HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20190313
AGENDA
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
March 13, 2019
5:00 PM City Council Meeting Room
130 S Galena Street, Aspen
I. SITE VISITS- PLEASE VISIT THE SITES ON YOUR OWN.
II. 4:30 INTRODUCTION
A. Roll call
B. Approval of minutes
Minutes - February 27, 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. 4:40 OLD BUSINESS
A. 333 W. Bleeker- Major Development, Relocation, and Setback Variations,
PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 13TH
IV. 5:50 NEW BUSINESS
A. 330 E. Main, Hotel Jerome- Minor Development, PUBLIC HEARING
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 February 27, 2019
1
Public Comment not on the Agenda ............................................................................................................. 2
Commission Comments ................................................................................................................................ 2
Conflicts of Interest ....................................................................................................................................... 2
Minutes ......................................................................................................................................................... 2
105 E. Hallam – Conceptional Major Development, Relocation and Setback ............................................ 2
931 Gibson Avenue – Conceptual Major Development and Demolition ..................................................... 4
Work Session - Citizen Suggestion for Historic Preservation Benefits ........................................................ 6
P1
II.B.
Regular Meeting Historic Preservation Commission February 27, 2019
2
At 4:30 p.m.; Gretchen Greenwood called the regular meeting to order with Commission Members
Jeffrey Halferty, Sheri Sanzone and Roger Moyer present. Also present were Andrea Bryan and Linda
Manning.
Public Comment not on the Agenda
None.
Commission Comments
None.
Conflicts of Interest
Ms. Sanzone stated for the second item she will recuse herself. Ms. Bryan said we have taken the
position as long as we open the meeting with a quorum if a member has to leave due to conflict we have
not lost quorum. If the board takes action, all three members must take action unanimously. Ms.
Greenwood asked if the applicant is not happy they could take action, but they could do that anyway.
Mr. Moyer asked suppose the applicant doesn’t care her husband owns the firm. Ms. Bryan replied it
could be anyone who has an issue.
Ms. Simon stated she has nothing for the rest of the list. Stephen Kanipe is retiring. His party is
tomorrow at the police community room from 3:30 to 5:30.
Minutes
Mr. Moyer moved to approve the minutes from February 13, 2019; seconded by Mr. Halferty. All in
favor except Ms. Sanzone who abstained since she was not present at the meeting. Motion carried.
105 E. Hallam – Conceptional Major Development, Relocation and Setback
Ms. Greenwood opened the public hearing. Ms. Simon stated it is a 3,314 square foot lot in the west end
near the Red Brick school. It was built in 1885. There use to be twin with house directly to the west.
The second floor was dropped in the 80s. It is no longer a twin. All of the homes are Victorian era
homes on this block. There are no consistent setbacks. The plan is to demolish the small addition on the
back, move the resource forward five feet, dig a full basement and build a new addition. The reviews
include conceptual major development, relocation and setback. There is no floor area bonus ask. The
property is 500 square feet below the allowed maximum. The applicant is proposing no alterations to the
historic resource or shed. Below grade is appropriate for the addition. Moving forward allows reasonable
response to the block face and connector to new and old. There are a few things that need restudy. We
are concerned that the addition doesn’t meet the mark on three of the design guidelines related to
compatible relationship between the addition and the historic house. The addition is a mix of gable and
shed roofs and not quite there yet. The building department said the historic house and shed will be close
to the property lines and may require fireproofing. We need more understanding of that. The historic
house is wider and will trigger fire code adaptations. They are proposing to build a basement that is
forward of the resource and will require a setback variation. Parks is concerned with a cottonwood tree.
We need to ensure sod can be laid. We need an explanation on how the house can relate to grade. There
is a light well that is close to the front north east corner. There are other referral comments we want the
applicant to work out regarding a transformer on site. We have concerns about tree preservation,
micropile walls and stormwater. There are front basement setback variances needed. There is a four inch
reduction for the west side yard and a four inch for the combined side yard as well. We recommend
continuation.
P2
II.B.
Regular Meeting Historic Preservation Commission February 27, 2019
3
Ms. Greenwood asked about air conditioning. Ms. Simon replied we haven’t got to that level of detail.
They are allowed to sit in the setbacks. Mr. Moyer said mechanical keeps coming up. Is it something we
need to discuss in the future. Ms. Simon said we are trying to be more proactive. We have started doing
this mini referral process. Mr. Moyer said the fire issue is interesting. Would a fire retardant paint be
sufficient. Ms. Simon stated she does not think so. Mr. Halferty said we haven’t moved a lot of brick
structures. Ms. Simon said we don’t have an explanation from the engineer yet. Ms. Sanzone said the
house next door was recently remodeled. Will there be a sidewalk here. Ms. Simon said engineering is
asking for a floating sidewalk. Ms. Sanzone replied I think it would be important for the commission to
weigh in on that topic.
Applicant
Melanie Noonan, Z Group Architects, representing the applicant, stated the property contains a one story
Victorian built in 1885. Large cottonwood trees sit in front of the property. We would like to remove the
non historic addition in the rear of the house. The proposal is to move the house forward and align with
the house to the west. Moving the house forward makes room for a one car garage. We are still looking
in to the transformer. The tree at the front, we will start at the 15 foot line and build back from that.
We’ve started talking with the house movers about the move. The front porch is flush with grade now
and we want to keep that look. We want to keep the landscaping minimal like it is now. We can come up
with a solution for the fire rating. The new portion is all within the set back.
Mr. Halferty said the shed has the same fire rating issue. Ms. Noonan said it is within the setback and
something we want to preserve. We will have to work with the building department to get the one hour
fire rating. We will have to do it on the interior.
Mr. Moyer asked how will you address the light well. Ms. Noonan said with the landscaping it would be
similar to what we have now. We are happy to keep the wall the minimal above grade. We would have
low landscaping to hide it visually.
Ms. Greenwood asked about the design guidelines and said she does not think they meet any of them.
Ms. Noonan said some of the thought for the back and looking at the surrounding properties we have the
gable roof. In order to get the square footage it is hard to put in a big hip roof. We want the historic
property to be the prominent feature. The idea was to keep something lower and stay behind it so we
don’t have the visual impact. We kept the same scale and proportion for the materials. Mr. Halferty said
as far as the guidelines, have you considered the guidelines for the roof form. Ms. Noonan said we did
look at a hip roof and it becomes a lot of roof to see. It felt really big and heavy. Mr. Moyer asked would
there be an issue extending the connector two feet to meet the minimum. Ms. Noonan said we are just
shy of the 10 feet at 9 foot 10 to get the full size garage in the back. Ms. Simon replied there is a pinch.
They can’t move the house any further forward.
Ms. Greenwood opened the public comment. There was none. Ms. Greenwood closed the public
comment.
Commission discussion
Ms. Sanzone said the referral comments are helpful. We need more information, particularly on the
sidewalk. The requirement for a transformer on the property seems restrictive.
Ms. Greenwood said she agrees with staff. She has a problem with the five foot front yard setback. This
is a pure development project, not a restoration. What are we getting from it except allowing
development to be easier. There is a reason for a 10 foot setback. She is not in favor of going beyond
that. It is the wrong precedent to set. She does not think this project deserves a bonus in the front. She
understands the rear. This limits the ability for landscape in the front. We have very specific design
guidelines. You have to pick from three concepts. This addition has none of them. I think you need to
rethink the addition in its entirety. I think you could get more creative with the lightwells and maybe
combine two in to one. She is fine with moving the building forward.
Mr. Halferty said it is an interesting addition for the relationship to the resource. One of our guidelines
talks about related roof forms. Seeing the sheds and gables related to the resource not being compliant.
As far as the setback, because it is subgrade, I’m fine with it. I think the link and connection is another
P3
II.B.
Regular Meeting Historic Preservation Commission February 27, 2019
4
guideline that is not compliant. I think the mass and height of the addition is close. It is too tall of an
addition. As far as site plan the resource and shed, I feel the shed is an important element of the project
and is left in the back. I think as far as staff is concerned the light wells can be restudied. The roof forms
of the addition are non conforming to our guidelines. Moving a brick structure is a whole other element
and needs to be done right. He would recommend continuance for additional study.
Mr. Moyer said when we move a structure there is a bond, can it be increased. Ms. Simon replied I think
it is set in the code. Mr. Moyer said it is a close project but not quite there. He is not so much against the
set back as Gretchen. He would like to ask for a larger bond to move the structure. Ms. Greenwood said
it has to be continued. It has to meet the guidelines.
Mr. Moyer moved to continue 105 E. Hallam to April 10, 2019; seconded by Ms. Sanzone. All in favor,
motion carried.
931 Gibson Avenue – Conceptual Major Development and Demolition
Sarah Yoon, community development, stated 931 Gibson is the receiving site for the two Victorians. It is
a 15, 497 square foot lot in the R15A zone. They were asked to return with a fully developed application
for development. They received approval from council for relocation. The demolition of the existing non
historic structure is not part of review. There were four conditions of Ordinance 22. The applicant has
been working with city depts to determine community impacts related to the relocation. The applicant
has provided confirmation from the house mover stating the resources would be able to withstand the
relocation. There has been an ongoing discussion regarding phasing the permitting processes. Staff
supports the phasing for the relocation permit, but staff does not support the phasing for the foundation
permit because the appropriate approvals and development orders would not be in place. The applicant
has since revised their request for submitting both permits prior to the final approval. The applicant
proposes to restore the historic configuration as indicated on the Sandborn maps. There is an above grade
addition with a 30 foot long connecting element. They applicant is not requesting any dimensional
variations at this time. They plan to fully restore the historic buildings once they are relocated. There are
two areas that have been called out for alterations. Both have been covered with non historic additions.
