for a WCF have been made to the City, the City may request that the owner or
operator of the WCF provide information demonstrating compliance. If such information
P143
IV.B.
7
EXHIBIT B
suggests, in the reasonable discretion of the City, that the WCF may not be in compliance, the
City may request and the owner or operator of the WCF shall submit a project implementation
report which provides cumulative field measurements of radio frequency emissions of all
antennas installed at the subject site, and which compares the results with established federal
standards. If, upon review, the City finds that the facility does not meet federal standards, the
City may require corrective action within a reasonable period of time, and if not corrected,
may require removal of the WCF pursuant to paragraph (A) above. Any reasonable costs
incurred by the City, including reasonable consulting costs to verify compliance with these
requirements, shall be paid by the owner of the WCF.
3. Signal Interference. All WCFs shall be designed and sited, consistent with applicable
federal regulations, so as not to cause interference with the normal operation of radio,
television, telephone and other communication services utilized by adjacent residential and
non-residential properties; nor shall any such facilities interfere with any public safety
communications. The Applicant shall provide a written statement from a qualified radio
frequency engineer, certifying that a technical evaluation of existing and proposed facilities
indicates no potential interference problems and shall allow the City to monitor interference
levels with public safety communications during this process. Additionally, the Applicant
shall notify the City at least ten calendar days prior to the introduction of new service or
changes in existing service, and shall allow the City to monitor interference levels with public
safety communications during the testing process.
4. License to Use. The Applicant shall execute a license agreement with the City, granting
a non-exclusive license to use the Public Right-of-Way. Attachment of WCFs on an existing
traffic signal, street light pole, or similar structure shall require written evidence of a license,
or other legal right or approval, to use such structure by its owner.
5. Operation and Maintenance. To ensure the structural integrity of WCFs, the owner of a
WCF shall ensure that it is maintained in compliance with the standards contained in
applicable local building and safety codes. If upon inspection, the City concludes that a WCF
fails to comply with such codes and constitutes a danger to persons or property, then, upon
written notice being provided to the owner of the WCF, the owner shall have 30 days from the
date of notice to bring such WCF into compliance. Upon good cause shown by the owner, the
City’s Chief Building Official may extend such compliance period not to exceed 90 days from
the date of said notice. If the owner fails to bring such WCF into compliance within said time
period, the City may remove such WCF at the owner’s expense.
6. Abandonment and Removal. If a WCF has not been in use for a period of three months,
the owner of the WCF shall notify the City of the non-use and shall indicate whether re-use is
expected within the ensuing three months. Any WCF that is not operated for a continuous
period of six months shall be considered abandoned. The City, in its sole discretion, may
require an abandoned WCF to be removed. The owner of such WCF shall remove the same
within 30 days of receipt of written notice from the City. If such WCF is not removed within
said 30 days, the City may remove it at the owner’s expense and any approved permits for the
WCF shall be deemed to have expired. Additionally, the City, in its sole discretion, shall not
approve any new WCF application until the Applicant who is also the owner or operator of
P144
IV.B.
8
EXHIBIT B
any such abandoned WCF has removed such WCF or payment for such removal has been
made to the City.
7. Hazardous Materials. No hazardous materials shall be permitted in association with
WCFs, except those necessary for the operations of the WCF and only in accordance with all
applicable laws governing such materials.
8. Collocation. No WCF owner or operator shall unreasonably exclude a
telecommunications competitor from using the same facility or location. Upon request by the
Community Development Department, the owner or operator shall provide evidence
explaining why Collocation is not possible at a particular facility or site.
D.Review Procedures and Requirements. No new WCF shall be constructed and no
Collocation or modification to any WCF may occur except after a written request from an
applicant, reviewed and approved by the City in accordance with this Chapter. All WCFs
except Eligible Facilities Requests which are reviewed under subsection [XX] of this Section,
shall be reviewed pursuant to the following procedures.
1. Review Procedures for certain WCFs, including Base Stations, Alternative Tower
Structures, and Alternative Tower Structures within Public Rights-of-Way, but excepting
Eligible Facilities Requests, and Small Cell Facilities in the Right-of-Way. In all zoning
districts, applications for these WCF facilities shall be reviewed by the Community
Development Department for conformance to this Section and using the Design Review
procedures set forth in Section _______. For WCFs in the rights-of-way that are found to have
a significant visual impact (e.g.. proximity to historical sites, obstructing views), be
incompatible with the structure or surrounding area, or not meet the intent of these provisions,
the Community Development Department may refer the application to Planning Commission
for a Use by Special Review determination.
2. Review Procedures for Towers. In all zoning districts, Towers, other than those defined
or excepted in (1) above, must apply for Use by Special Review approval. These WCFs shall
be reviewed for conformance using the procedures set forth in Section ________. All
applications for Towers shall demonstrate that other alternative design options, such as using
Base Stations or Alternative Tower Structures, are not viable options as determined by the
City.
3. Review Procedures for Eligible Facilities Requests.
a) In all zoning districts, Eligible Facilities Requests shall be considered a
permitted use, subject to administrative review. The City shall prepare, and
from time to time revise, and make publicly available, an application form
which shall require submittal of information necessary for the City to consider
whether an application is an Eligible Facilities Request. Such required
information may include, without limitation, whether the project:
i Constitutes a Substantial Change;
P145
IV.B.
EXHIBIT B
9
ii Violates a generally applicable law, regulation, or other rule
codifying objective standards reasonably related to public health and
safety.