One is where the connecting element is proposed to be located the other is where the new windows and
doors are proposed. Staff recommends additional investigation for the area related to the connecting
element. Guideline 10.4 states the focus must be the historic landmark and it must be the predominant
structure. It also talks that the above grade addition must not exceed 100 percent of the above grade floor
area compared to the landmark. Since the proposed design does meet two of the listed criteria HPC may
consider an exemption from this requirement. This project does meet this requirement. The addition is
slightly taller than the landmark. The proposed totaling floor area for the new addition including the
connecting element is approximately 2,320 square feet, making it about 25 percent larger in comparison
to the landmark buildings. The plan shows that the front most facades of the addition is proud of the front
façade of the historic landmark by about seven feet which contributes to staffs concern related to visual
dominance. The connecting element is about 16 feet wide and 30 feet long. Staff finds the site can
support a longer than typical connecting element. The design guidelines do not specify a maximum. We
do have concerns with the width of the connecting element. There is a large light well in a highly visible
location. Staff is recommending restudy of all of these areas. 10.6 states the new addition is recognized
as a product of its own time but the addition must achieve visual compatibility when compared with the
landmark. The form relates closely but staff is concerned with the proposed secondary screened wall
feature and extended skylight features and how they may interfere with the form. The applicant is now
proposing to remove the extended skylight and lower the height of the brick wall. The applicant is also
proposing a roof deck on top of the connecting element. Typically roof decks are not permitted on
connecting elements unless they have limited visibility. Staff is recommending it be removed. In terms
of form, the gable roof and pitch relate back to the landmark. The proposed materials for the addition are
mostly masonry and brick and the connecting element is mostly glazing. The proposed building materials
appear to be a purposeful departure from the materials and that is permitted. The proposed fenestration
P4
II.B.
Regular Meeting Historic Preservation Commission February 27, 2019
5
on the new addition does hint at the size and ratio using the brick screens on the front façade, however the
relationship isn’t carried throughout the rest of the addition. Staff would like that restudied.
Staff recommends continuance to April 24th for restudy. Staff would like restudy related to compatibility
and scale of the new addition. There are seven conditions mostly related to compatibility and scale.
Mr. Moyer said on the connector, sometime a little messy vitality is good and activity on the rooftop
could be considered. Ms. Yoon said it is not prohibited if there is limited visibility. The way the
connector faces Gibson it is hard to achieve. Ms. Greenwood said one of the recommendations talks
about the width of the connector and the objection is the material of the historic resource. What is the
façade. Ms. Yoon replied it is a side that has been covered. Our first concern is there might be historic
material back there.
Applicant
Sara Adams, Flynn Stewart Sevrie and Bryan Hendries
Sara Adams, representing the owner, said we omitted the skylight that would require a variance. It will
be flush with the roof pitch. We were here last summer to discuss relocation. Flynn Stewart Severy,
architect, stated we are trying to create the historic lot rhythm by separating the structures by 30 feet. The
structures will be connected by a single story element. Ms. Adams said the lot is 15,500 square feet. It is
wider than it is deep. There is no alley. The allowed floor area is just over 4,500. We are not asking for
a bonus. The primary entrance is the landmark. We want to work with the existing vegetation. The
width of the connector is 16 feet but 30 feet wide. We know it is something not traditionally seen.
Having the kitchen centrally located keeps the resource in play. We meet five of the eight criteria to
receive more than 100 percent square feet than the landmark. We feel we have gone above and beyond.
We feel the massing is appropriate. For materials we don’t want to compete with the Victorian and are
proposing brick and screening. It is similar form and a strong reference with the windows. It is
compatible but not an imitation.
Mr. Moyer asked why is the new structure more forward than the resource. Ms. Adams replied we
struggled with that. There were trade offs that needed to happen particularly with where the garage
needed to be. We wanted to minimize the amount of hardscape for the driveway. Mr. Moyer said the
new building is slightly higher. Ms. Adams stated it is and the grade of the site goes up as well. Mr.
Stewart Sevrie said the addition is on the higher side of the lot. The elevation change is three feet. Mr.
Moyer asked if I were to walk up to the connector and look at the resource there is a doorway. Ms.
Adams said that is what we are proposing. We don’t believe there is any historic siding.
Ms. Greenwood opened the public comment.
1. Mike Maple said his parents own the adjacent house. Last summer I had strong objections to
relocating the structure, FAR bonuses, setback bonuses and the garage bonuses. I appreciate
council prohibited the lot split. I am happy to see instead of two houses and two garages that the
underlying zonings have been adhered to and there are no bonus requests. I tip my hat to the
owner for complying with the underlying zoning. Generally, it looks good to me. With respect to
staffs concern to the deck, I don’t have that concern.
2. Ms. Yoon received four comments via email all in support.
Ms. Greenwood closed the public comment.
Discussion
Ms. Greenwood said I commend you on an excellent project. Guidelines are guidelines. I am really
impressed with the creativity in which you gave respect to the guidelines but ventured out. The forms
followed our guidelines. I don’t agree with staff. I would hate to see you water down this proposal. The
connection is perfect for the two forms. This building belongs next to the resource. The amount of
historic preservation is extraordinary and worth everything to the City of Aspen. It is a gift. The site plan
and architecture create a park like setting that the neighborhood is lucky to have. The sensitivity in which
you did the windows on the addition is beautiful and relates to the addition. The brick detail feels like the
right residential for this building. I like the deck on top and think it will be a beautiful place to be. I feel
P5
II.B.
Regular Meeting Historic Preservation Commission February 27, 2019
6
this is ready to move forward. I don’t agree with restudy. There couldn’t be better compatibility with the
resource. I like that the two buildings are compatible and one is not forward and one is not back. It is
really evident the historic building takes precedent on the site. I disagree with staff and feel you meet the
guidelines. I have no issue with the skylight and think the natural light is important. I would like to see
this move forward.
Mr. Halferty said I echo Gretchen’s comments. I think it is really well thought out. You have all done an
excellent job. This is the proper place to relocate the historic resource. I think it meets all the sections for
streetscape. The fenestration versus wall for the new addition is complimentary and compatible for the
resource. I think the link is well done. I have no problem with the roof deck. I think it does comply with
section 4 for doors and windows. 5 and 6 is well presented for mass and scale. Section 7 for roof is very
complimentary. The addition is very complimentary. It does not compete with the resource. Section 10
is well presented and does not compete with the resource. They are not asking for variances and are
under the FAR. I could approve the project as is.
Mr. Moyer said I think you have done an excellent job with visual compatibility. I think the use of the
deck is a great idea. Messy vitality is great. I don’t have a problem with the sky light. Items 5, 6, and 7,
I would like to see included in the motion dealt with at final.
Jessica Garrow, community development, suggested removing subsections 1, 2, and 3 from section 1 of
the resolution for the motion.
Mr. Halferty moved to approve Resolution #2, Series of 2019; seconded by Mr. Moyer. Roll call vote.
Moyer, yes; Halferty, yes; Greenwood, yes. Motion carried.
Work Session - Citizen Suggestion for Historic Preservation Benefits
Ms. Simon said we are planning to take forward code amendments that you saw in December. Council
wants changes to the affordable housing waiver to maybe eliminate it and replace it with other waivers. If
you were to add on 1,000 square feet more than you already have you would be receiving an affordable
housing waiver of $50,000. We’re trying to replace that. We are thinking about relief in the permit fees.
We don’t want to start waiving other department’s fees. We would rather come up with a waiver than
have the benefit go away completely. Ms. Greenwood said good projects deserve to have a benefit. Ms.
Simon said a citizen came before us with some suggestions and we included his letter in the packet. A
few years ago there was a change to the zoning that on Main Street there couldn’t be a mixed use
development. He is suggesting some new floor area waivers only to historic properties. We are not
supportive. Most of the conversation we are having is to reduce square footage, not grant more
allowances. He is looking for an exemption for a back porch. He is also looking for large area wells to
not have a height or floor area penalty. Height is already dealt with. He is also suggesting that decks
don’t count at all.
Ms. Greenwood moved to extend the meeting to 7:15; seconded by Mr. Halferty. All in favor, motion
carried. She said a rear porch not counted, no one would do that. On a small property four feet won’t
count. Mr. Moyer said I’m in favor of it. Having a little bit of activity in an alley is a good thing. What
are the negatives. Ms. Simon said it potentially exempts a significant amount of floor area and additional
mass on the site. Mr. Halferty said in reality no one is going to give up that square footage. Ms.
Greenwood said we already have the ability to grant a bonus for a rear deck without changing the code.
Ms. Greenwood said for number two she likes the concept but once again they can use a bonus for it. Mr.
Halferty said for number three you should be able to make it work. Ms. Greenwood said once again you
can ask for bonus for it.
At 7:15 p.m. Mr. Halferty moved to adjourn; seconded by Mr. Moyer. All in favor, motion carried.
Linda Manning
City Clerk
P6
II.B.
C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\C3BB140E-D2C9-
46F3-A272-0CA4083EA634\15836.doc
3/7/2019
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
P7
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.
P8
II.K.
Page 1 of 10
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: March 13, 2019
RE: 333 West Bleeker Street – Conceptual Major Development Review, Relocation
and Setback Variations, PUBLIC HEARING, Continued from February 13th.
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 USE:
No change
SUMMARY:
The applicant has requested a Conceptual Major Development
review for the construction of a new basement, a one-story above
grade addition, and the relocation of the historic outbuilding.