The application shall not require the applicant to demonstrate a need or
business case for the proposed modification or Collocation.
b) Upon receipt of an application for an Eligible Facilities Request pursuant
to this Section, the Community Development Department shall review such
application to determine whether the application so qualifies.
c) Timeframe for Review. Subject to the tolling provisions of subparagraph
d. below, within 60 calendar days of the date on which an applicant submits an
application seeking approval under this Section, the City shall approve the
application unless it determines that the application is not covered by this
Subsection, or otherwise in non-conformance with applicable codes.
d) Tolling of the Timeframe for Review. The 60-day review period begins
to run when the application is filed, and may be tolled only by mutual
agreement of the City and the applicant, or in cases where the Community
Development Department determines that the application is incomplete:
i To toll the timeframe for incompleteness, the City must provide
written notice to the applicant within 30 business days of receipt of
the application, specifically delineating all missing documents or
information required in the application;
ii The timeframe for review begins running again the following
business day after the applicant makes a supplemental written
submission in response to the City’s notice of incompleteness; and
iii Following a supplemental submission, the City will notify
the applicant within ten (10) business days that if the supplemental
submission did not provide the information identified in the original
notice delineating missing information. The timeframe is tolled in
the case of second or subsequent notices pursuant to the procedures
identified in paragraph (d)(1). In the case of a second or subsequent
notice of incompleteness, the City may not specify missing
information or documents that were not delineated in the original
notice of incompleteness.
e) Failure to Act. In the event the City fails to act on a request seeking
approval for an Eligible Facilities Request under this Section within the
timeframe for review (accounting for any tolling), the request shall be deemed
granted. The request becomes effective when the applicant notifies the City in
writing after the review period has expired (accounting for any tolling) that the
application has been deemed granted.
P146
IV.B.
EXHIBIT B
10
f) Interaction with Telecommunications Act Section 332(c)(7). If the City
determines that the applicant’s request is not an Eligible Facilities Request as
delineated in this Chapter, the presumptively reasonable timeframe under
Section 332(c)(7) of the Telecommunication Act, as prescribed by the FCC’s
Shot Clock order, will begin to run from the issuance of the City’s decision that
the application is not a covered request. To the extent such information is
necessary, the City may request additional information from the applicant to
evaluate the application under Section 332(c)(7) reviews.
4. Review Procedures for Small Cell Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way.
a) Small Cell Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way may be approved
pursuant to a Master License Agreement or similar form of
authorization or individually in accordance with the provisions of this
subsection.
b) Within thirty (30) days of receipt of the application, the Director shall
provide written comments to the applicant determining completeness of
the application and setting forth any modifications required to complete
the application bring the proposal into full compliance with the
requirements of this Chapter.
c) The Director shall review the completed application for conformance with
the provisions in this Chapter may approve or deny an application within
90 days of the date the application is submitted for new stand-alone
facilities or 60 days for facilities collocated on city infrastructure.
1. To toll the timeframe for incompleteness, the City must provide
written notice to the Applicant within thirty (30) days of receipt of
the application, specifically delineating all missing documents or
information required in the application;
2. The timeframe for review continues running again when the
Applicant makes a supplemental written submission in response to
the City’s notice of incompleteness; and
3. Following a supplemental submission, the City will notify the
Applicant within ten (10) days that the supplemental submission
did not provide the information identified in the original notice
delineating missing information. The timeframe is tolled in the
case of second or subsequent notices pursuant to the procedures
identified in paragraph (b.)(1.). In the case of a second or
subsequent notice of incompleteness, the City may not specify
missing information or documents that were not delineated in the
original notice of incompleteness.
d) Consolidated applications. The City shall allow a wireless provider to file
P147
IV.B.
EXHIBIT B
11
a consolidated application for up to twenty small cell facilities and receive
a single permit for the small cell network. The City’s denial of any
individual small cell facility is not a basis to deny the application as a
whole or any other small cell facility incorporated within the consolidated
application.
5. General. Except for applications under subsections 3 and 4 above, pursuant to Section
26.304.020, the applicant shall conduct a pre-application conference with staff of the
Community Development Department. The planner shall then prepare a pre-application
summary describing the submission requirements and any other pertinent land use material,
the fees associated with the reviews and the review process in general.
6. Administrative review. Except for applications under subsections 3 and 4 above, after the pre-
application summary is received by the applicant, said applicant shall prepare an application
for review and approval by staff and the Community Development Director, respectively. In
order to proceed with additional land use reviews or obtain a development order, the
Community Development Director shall find the submitted development application consistent
with the provisions, requirements and standards of this Chapter.
7. Decision. Any decision to approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for a
WCF, shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence in a written record. The
applicant shall receive a copy of the decision.
8. Appeal of Director's determination. The Community Development Director may apply
reasonable conditions to the approval as deemed necessary to ensure conformance with
applicable review criteria in Subsection 26.575.130.F. If the Community Development
Director determines that the proposed WCFs and equipment do not comply with the review
criteria and denies the application or the applicant does not agree to the conditions of approval
determined by the Community Development Director, the applicant may apply for special
review (Chapter 26.430) by the Planning and Zoning Commission or, if applicable, by the
Historic Preservation Commission, and such application must be made within fifteen (15)
calendar days of the day on which the Community Development Director's decision is
rendered. All appeals shall require public hearings and shall be noticed by the applicant in
accordance with Paragraphs 26.304.060.E.3.a, b and c of this Code.
9. Historic Preservation Commission review. Proposals for the location of WCFs or equipment
on any historic site or structure or within any historic district, shall be reviewed by the Historic
Preservation Commission (HPC). Review of applications for WCFs and/or equipment by the
HPC shall replace the need for review by the Community Development Director. Likewise, if
the Historic Preservation Commission determines that the proposed WCFs and equipment do
not comply with the review criteria and denies the application or the applicant does not agree
to the conditions of approval determined by the Historic Preservation Commission, the
applicant may appeal the decision to the City Council, and such appeal must be filed within
fifteen (15) calendar days of the day on which the Historic Preservation Commission's
decision is rendered. All appeals shall require public hearings and shall be noticed by the
applicant in accordance with Paragraphs 26.304.060.E.3.a, b and c of this Code.
P148
IV.B.
EXHIBIT B
12
10. Building permit. A building permit application cannot be filed unless and until final land use
approval has been granted and a development order has been issued. When applying for
building permits, the applicant shall submit a signed letter acknowledging receipt of the
decision granting land use approval and his/her agreement with all conditions of approval, as
well as a copy of the signed document granting the land use approval for the subject building
permit application.