Setback variations are requested.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends continuation of this project to restudy the
issues identified on page 10 of this memo.
Site Locator Map – 333 West Bleeker Street
333
P9
III.A.
Page 2 of 10
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. With this application, the applicant is required to bring
the proposed floor area into compliance with the Lot Split approval regarding floor area.
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.
Following the February 13, 2019 HPC meeting the applicant has revised the proposed design of the new
addition and the applicant no longer plans to move the historic house from its original location, but it
will be lifted for the excavation of the new basement. The applicant plans to remove what appears to
have been a historic porch on the rear (south elevation) of the historic house that has been enclosed
and altered over time. An 8’ long connecting element is proposed to link the historic house with the
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.
P10
III.A.
Page 3 of 10
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
Figure 1 – Existing North West Elevation (along Third Street)
Figure 2 – Proposed North West Elevation (along Third Street)
STAFF COMMENTS:
Staff finds that the revised proposal to keep the historic house in its current historic location addresses
previous staff concerns and meets the Design Guidelines, however, staff recommends continuation to
restudy the form of the new addition to better relate to the historic landmark as required by Design
Guideline 10.6. The Historic Preservation Design Guidelines are particularly stringent on corner lots and
do not allow the form of the new addition to depart from the historic landmark. In addition, the design
of the new addition must consider materials or fenestration choices to strongly relate to the historic
landmark (Guideline 10.6).
Staff continues to support the relocation of the historic outbuilding because it will provide alley access
for the garage and encourage functional use for this secondary structure (Guideline 8.8). The removal
of the heavily altered rear porch feature attached to the rear of the historic landmark is supported
because of the conflicting historic information found regarding this feature. As part of a previous
approval for this property, five spruce trees in the public right of way were identified for removal due
to its impact on the historic cottonwood trees and the view of the historic landmark. No tree mitigation
fee will be required but the removal of the trees is to be paid by the applicant. This condition is to be
carried forward as part of the approval for this project.
P11
III.A.
Page 4 of 10
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
The following points go into more detail regarding the proposal for HPC discussion:
1. Site Planning & Relocation: The historic house is in its original location. The applicant had
proposed to move the house forward and east. Moving the resource would not provide any
positive preservation outcomes, therefore, staff expressed concerns regarding relocation to the
applicant and the Parks Department leading up to the last meeting. Permission was granted to
remove trees along the alley to make room for the addition. Now the house will remain in place.
For the proposed basement, the historic house will be temporarily suspended over the
excavation and must comply with Design Guideline 9.1 by providing structural assessment and
financial assurances.
Figure 3 – Proposed Site Plan
The outbuilding is a Victorian structure but the Sanborn maps reveal that its current location is
not original. The proposed relocation of the outbuilding gives the garage alley access and 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. Garage access from the alley is a pattern that is encouraged
by the current Land Use Code and staff finds the proposal for the outbuilding encourages
functional use of the outbuilding as required by Design Guideline 8.8. When relocating the
P12
III.A.
Page 5 of 10
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
historic outbuilding, the applicant needs to maintain the relationship to grade and use existing
foundation stones as a veneer on the new foundation (Guidelines 9.4 and 9.5).
Considering the size of the proposed basement and the large trees that surround the property,
staff recommended the applicant provide preliminary plans for stormwater mitigation. The
Design Guidelines reference the need to consider site design incorporating stormwater
management early in the design process (Guideline 1.8), which becomes especially critical if
space available to address the necessary mitigation appears limited. Since the last meeting, the
applicant is now working with an engineer to identify drainage and grading plans for the site and
submitted a preliminary plan for stormwater mitigation. This plan identifies the need for a drywell
and locates it in the foreground of the historic landmark. Although the applicant proposes to
disguise this feature by covering it with sod, the main purpose of early planning is to prevent
stormwater features in the foreground of the landmark, therefore, staff recommends an
alternative location be identified for the drywell.
The proposed basement includes four lightwells, two of which abut the historic house, and a row
of skylights on the east side of the resource that is approximately 37’ long. The proposed
lightwells appear minimal in size but the height of the curb has not been provided. Staff
recommends a minimal curb height for the two lightwells located around the historic house to
avoid covering of the historic stone foundation (Guideline 9.6). Since the February 13th the
applicant has revised the design to reduce the row of skylights on east side yard by
approximately 4’. Additionally, all proposed lightwells are now abutting the building foundation
rather than floating in the yard. Although the reduction of the skylights is an improvement, the
proposed length of this feature is not minimal. The skylights immediately adjacent to the historic
foundation redefines the relationship between the landmark and grade. Staff recommends
further reduction of the skylights so that more of the foundation of the resource meets grade
(Guideline 9.6).
In summary, staff finds the proposal for relocating the outbuilding meets the HP Design Guidelines
and recommends approval. The revised plan to lift the historic house for excavation of the basement
meets the Design Guidelines. The proposed location on the preliminary plan for the drywell is in the
foreground of the historic building which does not comply with the Design Guidelines, therefore,
staff recommends restudy. Staff recommends reducing the proposed skylights on the east side yard
to maintain the historic relationship between the foundation and grade, and minimizing the curb
height of the proposed lightwells located around the historic house.
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. The floor area for this space will be recaptured in the new addition.
This area is approximately 142 square feet. The 1893 historic Sanborn map shows no feature
P13
III.A.
Page 6 of 10
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
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. This rear porch feature has been significantly altered over the years and
conflicting historic documents makes restoration/reconstruction difficult. Staff supports the
applicant’s plan to remove this feature and restore the rear of the historic house as it was first
represented in the 1893 Sanborn map.
Changes are proposed to alter windows on the west elevation of the historic house (Figure 5).
The historic window type seen throughout the historic building is a double hung window. On the
west elevation there is currently a grouping of three windows that are a window type and
opening size that are not associated with the rest of the building (Figure 4). 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 (Guideline 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. Staff
recommends additional investigation of the framing evidence with staff and monitor review and
approval prior to any changes.
Figure 4 – Existing West Elevation Figure 5 – 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 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 (Guideline 2.3).
The south elevation has French doors located on the second story that are non-functional. The
applicant proposes to remove the non-historic doors and replace them with two side by side
P14
III.A.
Page 7 of 10
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
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 do provide more flexibility for
new openings on rear walls (Guideline 3.7). Staff recommends investigation of the framing with
staff and monitor review and approval prior to any changes.
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 original 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 matches 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 visible on Third Street. The interior remodel indicates
that the connecting element will operate as a secondary entrance. A secondary pathway leads
to this door which is permitted, however, the design needs to comply with Design Guideline 10.4
ensuring that the main entry point located in the historic building. The proposed path to the
door crosses a historic ditch, requiring a culvert or bridge which may be undesirable to the
exterior of the addition and staff recommends that the applicant work with staff and monitor and
Engineering regarding this feature to meet all compliance issues. See Exhibit C 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, new additions on a corner
lots are not permitted to depart from form (Guideline 10.6).
Form: The previous proposal for the new addition amplified the contrast between the old and
new by incorporating diverging roof forms. The revised proposal simplifies the roof form to a
pitched roof, however, the proposed 8:12 pitch does not relate to any of the roof pitches on the
historic structures. Staff finds the simple pitched roof is moving towards visual compatibility with
the historic landmark but recommends the applicant restudy the pitch to strengthen the form. A
chimney is proposed on the west side of the new addition and is surfaced with stone veneer to
match the foundation material. The chimney which is applied does not relate to the landmark.
P15
III.A.
Page 8 of 10
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
The scale of this feature interferes with the overall form of the one-story addition. Although the
relocated historic outbuilding will cover the addition from certain angles, the west elevation is
still considered a visible and prominent elevation, therefore, the proposed chimney feature is
inappropriate in this location. It contributes to weakening the overall form of the new addition,
therefore, staff recommends restudy of this feature.
Figure 6 – Proposed West Elevation Figure 7 – Proposed South Elevation
Materials: The materials selected for the connecting element and the new addition consist of
glazing, sandstone and horizontal wood siding. In this revision, more siding is incorporated into
the design but glazing remains the dominate material choice. The proposed roofing material for
the addition is standing seam metal. In order to comply with Design Guideline 10.6, the proposed
addition must demonstrate a strong relationship with the historic landmark. The applicant has
made an attempt to relate to the historic materials, however, it is difficult to justify that a strong
relationship has been created with this design, therefore, staff recommends restudy.
Fenestration: The design approach to fenestration is a conscious departure from the historic
building. The fenestration type and size that was selected for the new addition was to maximize
transparency and interior light. A majority of the openings span from floor to ceiling with no
divisions. 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.
As a corner lot, visual compatibility between the new addition and the historic landmark is
critical. Staff finds that the revised design is getting closer to achieving compatibility through
form, however, staff recommends restudy of the roof pitch and the chimney feature of the
addition to strengthen the connection. The proposed materials of the new addition gesture to
the historic materials, but staff finds that it has not been used in a meaningful way, therefore,
recommends restudy.
4. Setback Variations: Since the historic house will no longer move, it will continue to be
approximately 20’ setback front the front property line where underlying zoning only requires a
10’ setback. The applicant is requesting a 9’-5” rear yard setback for the new addition where a
P16
III.A.
Page 9 of 10
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
10’ rear yard setback is required for the principal building. The detached historic outbuilding
currently sits on the rear lot line with a portion of the roof overhand encroaching into the alley.
The proposal for rotating the historic outbuilding will require a setback variation so that the
building may sit 1’ away from the rear (south) and side (west) property line. A 5’ setback is
required for both the side and rear yard for this structure in the R-6 zone district. 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.
Staff finds the request for a rear yard setback for the new addition is in result of maintaining the
historic location of the historic house which enhances the historic significance of the property, and
the proposed relocation of the outbuilding reinforces the pattern in the district to locating parking
access to the alley. Both requests meet the criteria for granting setback variations.
REFERRAL COMMENTS:
The application was referred out to other City departments who have requirements that will significantly
affect the permit review. The following is a summary of comments received. See Exhibit C for more
details.
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 and two
Spruce trees to the north.
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.
P17
III.A.
Page 10 of 10
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Historic Preservation Commission continue the application for further restudy of
the following:
1.) Restudy the form and materials of the new addition to meet the Design Guidelines for visual
compatibility with the historic building.
2.) Restudy the proposed skylights along the east side of the historic house by reducing the length.
Reduce the curb height of the skylights around the historic house to the minimal requirement.
3.) Restudy the location for the drywell to ensure features are not located in the foreground of the
historic landmark for Final review.
4.) Restudy the proposed secondary walkway from the Third Street to the connecting element to
reinforce this as a secondary entrance. Work closely with relevant City departments on
requirements for the restoration of the ditch for Final review.
5.) During construction, investigate the historic framing on the west and south elevations for any
evidence of historic material and openings. Any fenestration changes will be reviewed and
approved by staff and monitor before proceeding.
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 A.3 – Relocation/Staff Findings
Exhibit B – Referral Comments
Exhibit C – Public Comment
Exhibit D – Application – March 13, 2019
P18
III.A.
HPC Resolution #___, Series of 2019
Page 1 of 3
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, 2019 and March 13, 2019. 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 as follows:
P19
III.A.
HPC Resolution #___, Series of 2019
Page 2 of 3
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 form and materials of the new addition to meet the Design Guidelines for
visual compatibility with the historic building.
2.) Restudy the proposed skylights along the east side of the historic house by reducing
the length. Reduce the curb height of the skylights around the historic house to the
minimal requirement.
3.) Restudy the location for the drywell to ensure features are not located in the
foreground of the historic landmark for Final review.
4.) Restudy the proposed secondary walkway from the Third Street to the connecting
element to reinforce this as a secondary entrance. Work closely with relevant City
departments on requirements for the restoration of the ditch for Final review.
5.) During construction, investigate the historic framing on the west and south elevations
for any evidence of historic material and openings. Any fenestration changes will be
reviewed and approved by staff and monitor before proceeding.
6.) Removal of the five spruce trees in the public right of way will be paid by the
applicant. A tree removal permit will be required to assure proper technique, but no
mitigation fee will be charged.
7.) Provide details of the relocation plan, outlined by a structural engineer and
housemover, at Final. The applicant will be required to provide a financial security of
$30,000 until the house is set on the new foundation.
8.) The following variations are accepted:
• A 7” (seven inch) reduction of the rear yard setback for the new addition.
• A 4’ reduction of the rear yard setback for the historic outbuilding.
• A 4’ reduction of the west yard setback for the historic outbuilding.
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.
P20
III.A.
HPC Resolution #___, Series of 2019
Page 3 of 3
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.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the ____ day of ____________, 2019.
Approved as to Form: Approved as to Content:
_________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________
Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Gretchen Greenwood, Chair
ATTEST:
_________________________________________________________________
Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk
P21
III.A.
Page 1 of 10
Exhibit A.1
Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Criteria
Staff Findings
NOTE: Staff responses begin on page 10 of this exhibit, following the list of applicable guidelines.
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.
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
P22
III.A.
Page 2 of 10
Chapter 1: Site Planning & Landscape Design MET NOT MET
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.
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.
Chapter 2: Rehabilitation - Building Materials MET NOT MET
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.
Chapter 3: Rehabilitation - Windows MET NOT MET
3.3 Match a replacement window to the original in its design.
3.5 Preserve the size and proportion of a historic window opening.
3.7 Adding new openings on a historic structure is generally not allowed.
Chapter 8: Rehabilitation - Secondary Structures MET NOT MET
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.
8.5 Preserve the original building materials, or match in kind when necessary.
8.8 Adaptation of an obsolete secondary structure to a functional use is encouraged.
MET
MET
MET
MET
CONDITION
MET
MET
Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Review Criteria for 333 West Bleeker Street
The applicant is requesting a Major Development reivew for 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.
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
CONDITION
CONDITION
MET
MET
MET
MET
P23
III.A.
Page 3 of 10
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.
• Consider the value of unpaved alleys in residential areas.
Chapter 9: New Construction - Excavation, Building Relocation & Foundations MET NOT MET
9.1 Developing a basement by underpinning and excavating while the historic structure remains in
place may help to preserve the historic fabric.
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.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.
Chapter 10: New Construction - Building Additions MET NOT MET
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.
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
CONDITION
MET
MET
P24
III.A.
Page 4 of 10
• 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.
• 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.
P25
III.A.
Page 5 of 10
• 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.
• 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.
P26
III.A.
Page 6 of 10
• 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.
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.
8.5 Preserve the original building materials, or match in kind when necessary.
8.8 Adaptation of an obsolete secondary structure to a functional use is encouraged.
• The reuse of any secondary structure should be sensitive so that its character is not lost.
P27
III.A.
Page 7 of 10
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.
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.
• 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.
10.3 Design a new addition such that one’s ability to interpret the historic character of the primary
building is maintained.
P28
III.A.
Page 8 of 10
• 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.
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
P29
III.A.
Page 9 of 10
• 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.
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.
P30
III.A.
Page 10 of 10
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 finds Design Guideline 9.6 regarding visual impact of lightwells and similar features has not been
met with this proposal. The proposed skylight along the east side of the historic house has been reduced
in length from the previous proposal, however, it still spans a length of approximately 37’. Staff
recognizes the functional use of this feature for the below grade space but is concerned with the altered
condition where the historic foundation will no longer meet grade. Staff recommends the reduction of
the proposed skylights to maintain this historic relationship between the foundation and grade. For the
two lightwells proposed around the historic house, staff recommends minimizing the curb height to the
minimum allowed in order to reduce the covering of historic foundation material.
Staff finds Design Guideline 10.3 related to the design of the new addition is not met. This guideline
focuses on the level of compatibility between the historic landmark and the new addition and
emphasizes the importance of this particular to corner lots. Staff finds that new addition is subordinate
and modest in scale but certain features on the new addition such as the chimney can be restudied to
improve visual compatibility.
Design Guideline 10.6 focuses on the need for a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own
time, yet achieve a strong sense of connection to the historic landmark. In order to promote this
connection, the new addition must comply with two of the three aspects by strongly relating to the
historic landmark: form, materials, and fenestration. Staff finds the revised design in regards to form
is an improvement but recommend restudy of the proposed roof pitch and the chimney feature to
strengthen the connection to form. Some of the selected materials for the new addition relate to the
material palette found on the historic landmark, however, a large majority of the materials on the
addition, including the connecting element, is glazing. The standing seam metal roof is a material that
also deviates from the historic resource. In order to relate strongly to the historic materials, staff
recommends further restudy.
Design Guideline 10.11 regarding compatible roof forms calls for simple forms. The revised design is a
simple pitched roof but staff recommends restudy of the pitch. The proposed pitch is 8:12, which is too
shallow compared to what is found on the historic structures.
In summary, staff recommends restudy of the new addition to achieve visual compatibility related to
form and materials.
P31
III.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 revised proposal maintains the historic location of the house but the applicant is
requesting a 7” (seven inch) reduction of the rear yard setback for the new addition. The historic
outbuilding currently sits on the rear lot line with a portion of the roof overhand encroaching into the
alley. The proposal for rotating the historic outbuilding will require a setback variation so that the
building may sit 1’ away from the rear (south) and side (west) property line. The applicant is requesting
a 4’ reduction for the rear and west side yard setback for the historic outbuilding. Staff finds the request
for a rear yard setback for the new addition is in result of maintaining the historic location of the historic
house which enhances the historic significance of the property, and the proposed relocation of the
outbuilding reinforces the pattern in the district to locating parking access to the alley
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.
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.
YES
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.
P32
III.A.
Page 1 of 2
Exhibit A.3
Relocation 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.
26.415.090.C - Relocation. Relocation for a building, structure or object will be approved if it is
determined that it meets any one of the following standards:MET NOT MET DOES NOT
APPLY
1. It is considered a noncontributing element of a historic district and its relocation will not affect
the character of the historic district; or N/A
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 .N/A
3. The owner has obtained a certificate of economic hardship; or N/A
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
Additionally, for approval to relocate all of the following criteria must be met:MET NOT MET DOES NOT
APPLY
1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding the
physical impacts of relocation;CONDITION
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.
CONDITION
MET
MET
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 Relocation Request
P33
III.A.
Page 2 of 2
Staff Finding: The revised design will keep the historic house in place, but the house will be lifted and
temporarily suspended over the basement excavation. This work must comply with Design Guideline
9.1 by providing structural assessment and financial assurances, and staff finds that this plan meet all the
necessary criteria for relocation. The applicant plans to relocate the historic outbuilding by rotating it
on the site to give the garage alley access. Although this outbuilding is not original to its current
location, it is a contributing Victorian structure and the proposed relocation will not negatively impact
the visibility of the historic house. This move will encourage a functional use to the outbuilding and
garage access from the alley is a pattern that is encouraged by the current Land Use Code. The
applicant is required to maintain the relationship between the outbuilding and grade as part of this
relocation, and the applicant must use the existing foundation stones as a veneer on the new foundation.