11. Right of Way permit. A Right of Way permit application cannot be filed unless and until final
land use approval has been granted and a development order has been issued. When applying
for Right of Way permits, the applicant shall submit a signed letter acknowledging receipt of
the decision granting land use approval and his/her agreement with all conditions of approval,
as well as a copy of the signed document granting the land use approval for the subject
building permit application.
12. Special review. An application requesting a variance from the review standards for height of
WCFs and/or equipment or an appeal of a determination made by the Community
Development Director, shall be processed as a special review in accordance with the common
development review procedures set forth in Chapter 26.304. The special review shall be
considered at a public hearing for which notice has been posted and mailed, pursuant to
Paragraphs 26.304.060.E.3.b and c.
Review is by the Planning and Zoning Commission. If the property is listed on the
Aspen inventory of historic landmark sites and structures or within a Historic
Overlay District and the application has been authorized for consolidation pursuant
to Chapter 26.304, the Historic Preservation Commission shall consider the special
review.
Such special review may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on
conformance with the following criteria:
a) Conformance with the applicable review standards of Subsection 26.575.130.F.
b) If the facility or equipment is located on property listed on the Aspen
inventory of historic landmark sites and structures or within any historic district,
then the applicable standards of Chapter 26.415 (Development involving the
Aspen inventory of historic landmark sites and structures or development in an
"H," Historic Overlay District) shall apply.
13.Application. An application for approval of new WCFs and modified or additional
WCFs that are not Eligible Facilities Requests or Small Cell Facilities Requests shall comply
with the submittal requirements applicable to conditional use reviews pursuant to Chapter
26.304, Common development review procedures and Chapter 26.425, Conditional uses of the
Aspen Municipal Code. Also, WCFs and equipment applications shall contain at least the
following additional information:
a) Site plan or plans drawn to a scale of one (1) inch equals ten (10) feet or
one (1) inch equals twenty (20) feet, including "before and after" photographs
(simulations) specifying the location of antennas, support structures,
transmission buildings and/or other accessory uses, access, parking, fences,
P149
IV.B.
EXHIBIT B
13
signs, lighting, landscaped areas and all adjacent land uses within one hundred
fifty (150) feet. Such plans and drawings should demonstrate compliance with
the review standards of this Section.
b) Site improvement survey including topography and vegetation showing
the current status, including all easements and vacated rights of way, of the
parcel certified (wet ink signed and stamped and dated within the past twelve
(12) months) by a registered land surveyor, licensed in the State.
c) Landscape plan drawn to a scale of one (1) inch equals ten (10) feet or
one (1) inch equals twenty (20) feet, including "before and after" photographs
(simulations) indicating size, spacing and type of plantings and indicating steps
to be taken to provide screening as required by the review standards of this
Section. The landscape plans shall also indicate the size, location and species
of all existing vegetation and whether each of those indicated are proposed for
removal (indicate proposed mitigation), relocation (indicate from and to) or
preservation. The planner can determine if a landscape plan is necessary; for
instance, when an antenna is to be attached to a building, this requirement may
be waived.
d) Elevation drawings or "before and after" photographs/drawings
simulating and specifying the location and height of antennas, support
structures, transmission buildings and/or other accessory uses, fences and signs.
e) Lighting plan and photometric study indicating the size, height, location
and wattage of all proposed outdoor lighting sources. This study must also
include a graphic indicating backlight, up-light, and glare of light from each
source/fixture. This requirement can be waived by the Community
Development Director if little or no outdoor lighting is proposed.
f) Structural integrity report from a professional engineer licensed in the
State documenting the following:
i Tower height and design, including technical, engineering,
economic and other pertinent factors governing selection of the
proposed design;
ii Total anticipated capacity of the structure, including number and
types of antennas which can be accommodated;
iii Failure characteristics of the tower and demonstration that
site and setbacks are of adequate size to contain debris in the event
of failure; and
iv Specific design and reconstruction plans to allow shared
use. This submission is required only in the event that the applicant
intends to share use of the facility by subsequent reinforcement and
reconstruction of the facility.
P150
IV.B.
EXHIBIT B
14
v Specific design considerations for impact or breakaway
characteristics as required in specific roadway right of ways
g) Evidence that an effort was made to locate on an existing wireless
telecommunication services facility site including coverage/ interference
analysis and capacity analysis and a brief statement as to other reasons for
success or no success.
h) Written documentation in the form of a signed affidavit demonstrating a
good faith effort in locating facilities in accordance with site selection order of
preference outline below.
i) Inventory of Existing Sites. Each applicant for a WCF shall provide to the
Community Development Department a narrative description and a map of the
applicant’s existing or currently proposed WCFs within the City, and outside of
the City within one mile of its boundaries. In addition, the applicant shall
inform the City generally of the areas in which it believes WCFs may need to be
located within the next three (3) years. The inventory list should identify the
site name, address, and a general description of the Facility (i.e., rooftop
Antennas and ground-mounted equipment). This provision is not intended to be
a requirement that the applicant submit its business plan, proprietary
information, or make commitments regarding locations of WCFs within the
City. This information will be used to assist in the City’s comprehensive
planning process, and promote Collocation by identifying areas in which WCFs
might be appropriately constructed for multiple users.
The Community Development Department may share such information with
other applicants applying for administrative approvals or conditional permits
under this section or other organizations seeking to locate WCFs within the
jurisdiction of the City, provided however, that the Community Development
Department, is not, by sharing such information, in any way representing or
warranting that such sites are available or suitable.
j) Abandonment and Removal. Affidavits shall be required from the owner
of the property and from the applicant acknowledging that each is responsible
for the removal of a WCF that is abandoned or is unused for a period of six (6)
months.
14. Compliance with Applicable Law. Notwithstanding the approval of an application for
new WCFs or Eligible Facilities Request as described herein, all work done pursuant to WCF
applications must be completed in accordance with all applicable building, structural,
engineering, electrical, and safety requirements as set forth in the Aspen Municipal Code and
any other applicable laws or regulations. In addition, all WCF applications shall comply with
the following:
a) Comply with any permit or license issued by a local, state, or federal
agency with jurisdiction of the WCF;
P151
IV.B.
EXHIBIT B
15
b) Comply with easements, covenants, conditions and/or restrictions on or
applicable to the underlying real property;
c) Be maintained in good working condition and to the standards established
at the time of application approval; and
d) Remain free from trash, debris, litter, graffiti, and other forms of
vandalism. Any damage shall be repaired as soon as practicable, and in no
instance more than ten calendar days from the time of notification by the City or
after discovery by the owner or operator of the Site. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, any graffiti on WCFs located in the Public Rights-of-Way or on
Public Property may be removed by the City at its discretion, and the owner
and/or operator of the WCF shall pay all costs of such removal within 30 days
after receipt of an invoice from the City.
E.General provisions and requirements. The following provisions apply to all WCFs and
equipment applications, sites and uses.
1. Prohibitions. Lattice towers (a structure, with three or four steel support legs, used to
support a variety of antennae; these towers generally range in height from sixty (60) to two
hundred (200) feet and are constructed in areas where great height is needed, microwave
antennas are required or where the weather demands a more structurally sound design) are
prohibited within the City.
Towers (support structures) shall be prohibited in the following Zone Districts:
Medium-Density Residential (R-6); Moderate-Density Residential (R-15, R-15A, R-
15B); Low-Density Residential (R-30); Residential Multi-Family (RMF, RMFA);
and Affordable Housing/Planned Unit Development (AH-1/PUD); Conservation (C);
Agricultural (Ag); Park (P); Open Space (OS); Rural Residential (RR).
All WCFs and equipment not prohibited by the preceding statements shall be allowed
in all other zone districts subject to review and approval by the Community
Development Director pursuant to the provisions, requirements and standards of this
Chapter, including consistency with the dimensional requirements of the underlying
zone district.
2. Site selection. Except for Small Cell Facilities in the Public Rights-of-Way, Wireless
communication facilities shall be located in the following order of preference:
First: Collocated on existing structures such as buildings, communication
towers, flagpoles, church steeples, cupolas, ball field lights,
nonornamental/antique street lights such as highway lighting, etc.
Second: In locations where the existing topography, vegetation, buildings or other
structures provide the greatest amount of screening.
Least: On vacant ground or highly visible sites without significant visual
mitigation and where screening/buffering is difficult at best.
P152
IV.B.
EXHIBIT B
16
3. Historic sites and structures. In addition to the applicable standards of Chapter 26.415, all of
the foregoing and following provisions and standards of this Chapter shall apply when
wireless telecommunication services, facilities and equipment are proposed on any historic site
or structure or within any historic district.
4. Public buildings, structures and rights-of-way. Leasing of public buildings, publicly owned
structures and/or public rights-of-way for the purposes of locating WCFs and/or equipment is
encouraged. In cases where a facility is proposed on City property that is not in the Public
Right-of-Way, specific locations and compensation to the City shall be negotiated in lease
agreements between the City and the provider on a case-by-case basis and would be subject to
all of the review criteria contained in this Section. Such agreements would not provide
exclusive arrangements that could tie up access to the negotiated sites or limit competition and
must allow for the possibility of Collocation with other providers as described in Subsection
F.2, below.
F. Design Standards. The requirements set forth in this Section shall apply to the location and
design of all WCFs governed by this Chapter as specified below; provided, however, that the
City may waive these requirements if it determines that the goals of this Chapter are better
served thereby. To that end, WCFs shall be designed and located to minimize the impact on the
surrounding neighborhood and to maintain the character and appearance of the City, consistent
with other provisions of this Code. Camouflage/Concealment. All WCFs and any Transmission
Equipment shall, to the extent possible, use Camouflage Design Techniques including, but not
limited to the use of industry best practices materials, colors, textures, screening,
undergrounding, landscaping, or other design options that will blend the WCF into the
surrounding natural setting and built environment.
a) Camouflage design may be of heightened importance where findings of
particular sensitivity are made (e.g. proximity to historic, natural, or aesthetically
significant structures or areas, views, and/or community features or facilities). In
such instances where WCFs are located in areas of high visibility, they shall (where
possible) be designed (e.g., placed underground, inside of existing structure,
depressed, or located behind earth berms) to minimize their profile.
b) The camouflage design may include the use of Alternative Tower Structures
should the Community Development Department determine that such design meets
the intent of this Code and the community is better served thereby.
c) All WCFs, such as Antennas, vaults, equipment rooms, equipment enclosures,
and tower structures shall be constructed out of non-reflective materials (visible
exterior surfaces only). And shall utilize a color palette that mimics or complements
adjacent structures.
2. Collation. Collocation of facilities with other providers is encouraged. Collocation can
be achieved as either building-mounted, roof-mounted or ground-mounted facilities. In
designing or retrofitting Towers, applicants are strongly encouraged to consider the
possibility of present or future co-location of other WCFs by structurally overbuilding in
P153
IV.B.
EXHIBIT B
17
order to handle the loading capacity of additional WCFs, for the use of the applicant and
for other wireless service providers to use as well. Applicants shall use good faith efforts
to negotiate lease rights to other users who desire to use an approved WCF site.
Collocation on an existing support structure shall be permitted as an accessory use.
Projections of any type on the monopole, which are not antennas, are strongly discouraged.
a) Multiple use facilities are encouraged as well. WCFs and equipment may be
integrated into existing, replacement of existing, or newly developed facilities that
are functional for other purposes, such as ball field lights, flagpoles, church steeples,
highway lighting, etc. All multiple use facilities shall be designed to make the
appearance of the antennae relatively inconspicuous.
b) The collocation requirement may be waived by the Community Development
Director upon a showing that either federal or state regulations prohibit the use, the
proposed use will interfere with the current use, the proposed use will interfere with
surrounding property or uses, the proposed user will not agree to reasonable terms or
such co-location is not in the best interest of the public health, safety or welfare.
Time needed to review a colocation request shall not greatly exceed that for a single
applicant.