Staff finds all the relevant review criteria for relocation is met with this proposal.
P34
III.A.
From:Ian Gray
To:Sarah Yoon
Cc:Ben Carlsen
Subject:RE: 333 Bleeker
Date:Thursday, February 7, 2019 7:37:19 AM
Attachments:image020.png
image024.png
image006.png
Good morning Sarah,
Following out meeting last week surrounding the preservation and design challenges at 333 Bleeker,
I can confirm that Parks was amenable to the following:
Given the preservation restrictions in moving the historic asset either north or east and the
subsequent limiting effect on space for new additions at the rear of the lot, a removal permit
could be issued for all the trees in the southeast corner of the parcel (3 spruce, 1 cottonwood,
1 chokecherry, 1 pine).
The usual mitigation assessment criteria will be applied to the removals.
As a condition of the permit Parks will require replacement tree planting along the setback
adjacent to the alley of at least three spruce trees of a minimum 4” inch caliper, the cost of
which will be allowed as an offset for mitigation for tree removals.
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
P35
III.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
P36
III.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
P37
III.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."
P38
III.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.
P39
III.A.
From:Bill Toler
To:Sarah Yoon
Cc:melanie toler
Subject:333 W. Bleeker PID# 2735-124-01-401 Public Hearing Feb 13
Date:Monday, February 11, 2019 8:36:49 PM
Attachments:image001.png
Attachment 333 W Bleeker Variance Request - Toler Comments.pdf
Dear Ms. Yoon:
I spoke to Jenn Phelan last week while you were away from your office. Jenn provided me with the
application documents submitted for 333 W. Bleeker Street to help answer my question about the
variances the homeowner has requested as part of their historical preservation and building permit
application. I told Jenn that I will be out of town on the date of the public hearing (February 13).
She suggested that I send you my comments via email.
My wife and I are delighted to learn that the new owners of 333 W. Bleeker Street want to preserve
the historical architecture of the property. We are the owners of 327 W. Bleeker (titled to Melanie
S.Toler Trust, Melanie S. Toler, trustee). We consider ourselves part-year residents, spending just
slightly less than 6 months a year at our home on Bleeker Street.
We have reviewed the detailed Conceptual HPC Application and Plans. We have no issues with the
proposed plans, but we request the City of Aspen not grant the requested rear set back variance
for the repositioned garage of only 1 foot. We acknowledge that the current outbuilding/garage is
positioned on the rear property line (no set back with a 0.75 foot roof overhang encroaching into the
alley), but for the reasons listed below, improving some existing problems with the alley between
West Main Street and West Bleeker Street at the same time as the owners 333 W. Bleeker do other
major changes and additions to the property is in the best interest of the City of Aspen and the West
End Neighborhood.
1.Access to the alley from Third Street is already very tight. The 333 W. Bleeker property is
situated at the north entrance to the alley that runs between West Main and West Bleeker
Streets. It is the narrowest alley entrance of all segments of the alley that runs between
West Main and West Bleeker Streets. This is caused by multiple contributing factors:
a.The existing garage/outbuilding of 333 W. Bleeker rests directly on the property line
and actually encroaches into the alley due to its roof overhang of about 9 to 12
inches.
b.A large cable TV cabinet at the Third Street entrance is situated in the utility
easement on the north side of the alley and parallels the rear (south) property line
of 333 W. Bleeker Street.
c.The building and connected garage of the house at the corner of Third and West
Main Street utilizes the minimum set back of 5 feet from the rear property line, but
there are also utility boxes on the south side of the alley near the Third Street
entrance which causes the actual usable space for access to the alley to become
much narrower than the 20 feet shown on the survey. I measured the usable width
of the alley in several places along the rear property line of 333 W. Bleeker Street
recently and it averages about 14 feet – 6 inches.
P40
III.A.
d.The situation is further exacerbated in the winter when the City’s snowplows push
snow to the sides of the alley.
2.The proposed 1-foot setback for the outbuilding is not practical for actually turning into or
backing out of the garage.
a.The garages for 331 and 327 W. Bleeker Street each has a 5-foot setback. While this
allows full access to the garage from the alley for small and mid-size cars and SUVs, it
does require extra care when backing out to not hit a utility box, trash cans or
dumpsters, or encroach into the rear boundaries of properties along West Main
where cars are allowed to park. From experience, a 1-foot setback for the garage at
333 W. Bleeker Street will be problematic for the owners and/or users of 333 W.
Bleeker Street. Unless they only have a very small or compact car, they will be
forced to park outside on Third Street or West Bleeker, which of course is their right,
but it is not consistent with the West End Neighborhood or the stated desires of the
City.
b.Properties at 323 and 319 West Bleeker have garage setbacks of 7-8 feet. If the 1-
foot rear setback is granted for 333 W. Bleeker Street, then it becomes the only
garage on the north side of the alley between West Main Street and the portion of
West Bleeker Street between Second and Third Streets to not have at least a 5-foot
setback which is consistent with City codes for the West End Neighborhood when
the other homes were built or substantially remodeled.
Attached are photographs taken on February 6, 2019 that help illustrate the points explained above.
Again, we respectfully request that the 1-foot rear setback variance for 333 W. Bleeker Street not be
granted. We feel this recommendation is in the best interests of the City, the neighbors within 300
feet of 333 W. Bleeker Street, the West End Neighborhood, and the actual users of the garage at 333
W.Bleeker.
With respect,
Melanie S. Toler, Trustee Bill Toler
Melanie S. Toler Trust Spouse of Melanie S. Toler
P.S. Phone contact: 513-602-7629 (Bill); 513-477-1552 (Melanie)
P41
III.A.
West End Neighborhood
Alley between West Main and West Bleeker Streets – Segment between Second and Third Streets
Standing at Third Street looking
eastward into alley. Property on
left is existing outbuilding/garage
of 333 W. Bleeker Street.
Standing in alley at 331 W. Bleeker
looking westward. Existing
outbuilding/garage of 333 W. Bleeker
is on the right side of alley.
P42
III.A.
Large cable TV cabinet at
corner of entrance to alley
Telephone connection box and
large post adjacent to 333 W.
Bleeker in utility easement
View of southwest corner property stake for
333 W. Bleeker and utility boxes at entrance to
alley from Third Street. Snow piles from City
snow plow can only remain in alley since there
is zero setback of existing outbuilding/garage of
333 W. Bleeker Street. Further restricts access
to alley during winter snow season.
P43
III.A.
319 W. Bleeker Street: 7-8 feet setback
331 W. Bleeker Street: 5 foot setback
327 W. Bleeker Street: 5 foot setback
323 W. Bleeker Street: 7- 8 feet setback
P44
III.A.
Tight quarters for large service vehicles that need access to commercial and multifamily buildings on
West Main that share the alley with houses on the south side of West Bleeker between Second and
Third Streets (including 333 W. Bleeker requesting only 1-foot rear setback after repositioning current
outbuilding/garage.
P45
III.A.
February 27, 2019
Ms. Sarah Yoon & Ms. Amy Simon
City of Aspen Historic Preservation Planners
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: ROUND TWO UPDATE/REVISIONS to the 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) for the March 13 HPC Hearing
Dear Sarah and Amy:
The applicant has now had some time to consider the feedback and comments
received at the February 13 HPC hearing. We would like to start by thanking
staff and the HPC for their thoughtful review comments and direction. We feel
the direction given has resulted in what is now a much-improved project that is
more than worthy of Conceptual approval.
First, the applicant has revised the proposed site plan (see attached) such that
we are no longer moving the historic house at all other than temporarily to
accommodate development of a proper foundation with a basement. The home
will be placed back at its historic location without any measurable change to its
elevation above sea level either. As such, we will maintain the existing front
yard setback (20’-7” from the property line and a little more than 39’ from the
edge of street) and east side yard setback (approximately 14’-8”).
As the house will no longer be relocated, all concerns with regard to the spruce
trees should no longer be relevant. During the hearing on February 13, it also
seemed that the Commissioners present were supportive of the requested
garage location (one exception) and with the proposed setbacks variations,
while the applicant was commended on providing a proposal with a total of
only 2,280 square feet of floor area and no requested bonus FAR.
One result of keeping the existing front setback without moving forward on the
lot is the house, connector and addition were pushed 5 feet farther to the south
(toward the alley) that was originally proposed. Consequently, the proposed
HAAS LAND PLANNING, LLC
• 420 E. MAIN STREET, SUITE 220 • ASPEN, COLORADO • 81611 •
• PHONE: (970) 925-7 819 • MITCH@HLPASPEN.COM •
P46
III.A.
333 W. Bleeker Street (PID#2735-124-01-401) Page 2
rear yard setback for the main residence became 9’-5” or so to the walls of the
addition. This means the proposed design now requires a 7” (seven inch) rear
yard setback variation for the addition and the previously proposed 9’ (nine
foot) rear yard setback variation continues to be necessary for the relocated
garage structure (the associated side yard and combined side yard setback
variations continue to be necessary as well to accommodate the location of the
garage structure). We feel that it is still important to keep the proposed
connecting link (even though the guidelines do not specifically require it at all
since the resource is two-stories tall while the proposed addition is only one-
story in height) without shrinking it at all so as to provide an appropriate
separation between the new construction and the resource; it also helps with
maintaining an appropriately proportional relationship between the resource
and the addition in terms of mass and scale while enhancing the visual
distinction between historic and new construction.