3. Setbacks. At a minimum, except for WCFs in the Public Right-of-Way all WCFs shall
comply with the minimum setback requirements of the underlying zone district; if the
following requirements are more restrictive than those of the underlying zone district, the
more restrictive standard shall apply.
a) All facilities shall be located at least fifty (50) feet from any property lines, except
when roof-mounted (above the eave line of a building). Flat-roof mounted facilities
visible from ground level within one-hundred (100) feet of said property shall be
concealed to the extent possible within a compatible architectural element, such as a
chimney or ventilation pipe or behind architectural skirting of the type generally
used to conceal HVAC equipment. Pitched-roof-mounted facilities shall always be
concealed within a compatible architectural element, such as chimneys or ventilation
pipes.
b) Monopole towers shall be set back from any residentially zoned properties a
distance of at least three (3) times the monopole's height (i.e., a sixty (60) foot
setback would be required for a twenty (20) foot monopole) and the setback from
any public road, as measured from the right-of-way line, shall be at least equal to the
height of the monopole.
c) No wireless communication facility may be established within one-hundred (100)
feet of any existing, legally established wireless communication facility except when
located on the same building or structure.
d) No portion of any antenna array shall extend beyond the property lines or into any
front yard area. Guy wires shall not be anchored within any front yard area, but may
be attached to the building.
P154
IV.B.
EXHIBIT B
18
e) Any alternative tower utilizing existing facilities shall meet all Right-of-Way design
guidelines. Considerations should be given to the general safety of the traveling
public.
4. Height. The following restrictions shall apply:
a) WCFs not attached to a building shall not exceed twenty-five (25) feet in height
or the maximum permissible height of the given Zone District, whichever is more
restrictive.
b) Whenever a WCF antenna is attached to a building roof, the antenna and support
system for panel antennas shall not exceed five (5) feet above the highest portion of
that roof, including parapet walls and the antenna and support system for whip
antennas shall not exceed ten (10) feet in height as measured from the point of
attachment.
c) The Community Development Director may approve a taller antenna height than
stipulated in b. above if it is his or her determination that it is suitably camouflaged,
in which case an administrative approval may be granted.
d) If the Community Development Director determines that an antenna taller than
stipulated in b. above cannot be suitably camouflaged, then the additional height of
the antenna shall be reviewed pursuant to the process and standards (in addition to the
standards of this Section) of Chapter 26.430 (Special review).
e) Support and/or switching equipment shall be located inside the building, unless it
can be fully screened from view as provided in the "Screening" standards (26.475.130
and 26.575.130.F.5) below.
5. Architectural compatibility. WCFs shall be consistent with the architectural style of the
surrounding architectural environment (planned or existing) considering exterior materials,
roof form, scale, mass, color, texture and character. In addition:
a) If such WCF is accessory to an existing use, it shall be constructed out of materials
that are equal to or of better quality than the materials of the principal use and shall
exhibit compatible architectural characteristics to the principal use.
b) WCF equipment shall be of the same color as the building or structure to which or on
which such equipment is mounted or as required by the appropriate decision-making
authority (Community Development Director, Historic Preservation Commission,
Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, as applicable).
c) Whenever WCF equipment is mounted to the wall of a building or structure, the
equipment shall be mounted in a configuration designed to blend with and be
architecturally integrated into a building or other concealing structure, be as flush to
the wall as technically possible and shall not project above the wall on which it is
mounted.
P155
IV.B.
EXHIBIT B
19
d) Monopole support buildings, which house switching devices and/or other equipment
related to the use, operation or maintenance of the subject monopole, must be
designed to match the architecture of adjacent buildings. If no recent and/or
reasonable architectural theme is present, the Community Development Director may
require a particular design that is deemed to be suitable to the subject location.
e) All utilities associated with WCFs shall be underground (also see "Screening"
below).
6. Compatibility with the natural environment. WCFs shall be compatible with the
surrounding natural environment considering land forms, topography and other natural
features and shall not dominate the landscape or present a dominant silhouette on a ridge
line. In addition:
a) If a location at or near a mountain ridge line is selected, the applicant shall provide
computerized, three-dimensional, visual simulations of the WCF and other
appropriate graphics to demonstrate the visual impact on the view of the affected
ridges or ridge lines; an 8040 Greenline Review, pursuant to the provisions of
Section 26.435.030, may also be required.
b) Site disturbances shall be minimized and existing vegetation shall be preserved or
improved to the extent possible, unless it can be demonstrated that such disturbance
to vegetation and topography results in less visual impact to the surrounding area.
c) Surrounding view planes shall be preserved to the extent possible.
7. Screening. All WCF equipment, including accessory equipment, shall be screened from
adjacent and nearby public rights-of-way and public or private properties placing
equipment internal to the structure, by paint color selection, parapet walls, screen walls,
fencing, landscaping and/or berming in a manner compatible with the building's and/or
surrounding environment's design, color, materials, texture, land forms and/or topography,
as appropriate or applicable. In addition:
a) Whenever possible, if monopoles are necessary for the support of antennas, they
shall be located near existing utility poles while maintaining National Electric Safety
Code clearance and/or other governing regulations, trees or other similar objects;
consist of colors and materials that best blend with their background; and, have no
individual antennas or climbing spikes on the pole other than those approved by the
appropriate decision-making authority (Community Development Director, Historic
Preservation Commission, Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, as
applicable).
b) For ground-mounted facilities, landscaping may be required to achieve a total
screening effect at the base of such facilities or equipment in order to screen the
mechanical characteristics; a heavy emphasis on coniferous plants for year-round
screening may be required. Landscaping shall be of a type and variety capable of
growing within one (1) year to a landscape screen which satisfactorily obscures the
visibility of the facility.
P156
IV.B.
EXHIBIT B
20
c) Unless otherwise expressly approved, all cables for a WCF shall be fully concealed
from view underground or inside of the screening or monopole structure supporting
the antennas; any cables that cannot be buried or otherwise hidden from view shall be
painted to match the color of the building or other existing structure.
d) Chain link fencing shall be unacceptable to screen facilities, support structures or
accessory and related equipment (including HVAC or mechanical equipment present
on support buildings); fencing material, if used, shall be six (6) feet in height or less
and shall consist of wood, masonry, stucco, stone or other acceptable materials that
are opaque.
e) Notwithstanding the foregoing, the WCF shall comply with all additional measures
deemed necessary to mitigate the visual impact of the facility. Also, in lieu of these
screening standards, the Community Development Director may allow use of an
alternate detailed plan and specifications for landscape and screening, including
plantings, fences, walls, sign and structural applications, manufactured devices and
other features designed to screen, camouflage and buffer antennas, poles and
accessory uses. The plan should accomplish the same degree of screening achieved
by meeting the standards outlined above.
8. Lighting and signage. WCFs shall not be artificially lighted, unless required by the FAA or
other applicable governmental authority, or the WCF is mounted on a light pole or other
similar structure primarily used for lighting purposes. If lighting is required it shall
conform to other applicable sections of the code regulating signage or outdoor lighting.,
The following standards shall apply to WCFsand equipment:
a) The light source for security lighting shall feature down-directional, sharp cut-off
luminaries to direct, control, screen or shade in such a manner as to ensure that there
is no spillage of illumination off-site.
b) Light fixtures, whether free standing or tower-mounted, shall not exceed twelve (12)
feet in height as measured from finished grade.
c) The display of any sign or advertising device other than public safety warnings,
certifications or other required seals on any wireless communication device or
structure is prohibited.
d) The telephone numbers to contact in an emergency shall be posted on each facility in
conformance with the provisions of Chapter 26.510, Signs, of this Title.
9. Noise. Noise generated on the site must not exceed the levels permitted in this Code,
except that a WCF owner or operator shall be permitted to exceed Code noise standards for
a reasonable period of time during repairs, not to exceed two hours without prior
authorization from the City.
10. Additional design requirements shall be applicable to the various types of WCFs as
specified below:
a) Base Stations. If an antenna is installed on a structure other than a Tower or
Alternative Tower Structure, such as a Base Station (including, but not limited to the
antennas and accessory equipment) it shall be of a neutral, non-reflective color that is
identical to, or closely compatible with, the color of the supporting structure, or uses
P157
IV.B.
EXHIBIT B
21
other camouflage/concealment design techniques so as to make the antenna and
related facilities as visually unobtrusive as possible, including for example, without
limitation, painting the Antennas and accessory equipment to match the structure.
Additionally, any ground mounted equipment shall be located in a manner necessary
to address both public safety and aesthetic concerns in the reasonable discretion of
the Manager, and may, where appropriate, require a flush-to-grade underground
equipment vault.
b) Alternative Tower Structures not in the Public Right-of-Way.
i Alternative Tower Structures shall be designed and constructed to look
like a building, facility, or structure typically found in the area.
ii Be camouflaged/concealed consistent with other existing natural or
manmade features near the location where the Alternative Tower Structure
will be located.
iii Such structures shall be architecturally compatible with the surrounding
area;
iv Height or size of the proposed alternative tower structure should be
minimized as much as possible;
v WCFs shall be sited in a manner that evaluates the proximity of the
facility to residential structures and residential district boundaries;
vi WCFs should take into consideration the uses on adjacent and nearby
properties and the compatibility of the facility to these uses;
vii Compatibility with the surrounding topography;
viii Compatibility with the surrounding tree coverage and foliage;
ix Compatibility of the design of the site, with particular reference to design
characteristics that have the effect of reducing or eliminating visual
obtrusiveness; and
x Impact on the surrounding area of the proposed ingress and egress, if any.
c) Alternative Tower Structures in the Public Right-of-Way. Alternative Tower
Structures and associated Small Cells, or Micro Cells may be deployed in the Public
Right-of-Way through the utilization of a street light pole, distribution lines, utility
poles, traffic signal or similar structure. Such facilities shall remain subject to the
Alternative Tower Structures standards of approval noted above, and subject to the
following additional design criteria below:
i To the extent that an Alternative Tower Structure is a vertical structure
located in the Public Right-of-Way, with respect to its pole-mounted
components, be located on or within an existing utility pole serving another
utility;
ii With respect to its pole components, such components shall be located on
or within a new utility pole, if there are no reasonable alternatives, and the
Applicant is authorized to construct the new utility poles; or
P158
IV.B.
EXHIBIT B
22
iii To the extent reasonably feasible, be consistent with the size and shape of
the pole-mounted equipment installed by communications companies on
utility poles near the Alternative Tower Structure;
iv Be sized to minimize the negative aesthetic impacts to the Public Right-
of-Way;
v Be designed such that antenna installations on traffic signal standards are
placed in a manner so that the size, appearance, and function of the signal will
not be considerably altered.
vi Require that any ground mounted equipment shall be located in a manner
necessary to address both public safety and aesthetic concerns in the
reasonable discretion of the Director, and may, where appropriate, require a
flush-to-grade underground equipment vault.
vii Not alter vehicular circulation or parking within the Right-of-Way or
impede vehicular, bicycle, or pedestrian access or visibility along the Right-
of-Way. The Alternative Tower Structure must comply with the Americans
With Disabilities Act and every other local, state, and federal law and
regulations. No Alternative Tower Structure may be located or maintained in
a manner that causes unreasonable interference. Unreasonable interference
means any use of the Right-of-Way that disrupts or interferes with its use by
the City, the general public, or other person authorized to use or be present
upon the Right-of-way, when there exists an alternative that would result in
less disruption or interference. Unreasonable interference includes any use of
the Right-of-way that disrupts vehicular or pedestrian traffic, any interference
with public utilities, and any other activity that will present a hazard to public
health, safety, or welfare.
viii The pole or structure is not more than 5 feet taller (as measured from the
ground to the top of the pole) than any existing utility or traffic signal pole
within a radius of 500 feet of the pole or structure.
ix Any such pole shall in no case be higher than 25 feet in height or the
maximum permissible height of the given Zone District, whichever is more
restrictive .
x Any such pole shall be separated from any other wireless communication
facility in the Right-of-Way by a distance of at least 600 feet unless deployed
on an existing structure in the Public Right-of-Way.
xi To the extent reasonably feasible, Collocations are strongly encouraged to
limit the number of poles within the Right-of-Way.
xii Equipment enclosures shall be located out of view as much as possible
and shall comply with City criteria (e.g. sight line criteria).
xiii When placed near a residential property, the WCF shall be placed
adjacent to the common side yard property line between adjoining residential
properties, such that the WCF minimizes visual impacts equitably among
adjacent properties. In the case of a corner lot, the WCF may be placed
P159
IV.B.