Another result of no longer pushing the house forward or to the east is the new
addition will be that much less visible from the 3rd Street side, as it will project
only 2’-7” further to the north than will the relocated garage structure. In other
words, the relocated garage will even further obscure (by 5 additional feet) the
new construction. The relocated garage will so effectively screen the new
construction as to virtually eliminate the concerns of being on a corner lot with
streets on two sides. In effect, the west/3rd Street elevation of the project is a full
view of both the historic house and the historic garage structure but very little
in the way of views of the generously setback new construction. It was even
difficult to provide a view of the addition from the west and north sides using
the SketchUp Model, as shown on the attached drawings.
Staff and the HPC voiced concern over the new addition lacking adequate
compatibility with the resource in terms of form and materials. To address these
concerns, the applicant has revised the design to provide a modern
interpretation of a more traditional, pitched roof form on the addition while
relocating its chimney to the west side instead of the south side. The pitched
roof form provides compatibility with the form of the historic house as well as
that of the historic garage structure. In addition, these changes allowed for
increased consistency relative to materials by providing gable ends where
horizontal wood siding will be used to better compliment the siding found on
the resources. The expanses of glazing on the addition have also been reduced
to increase opportunity for siding, which enables greater compatibility of
materials between the addition and the resources. Similarly, the chimney and
base of the addition will be sided with a stone veneer that will compliment and
provide for additional consistency with the exterior stone found along the
foundation of the historic house. It is felt that these changes combine to ensure
adequate compatibility between the resources and the proposed addition in
P47
III.A.
333 W. Bleeker Street (PID#2735-124-01-401) Page 3
terms or form and materials (Guideline 10.6). The addition will no longer
compete with the resources.
While redesigning the addition to include a pitched roof form added to the
height of the proposed addition, it is felt that this height will not significantly
affect the compatibility, subservience or subordinate nature of the new
construction. The adjacent detached garage will have a roof ridge height slightly
higher than that of the living room addition but this height difference is fully
mitigated by the addition being farther from public viewing points (than the
garage) as well as the angle of view one experiences from these vantage points.
That is, the two structure will reside just 5’-3½” apart, meaning one looking
from the street either will be unable to even see the ridgeline of the addition or
be unable to truly tell that there is a height difference. Further, the ridge on
garage runs north-south, the long way along the street frontage while the
proposed addition’s ridge would run east-west, meaning only one centered
point of the roof would contribute much to its relative massing. In the end, we
feel strongly that the proposed design changes ensure an addition that is simple,
subservient and subordinate to the historic resources and will be perceived as
such.
In a more subtle but still effective set of changes to the proposal, we have
decreased the size of the basement skylight located along the east side of the
residence. The front/north end of this skylight will continue to be recessed some
12-½ feet behind the front façade of the resource, some 51 or so feet from the
street, behind the large spruce tree and a new set of low shrubs such that it will
be indiscernible to passersby along Bleeker Street. This skylight was also
previously designed to extend beyond the south/rear end of the historic
residence but has now been shortened by approximately 4 feet to eliminate any
potential appearance of “floating” as the entirety of the skylight will now be up
against a foundation wall. While the skylight may still appear big in plan view,
nobody will ever really see it in that way, and it will have no significant or
noticeable impacts in the real world. Along these lines, the lightwell/egress
window for a basement bedroom was shifted around to the south side of the
new addition to be located along the alley side of the property; this eliminated
the “floating” lightwell that was previously proposed in the southeast quadrant
of the property. These changes provide for full consistency with Guideline 9.6
as follows:
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.
P48
III.A.
333 W. Bleeker Street (PID#2735-124-01-401) Page 4
• 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.
The visual impact of lightwells has been effectively minimized. The only
lightwells that will face a street are recessed behind the front façades of the
historic resource and will be fully screened. The lightwells and basement level
skylights are not only screened but they are also located alongside/abutting the
building foundation and do not “float” in the landscape at all. No lightwell is
proposed alongside or immediately adjacent to any character defining features
of the historic assets. Further, by locating the lightwells in the manner now
proposed and abutting foundation walls, flat grates will be effectively
employed for the necessary protection without the need for any railings that
would be visible from a street.
We continue to have no issue with a condition requiring restudy of the pathway
design/alignment between the connector and 3rd Street for Final Review. We
made a specific effort to have the pathway line up so that it would cross the
ditch in a location that is already in a culvert. At any rate, the pathway
alignment is not set in stone (pun intended) and we are okay with that being an
element requiring restudy for Final Review but this restudy need not happen
prior to a Conceptual decision. We are also amenable to the fenestration changes
on the historic house being subject to investigation of framing prior to removals
and replacements but, again, we assume that would be a condition of the Final
Review with staff and monitor. It is noted, however, that the proposed
replacement of the inappropriate and dangerous French doors on the second
floor with new windows does not impact any historic fabric or framing as that
entire second floor space at the rear of the structure is believed to have been
built in the 1970s.
Finally, staff voiced some degree of concern for the potential affects that
necessary storm water management infrastructure could have on the site plan
and property. While the applicant continues to feel that such concerns are
beyond the scope of an HPC Conceptual Review, we nonetheless hired Josh
Rice, Professional Engineer, with Woody Creek Engineering, LLC to conduct a
preliminary analysis and prepare a draft grading and drainage plan for the
development. In essence, Mr. Rice explains that stormwater treatment will be
provided by grass buffers (lawn areas) where grade allows and with a drywell
where grade does not allow. Detention is not required on this property given its
location within the Aspen Mountain basin provided that overflows can be
discharged to the right-of-way (ROW); the grass buffer and the drywell will be
P49
III.A.
333 W. Bleeker Street (PID#2735-124-01-401) Page 5
designed to discharge to the ROW. Mr. Rice provide conceptual Grading and
Drainage Plan showing the location of a single drywell in the front yard setback
area, just east of the existing entry walkway. This location avoids all trees, their
driplines and their root zones and will have no visual impact whatsoever as the
plan notes that the drywell lid will be set 4-inches below grade and be covered
with sod to match the surroundings. It will be necessary to use a metal detector
to even find the drywell once completed. In the end, all drainage improvements
will be located below grade and will not be visible to passersby, thus having no
adverse impact on the historic integrity of the property.
In the end, Code Section 26.415.070.D.3.c. makes clear that the effect of an HPC
Conceptual development plan approval is binding only in regards to the
location and form of the envelopes of the structures, including height, scale,
massing and proportions only. As such, while the applicant appreciates the
early “heads-up,” so to speak, on concerns relative to walkway alignments,
building materials, and fenestration patterns, these are not matters for
consideration during conceptual review. Relative to these topics, the applicant
will take the staff memo and HPC comments under advisement prior to
preparing and submitting a Final HPC application.
It is hoped that the information provided herein and in the accompanying plans
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
P50
III.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-
MARCH 13, 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 PLANP51 III.A.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
11
10 12
13
14 15 16 17
18
19
20
21
22
6,000 sq. ft.
0.137± Ac.
(20.39' R.O.W.)THIRD STREET(75.38' R.O.W.)PAVED ROADWAYGARAGE
2 - STORY
FRAME HOUSE
333 E. BLEEKER
STREET
LOT 2
LOT 1WWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWG 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 CTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVW
W
W
W
W
W
WW
GGGGGGGSS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SSSSSSSSSSSSUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEALLEY - BLOCK 4420'-7 1/16"13'-9 11/16"
19'-9 13/16"30'-2 3/8"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# 273512401401HPC CONCEPTUAL 03/13/19
EXISTING SITE PLAN1
A1.01 1/8" = 1'-0"
NORTHP52 III.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# 273512401401EXISTING MAIN FLOOR PLAN2
A1.02 1/4" = 1'-0"
NORTH
EXISTING LOWER FLOOR PLAN1
A1.02 1/4" = 1'-0"
NORTH
HPC CONCEPTUAL 03/13/19P53 III.A.
SLOPESLOPESLOPESLOPESLOPESLOPESLOPESLOPESLOPESLOPESLOPESLOPESLOPEBATH 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# 273512401401EXISTING UPPER FLOOR PLAN1
A1.03 1/4" = 1'-0"
NORTH
EXISTING ROOF PLAN2
A1.03 1/4" = 1'-0"
NORTH
HPC CONCEPTUAL 03/13/19P54
III.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# 273512401401EXISTING 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"
HPC CONCEPTUAL 03/13/19P55 III.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 SLOPESLOPEA1.06
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# 273512401401EXISTING 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
HPC CONCEPTUAL 03/13/19P56
III.A.
PERVIOUS
PAVERS
SCREENING
VEGETATION
5'-3 1/2"V.I.F.1'-1 13/16"V.I.F.
1'-0 7/8"
TREE PROTECTION NOTE:
TREE PROTECTION ZONE PER
SEPTEMBER 20, 2018 EMAIL
FROM IAN GRAY COA PARKS
DEPT.
SCREENING
VEGETATION
DASHED LINE OFBASEMENT BELOWV.I.F.
11'-5 1/16"
V.I.F.
8'-9 1/4"
ENTRY WALKWAY
STEP
STEP
ENTRY
PORCH
EXISTING
CULVERT
PIPE
PER IAN
GRAY
PARKS
DEPT. TREE
PROTECTION
ZONE - TYP.THIRD STREETBLEEKER STREET
ALLEY - BLOCK 44
2
1
10
7
21
V.I.F.9'-5 3/4"PROPOSED
HOUSE IN
HISTORIC
LOCATION
EXISTING
CULVERT
PIPE
10' REAR YARD
SETBACK10' SIDEYARDSETBACK5' SIDEYARDSETBACK10' FRONT YARD
SETBACK
TO BASEMENT
CONC WALL:
10'-2 1/4"
VIF
7'-0"
5' REAR YARD
SETBACK
STEP20'-7 1/16"18'-7 3/8"17'-1 1/16"VIF
9'-9 1/8"VIF12'-5 1/2"VIF
4'-10 3/4"VIF2'-3 1/4"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# 273512401401PROPOSED SITE PLAN1
A1.07 1/8" = 1'-0"
NORTH
HPC CONCEPTUAL 03/13/19P57 III.A.
GUEST
BEDROOM 1
GUEST
CLOSETGUEST
BATH 1
LAUNDRY /
STORAGE
STAIR
GAME ROOM
30"
WASHER
30"
DRYER
UP
POWDER
BAR
DEN
FITNESS
ROOM
LINE OF LEVEL ABOVE
LIGHT
WELL
LIGHT
WELL
MECH
CLOSET
GUEST
BEDROOM 2 GUEST
BEDROOM 3
GUEST
BATH 2
GUEST
BATH 3
CLOSET
CLOSET
21R @ 7.52"
19T @ 10"
DASHED LINE OF
CEILING ABOVE
DASHED LINE OF
SKYLIGHT ABOVE
DASHED LINE OF
SKYLIGHT ABOVE
LIGHT
WELL
30'-0"70'-2 1/2"41'-0"
11'-2 1/4"4'-4"18'-5"4'-4"2'-8 3/4"12'-5 1/2"70'-2 1/2"4'-7"4'-4"3'-6 1/2"57'-9"4'-0"4'-0"3'-8"
STAIR
SALON
ENTRY
PORCH
ENTRY
KITCHENDINING
PANTRY
GARAGE
POWDER
CONNECTOR
LIVING
ROOM
BENCH
DASHED LINE OF
BASEMENT BELOW
CANTILEVERED
FIREPLACE
DASHED LINE OF
STAIR ABOVE
OPEN TO BELOW
26x36
INTERIOR
CLOSET
26x36
INTERIOR
CLOSET
18R @ 6.61"
15T @ 10"
UP
DN
GARAGE DOOR
ABOVE
DASHED LINE
OF BASEMENT
BELOW
DASHED LINE OF
CEILING ABOVE
4'-1 1/8"
6'-0"10'-11"10'-2"1'-8 1/2"5'-5 1/2"8'-0"5'-5 1/2"VERIFY 8'-0 7/8"18'-11"27'-1"
6'-0"8'-9"12'-4"5'-5 1/2"8'-0"5'-5 1/2"18'-11"DASHED LINE OF
CEILING ABOVE
DASHED LINE
OF BASEMENT
BELOW
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# 273512401401PROPOSED MAIN FLOOR PLAN2
A1.08 1/4" = 1'-0"
NORTH
PROPOSED LOWER FLOOR PLAN1
A1.08 1/4" = 1'-0"
NORTH
HPC CONCEPTUAL 03/13/19P58
III.A.
THIS
FLOOR
AREA TO
BE
REMOVED
/ ATTICOPEN
TO BELOW
24"
STACK
W/D
SLOPE
12:12
SLOPE
12:12
MASTER
BEDROOM
MASTER
BATHROOM
STAIR DN
SLOPE
0.25:12EXEMPT INACCESSIBLE SPACE(2) NEW WINDOWS -
WINDOW SIZE TAKEN
FROM MAIN LEVEL NORTH
"SALON" ROOM
DASHED LINE
OF CEILING
TRANSITION ABOVE
DASHED LINE OF
ROOF ABOVE
SLOPE8:12SLOPE8:12SLOPESLOPE14:12SLOPE14:12SLOPESLOPESLOPE14:1212:12
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# 273512401401PROPOSED ROOF PLAN2
A1.09 1/4" = 1'-0"
NORTH
PROPOSED UPPER FLOOR PLAN1
A1.09 1/4" = 1'-0"
NORTH
HPC CONCEPTUAL 03/13/19P59 III.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. 86'-10"
T.O. F.F. @ GROUND LEVEL
ELEV. 100'-0" SITE ELEV 7907.61'
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL13'-2"12
8
DASHED LINE OF GARAGE
13'-2"29'-2"DASHED LINE OF FOUNDATION
LINE OF FINISH GRADE
ELEV. 86'-10"
T.O. PL. @ ADDITION
ELEV. 109'-0"
T.O. RIDGE @ ADDITION
ELEV. 116'-2 7/16" 9'-0"7'-2 7/16"16'-2 7/16"17'-5 15/16"12
8
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. @ LOWER LEVEL 13'-2"3'-0"DASHED LINE OF GARAGE
DASHED LINE OF FOUNDATION
LINE OF FINISH GRADE
ELEV. 86'-10" 3'-0"T.O. F.F. @ GROUND LEVEL
ELEV. 100'-0" SITE ELEV 7907.61'
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL13'-2"ELEV. 86'-10"
T.O. PL. @ ADDITION
ELEV. 109'-0"
T.O. RIDGE @ ADDITION
ELEV. 116'-2 7/16" 9'-0"7'-2 7/16"16'-2 7/16"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# 273512401401PROPOSED ELEVATION WEST1
A1.10 1/4" = 1'-0"
PROPOSED ELEVATION SOUTH2
A1.10 1/4" = 1'-0"
HPC CONCEPTUAL 03/13/19P60
III.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 13'-2"NEW WINDOW TO MATCH
HISTORIC WINDOWS
CONNECTOR8'-0"T.O. F.F. @ GROUND LEVEL
ELEV. 100'-0" SITE ELEV 7907.61'
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL13'-2"8'-0"T.O. PL. @ CONNECTOR
ELEV. 108'-0"
T.O. ROOF @ CONNECTOR
ELEV. 109'-0" 1'-0"9'-0"10'-3 1/2"1
2
3
4
(2) NEW WINDOWS -
WINDOW SIZE TAKEN
FROM MAIN LEVEL NORTH
"SALON" ROOM
LINE OF FINISH GRADE
ELEV. 86'-10" ELEV. 86'-10" 29'-2"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"DASHED LINE OF GARAGE
LINE OF FINISH GRADE
T.O. F.F. @ GROUND LEVEL
ELEV. 100'-0" SITE ELEV 7907.61'
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL 13'-2"ELEV. 86'-10"
T.O. PL. @ ADDITION
ELEV. 109'-0"
T.O. RIDGE @ ADDITION
ELEV. 116'-2 7/16" 9'-0"7'-2 7/16"16'-2 7/16"T.O. F.F. @ GROUND LEVEL
ELEV. 100'-0" SITE ELEV 7907.61'
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL13'-2"8'-0"T.O. PL. @ CONNECTOR
ELEV. 108'-0"
T.O. ROOF @ CONNECTOR
ELEV. 109'-0" 1'-0"9'-0"ELEV. 86'-10" 17'-5 15/16"CONNECTOR
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# 273512401401PROPOSED ELEVATION SOUTH1
A1.11 1/4" = 1'-0"
PROPOSED ELEVATION NORTH2
A1.11 1/4" = 1'-0"
HPC CONCEPTUAL 03/13/19P61 III.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 13'-2"2
2
3
3
4
5
DASHED LINE OF GARAGE
NEW ADDITION
BEYOND
(ALMOST INVISIBLE)
DASHED LINE OF FOUNDATION
LINE OF FINISH GRADE
ELEV. 86'-10" 29'-2"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) = EXISTING3'-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 LEVEL13'-2"1
2
3
3
3
3
4
5
DASHED LINE OF GARAGE
DASHED LINE OF FOUNDATION
LINE OF FINISH GRADE
ELEV. 86'-10"
12
8
12
8
T.O. F.F. @ GROUND LEVEL
ELEV. 100'-0" SITE ELEV 7907.61'
T.O. F.F. @ LOWER LEVEL
ELEV. 86'-10"
T.O. PL. @ ADDITION
ELEV. 109'-0"
T.O. RIDGE @ ADDITION
ELEV. 116'-2 7/16" 13'-2"9'-0"7'-2 7/16"16'-2 7/16"NEW WINDOW TO MATCH
HISTORIC WINDOWS
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# 273512401401PROPOSED ELEVATION NORTH1
A1.12 1/4" = 1'-0"
PROPOSED ELEVATION EAST2
A1.12 1/4" = 1'-0"
HPC CONCEPTUAL 03/13/19P62
III.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
CEILING 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# 273512401401PROPOSED 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"
NORTH
HPC CONCEPTUAL 03/13/19P63 III.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
41.79STORAGE STEP
STEP
BATH 3
CLOSET 2
LINEN
STORAGE
LINEN
BEDROOM 4
BEDROOM 3
BEDROOM 2
HALLWAY
BATH 2CLOSET 4CLOSET
3
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# 273512401401UPPER 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
Z1.01
HPC CONCEPTUAL 03/13/19P64
III.A.
1
2
3
280.00
20.50
116.27
538.992'-6"4
102.65 9'-4"1
2
3
4
6
SUBGRADE
GROSS F.A. =
2705.55 S.F.
5
GUEST
BEDROOM 1
GUEST
CLOSETGUEST
BATH 1
LAUNDRY /
STORAGE
STAIR
GAME ROOM
POWDER
DEN
FITNESS
ROOM
LIGHT
WELL
LIGHT
WELL
GUEST
BEDROOM 2 GUEST
BEDROOM 3
GUEST
BATH 2
GUEST
BATH 3
CLOSET
CLOSET
LIGHT
WELL
STAIR
SALON
ENTRY
PORCH
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. =
1581.24
NET F.A. =
1508.49 S.F.
POWDER
CONNECTOR
LIVING
ROOM
MASTER
BEDROOM
MASTER
BATHROOM
STAIR
128.17 S.F.167.72 S.F.UPPER LEVEL
GROSS F.A. =
939.93
NET F.A. =
643.04 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 = 538.99 0
WALL 5 = 382.65 41.00
WALL 6 = 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. = 2741.44 S.F.