EXHIBIT B
23
adjacent to the common side yard property line between adjoining residential
properties, or on the corner formed by two intersecting streets. If these
requirements are not reasonably feasible from a construction, engineering or
design perspective, the applicant may submit a written statement to the
Director requesting the WCF be exempt from these requirements.
d) Towers
i Towers shall either maintain a galvanized steel finish, or, subject to any
applicable FAA standards, be painted a neutral color so as to reduce visual
obtrusiveness as determined by the City;
ii Tower structures should use existing land forms, vegetation, and
structures to aid in screening the facility from view or blending in with the
surrounding built and natural environment;
iii Monopole support structures shall taper from the base to the tip;
iv All Towers, excluding alternative tower structures in the Right-of-Way,
shall be enclosed by security fencing or wall at least 6 feet in height and shall
also be equipped with an appropriate anti-climbing device.
e) Director to adopt design standards: Pursuant to the powers and authority
conferred by the Charter of the City, the Director shall adopt additional small cell
infrastructure design guidelines, as may be amended from time to time. Said
guidelines are incorporated herein as if fully set forth and shall be published and at
least one (1) copy of the Small Cell Infrastructure Design Guidelines shall be
available for public inspection at the Community Development Department.
11. Related Accessory Equipment. Accessory equipment for all WCFs shall meet the
following requirements:
a) All buildings, shelter, cabinets, and other accessory components shall be grouped
as closely as technically possible;
b) The total footprint coverage area of the WCF’s accessory equipment shall not
exceed 350 square feet;
c) No related accessory equipment or accessory structure shall exceed 12 feet in
height;
d) Accessory equipment, including but not limited too remote radio units, shall be
located out of sight whenever possible by locating behind parapet walls or within
equipment enclosures. Where such alternate locations are not available, the
accessory equipment shall be camouflaged or concealed.
12. Access ways. In addition to ingress and egress requirements of the Building Code, access
to and from WCFs shall be regulated as follows:
a) No WCF shall be located in a required parking, maneuvering or vehicle/pedestrian
circulation area such that it interferes with or in any way impairs, the intent or
functionality of the original design.
P160
IV.B.
EXHIBIT B
24
b) The WCF must be secured from access by the general public but access for
emergency services must be ensured. Access roads must be capable of supporting all
potential emergency response vehicles and equipment.
c) The proposed easements for ingress and egress and for electrical and
telecommunications shall be recorded at the County Clerk and Recorder's Office
prior to the issuance of building permits.
13. Conditions and limitations. The City shall reserve the right to add, modify or delete
conditions after the approval of a request in order to advance a legitimate City interest
related to health, safety or welfare. Prior to exercising this right, the City shall notify the
owner and operator in advance and shall not impose a substantial expense or deprive the
affected party of a substantial revenue source in the exercising of such right.
Approval by the Community Development Director for a wireless telecommunication
services facility and/or equipment application shall not be construed to waive any
applicable zoning or other regulations; and wherein not otherwise specified, all other
requirements of this Code shall apply, including Title 21(Street, Sidewalks, and other
public places, and Title 29 (Engineering Design Standards). All requests for modifications
of existing facilities or approvals shall be submitted to the Community Development
Director for review under all provisions and requirements of this Section. If other than
minor changes are proposed, a new, complete application containing all proposed revisions
shall be required.
(Ord. No. 1-2002 § 18; Ord. No. 52-2003, §§ 14, 15)
P161
IV.B.
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E),ASPEN LAND USE CODE
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY:
3 3 !/�1• i Ce�_IGes Sli , Aspen, CO
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE:
k)e-d J..eb 3µ` (0— 4*30,ew ,2019
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
County of Pitkin )
I, (name,please print)
being or r6presenting an Applicant to tie 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_day of , 20. to and including the date and time
of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto.
Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community
Development Department, which contains the information described in Section
26:304.060(E)(2) of the.Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to
the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage
prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the
property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of
property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they
appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A
copy of the o-i,�mers 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)
"F�,fisc„�5,.'�S,S'l ,,## t•d�3•!•"L"1Cd�fti •'d:,�.f r_; �.�,,•.-..•,,.+-,,t�*.�,....-'•^�y"`......"�"''tit,��....'',".
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT2's .=;rA:N 20:1S4 PV I
130 S.GALENA STREET
N
ASPEN,CO 31611 T
FOREVER
CITY OF ASPEN
130 S GALENA ST
ASPEN,CO 81611
ll�llllW 1-1,11 Ili! ilillll„ll,f
COMMUNITIf DEVELOPMENT
130 S.GALENA STREET S st r vl' .1
ASPEN,CO 81611 S -
FOREVER ,c
DH ASE LLC
2711 CENTERVILLE RD#400
VVILMINGTON, DE 19808
NIX1:E 176 DE 2. 009Z%8Z,' 19
r.•.c r.�ew� Tn crw�r�c �
NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED I
U ' r BC: 81611190238 * 1979- 11763-28-41
G'RAPJC� ..XJr4CfJ0;'-4I (".".0 81-S
R .'AAN 201.9- FIM 1 1-
COMMUNITY UP
130 S.GALENA STREET
C, FOREVER
Aye,.^,CO 81611
RICKEL DAVID
275 GOLDENROD DR
I-A.NDSDALE,PA 19446
141 -A 3:Z: 1/ a r z i
RETURN TO SENDER
NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED
N A Z;L-- TU = OR 1W AP r,
JT; BC: 81611190230 * 1979- 117Z9- 28- 41
9 0 2
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060(E),ASPEN LAND USE CODE
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 333 W.Bleeker Street ,Aspen,CO
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: February 13 ,2019
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
County of Pitkin )
I, Mitch Haas, (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:
(by City 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.
hereAe�
X Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department,
which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six(26)
inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15)
days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the 28th day of January,2019, to and including the date
and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto.
X 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.
N/A 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. Iq h
Signature
The foregoing"Affidavit of Notice"was acknowledged before me this 13�ay
of 201_9,by Y`^;"
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
My commission expires: (p'11 2Q21 BARBARA J. D'AUTRECHY
Notary Public
State of Colorado
Notary ID#20074042687
M ' My Commission Expires 06-11-2021
otary Public
ATTACHMENTS:
COPY OF THE ffl+1Lp1G /ArV,n
PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE(SIG
LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL
130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, CO 81611
p: (970) 920.5090
w: www.aspenpitkin.com
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
RE: 333 West Bleeker Street
Public Hearing: Wednesday, February 13th, 2019; 4:30PM
Meeting Location: City Hall, City Council Chambers
130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 81611
Project Location: 333 W. Bleeker Street, PID# 2735-124-01-401. Legally described
as Lot 1, Bleeker Street Partners Historic Landmark Lot Split
Exemption, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado.
Description: The applicant requests approval for relocation of historic residence
onto a new basement, relocation of an outbuilding, and the
construction of a new one-story addition. Setback variations are
requested.
Land Use Reviews: Major Development, Relocation, and Setback Variations.
Decision Making Body: Historic Preservation Commission (HPC).
Applicant: Bleeker & 3" LLC, Mark S. Moussa, manager, P.O. Box 195457,
Dallas, TX 75219.
More Information: For further information related to the project, contact Sarah Yoon
at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S.
Galena St., Aspen, CO, 970.920.5144,
sarah.voon(@citvofaspen.com.
1
Pitkin County Mailing List of 300 Feet Radius
From Parcel: 2735124014 on 01/16/2019
dc
1' K I N f 0�e
1,e,16vq
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
ASPEN RETINA SURGEONS LLC BLANK JEFFREY C TRST 3 FBO SNYDER GARY
5014 WOODHURST LN 1801 CALIFORNIA ST#4400 8324 BROODSIDE RD
MINNETONKA,MN 55345 DENVER,CO 80202 ELKINS PARK, PA 19027
CARINTHIA CORP GIERTZ JAMES R&TAMARA J ASPEN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
45 E LUPINE DR 144 FLYWAY DR 311 W MAIN ST
ASPEN,CO 81611 KIAWAH ISLAND,SC 29455 ASPEN,CO 81611
MOUNTAI LODGE HOLDINGS LLC MOUNTAIN DGE HOLDINGS LLC CLICK JANE
605 W MAIN T#2 605 W MAIN S 2 333 W MAIN ST#2A
ASPEN,CO 81 11 ASPEN,CO 816 ASPEN,CO 81611
TWIN COASTS LTD 330 WEST BLEEKER ST LLC ASPEN CONDOS ASSOC
433 PLAZA REAL#275 1000 POTOMAC ST NW#102 COMMON AREA
BOCA RATON,FL 33432 WASHINGTON, DC 20007 311 W MAIN ST
ASPEN,CO 81611
323 W HALLAM LLC CHOOKASZIAN DENNIS HEINEMAN S MARLENE
101 S MILL ST#200 1100 MICHIGAN AVE PO BOX 810323
ASPEN,CO 81611 WILMETTE, IL 60091 DALLAS,TX 753810323
CRETE ASSOCIATES LP LEVY ROBERT I RISCOR INC
1062 E LANCASTER AVE#30B 2099 NW PINE TREE WY 12221 MERIT DR#1400
BRYN MAWR, PA 19010 STUART, FL 34994 DALLAS,TX 75251
320 W BLEEKER LLC CRETE A SOCIATES LP TEMPKINS HARRY&VIVIAN
1717 W 6TH ST#470 1062 E LA ASTER AVE#306 605 LINCOLN RD#301
AUSTIN,TX 78703 BRYN MAW PA 19010 MIAMI BEACH, FL 33139
MOUNTA LODGE HOLDINGS LLC MOUNTAI ODGE HOLDINGS LLC BLOCKER LAURA G
605 W MAI ST#2 605 W MAI T#2 PO BOX 9213
ASPEN,CO 1611 ASPEN,CO 11 ASPEN,CO 81612
TADOPERTIES LLC MOUNTNN LODGE HOLDINGS LLC SEVEN SEAS INVESTMENT LLC
PO BO 978 605 W M ST#2 1120 MICHIGAN AVE
ASPEN, 81612 ASPEN,C 81611 WILMETTE, IL 60091
MOUNTAI LODGE HOLDINGS LLC FISCHER SISTIE CRETASSOCIATES LP
605 W MAI T#2 442 W BLEEKER 1062 E NCASTER AVE#30B
ASPEN, CO 8 11 ASPEN,CO 81611 BRYN M R, PA 19010
SHC-ASPEN LLC MOUNTAIN\8161
OLDINGS LLC NATHAN REVOCABLE TRUST
15 E 5TH ST#3200 605 W MAIN 718 N LINDEN DR
TULSA,OK 74103 ASPEN, CO BEVERLY HILLS,CA 90210
MOUNTAIN LON#2
LDINGS LLC ASPEN HOUSE LLC GUNNING RALPH
605 W MAIN S17595 HARVARD AVE#C511 PO BOX 11912
ASPEN,CO 81IRVINE,CA 92614 ASPEN,CO 81612
DH ASE LLC MOUNTAIN LGE HOLDINGS LLC KARBANK 430 LLC
2711 CENTERVILLE RD#400 605 W MAIN ST 2000 SHAWNEE MISSION PKWY#400
WILMINGTON, DE 19808 ASPEN,CO 8161 MISSION, KS 66205
331 W BLEEKER LLC JACOBY FAY LP CRETNASSOCIATES LP
2727 ALLEN PKY#1400 700 20TH ST 1062 CASTER AVE#30B
HOUSTON,TX 77019 VERO BEACH, FL32960 BRYNR, PA 19010
SILVERSTEIN PHILIP&ROSALYN 314 WEST MAIN LLC
25 KNOLLS CRESCENT APT 81 314 W MAIN ST
BRONX, NY 10463 ASPEN,CO 81611
r
r _�=
I
' y .
PUBLIC N7TICE