SUBRAGE FAR = 2.96% X 2741.44 S.F. = 81.21 S.F.
TOTAL FAR = 2272.36 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 =1508.49 S.F.
UPPER LEVEL = 643.04 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..
655.276
5 382.6520.50
2'-6"20.50
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# 273512401401UPPER 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
Z1.02
HPC CONCEPTUAL 03/13/19P65 III.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# 273512401401HPC CONCEPTUAL 03/13/19P66
III.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
5' SIDE YARD SETBACKPROPERTY LINEHPC2
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# 273512401401RELOCATION SITE PLAN1
HPC2 1/8" = 1'-0"
NORTH
HPC CONCEPTUAL 03/13/19P67 III.A.
PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATIONEXISTING NORTH ELEVATIONP68
III.A.
PROPOSED EAST ELEVATIONEXISTING EAST ELEVATIONP69
III.A.
PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATIONEXISTING SOUTH ELEVATIONP70
III.A.
PROPOSED WEST ELEVATIONEXISTING WEST ELEVATIONP71
III.A.
PROPOSED NORTH WEST ELEVATIONEXISTING NORTH WEST ELEVATIONP72
III.A.
PROPOSED SOUTH EAST ELEVATIONEXISTING SOUTH EAST ELEVATIONP73
III.A.
Josh Rice, P.E.
Woody Creek Engineering
308 South Galena Street
Suite C
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(970) 429-8297
February 27, 2019
Mitch Haas
Haas Land Planning, LLC
420 East Main Street
Suite 220
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: 333 West Bleeker Redevelopment
Mitch:
We understand that the redevelopment of 333 West Bleeker Street would consist of lifting the
historical structure, adding a lower level basement, replacing the historical structure and adding a
one story garage and one story addition (both at-grade). The project will trigger a Major Grading
and Drainage Design. The owner requested that Woody Creek Engineering, LLC (“WCE”)
prepare a conceptual level grading and drainage plan to identify locations for stormwater
elements, water service and sanitary sewer service.
Grading and Drainage Plan
Site Access
The property is bounded by public right-of-ways (“ROW”), on the north, south and west
boundary lines. The property is bounded on the east my another private lot. Due to the location
of the property, the site will be accessed from the alley south of the property. The Grading and
Drainage Plan (C200, attached) depicts a driveway connecting the alley with the garage.
Pedestrian access is depicted to the north and west ROWs.
Stormwater BMP Discussion
Currently, there exists a historical structure on the property. Stormwater treatment will be provided
by grass buffers where grade allows and with a drywell where grade does not
allow. Only water quality capture volume will be provided as it is not required to provide
detention in the Aspen Mountain basin as long as overflows can be discharged to the ROW. The
grass buffer will discharge to the ROW and the drywell can be designed to discharge to the ROW.
There exists an open channel ditch within the ROW west of the property. There are piped
sections of the ditch. The ditch is proposed to remain intact with no changes to either the open
channel or the piped section. The site is located outside of the 100-year floodplain. There are no
drainage easements on site.
Pre-development runoff rates were not calculated for this project at this stage of the design
because detention is not required. Post-development 100-year flowrates have been calculated
(see Table 1).
P74
III.A.
333 West Bleeker Redevelopment
February 27, 2019
Page 2
Table 1. Basin Information, WQCV and Runoff Rates
Public Improvements
The curb and gutter was recently replaced as part of the City’s curb and gutter replacement
program and does not require replacement at this time. However, during construction, the curb
and gutter will likely be damaged and the Engineering Department will likely require
replacement. No sidewalk is required as the property is located in a sidewalk deferred zone.
Sincerely,
Josh Rice, P.E.
Woody Creek Engineering, LLC
Attachment
BASIN NO.TOTAL BASIN
AREA (SF)
IMPERVIOUS
AREA (SF)
TOTAL BASIN
AREA
(ACRES)
IMPERVIOUS
AREA
(ACRES)
%
IMPERVIOUS
RUNOFF
COEF. 5YR
RUNOFF
COEF. 10YR
RUNOFF
COEF. 100YR WQCV (CF)PEAK FLOW
5YR (CFS)
PEAK FLOW
10YR (CFS)
PEAK FLOW
100YR (CFS)
PR:2.0 76.46 76.46 0.002 0.002 100% 0.90 0.92 0.96 1.6248 0.005 0.006 0.011
PR:2.1 282.72 282.72 0.006 0.006 100% 0.90 0.92 0.96 6.0078 0.019 0.024 0.039
PR:2.2 271.72 271.72 0.006 0.006 100% 0.90 0.92 0.96 5.7741 0.018 0.023 0.038
PR:2.3 192.32 192.32 0.004 0.004 100% 0.90 0.92 0.96 4.0868 0.013 0.016 0.027
PR:2.4 192.32 192.32 0.004 0.004 100% 0.90 0.92 0.96 4.0868 0.013 0.016 0.027
PR:3.0 289.66 289.66 0.007 0.007 100% 0.90 0.92 0.96 6.1553 0.020 0.024 0.040
PR:3.1 293.87 293.87 0.007 0.007 100% 0.90 0.92 0.96 6.2447 0.020 0.024 0.041
PR:3.2 82.47 82.47 0.002 0.002 100% 0.90 0.92 0.96 1.7525 0.006 0.007 0.011
PR:3.3 258.58 258.58 0.006 0.006 100% 0.90 0.92 0.96 5.4948 0.017 0.022 0.036
PR:3.4 222.34 222.34 0.005 0.005 100% 0.90 0.92 0.96 4.7247 0.015 0.019 0.031
1/11/20182/27/2018
P75
III.A.
PERVIOUSPAVERSENTRY WALKWAY10' REAR YARDSETBACK10' SIDEYARDSETBACK5' SIDEYARDSETBACK10' FRONT YARDSETBACK5' REAR YARDSETBACK10' REAR YSETBACK5' REAR YAPR:3.4AREA:222.34 SFPR:3.3AREA:258.58 SFPR:3.0AREA:289.66 SFPR:3.1AREA:293.87 SFPR:3.2AREA:82.47 SFPR:2.0AREA:76.46 SFPR:2.2AREA:271.72 SFPR:2.1AREA:282.72 SFPR:2.3AREA:192.32 SFPR:2.4AREA:192.32 SFDS-2CONNECT BASINPR:2.4DS-3CONNECT BASINPR:2.3DS-4CONNECT BASINPR:2.1SPREE-4DS-5CONNECT BASINPR:3.3DS-6CONNECT BASINPR:3.4SPREE-3DS-1CONNECT BASINSPR:2.0 & PR:2.1DRYWELLSET LID 4" BELOW GRADECOVER LID WITH SODMIN WQCV: 33.6 CFMIN VOL (FS=2): 67.2 CFVOL PROVIDED: 100 CFPROPERTYBOUNDARYGRASS BUFFERMIN AREA: 583.53 SFAREA PROVIDED: 826 SF10.00 FT6.06 FTEXISTING DITCHWALKWAY TO BE TREATED BY GRASS BUFFEROF EQUAL SIZE LOCATED ADJACENT TO WALKENTRY WALKENTRY WALKENTRY WALKENTRY WALKENTRY WALKENTRY WALKENTRY WALKENTRY WALK2/27/2019DATE OF PUBLICATIONC0.0COVER SHEET333 W BLEEKER STREMODEL333 W BLEEKER ST., ASPEN2/27/19 HPCWOODY CREEK ENGINEERING, LLCP.O. BOX 575WOODY CREEK, COLORADO 81656(P): 970-429-8297WOODYCREEKENGINEERING.COM0 5 10 20 40Scale: 1" = 10'NNC200GRADING &DRAINAGE PLANNOTES:1. CURB AND GUTTER HASRECENTLY BEEN REPLACEBY THE CITY. IF CURB ANDGUTTER IS DAMAGEDDURING CONSTRUCTIONTHEN REPLACE DAMAGEDCURB AND GUTTER.2. HOUSE, ADDITION ANDGARAGE SHALL WATERQUALITY CAPTURE VOLUMEREQUIREMENTS SHALL BETREATED BY A GRASSBUFFER (LOCATED OVERBASEMENT) AND DRYWELL.3. WALKWAY WATER QUALITYCAPTURE VOLUME SHALLBE TREATED BY A SECONDGRASS BUFFER TO BELOCATED ADJACENT TOTHE WALKWAY.4. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATEDIN A SIDEWALK DEFERREDAREA AND THUS NOSIDEWALK SHALL BEREQUIRED.5. UTILITIES ARE LOCATEDBASED ON EXISTINGPAINTED SURFACELOCATES. SURVEYEDLOCATES WILL BEREQUIRED.PIPEGUTTERUTILITY SERVICEE=ELECTRICUG=UNDERGROUNDGASSS=SANITARY SEWERW=WATERTel=PHONE LINECable=CABLE LINEP76
III.A.
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation
MEETING DATE: February 27, 201
RE: 330 E. Main, Hotel Jerome
APPLICANT /OWNER:
Iconic Properties- Jerome LLC
REPRESENTATIVE:
Design Workshop Inc.
LOCATION:
Street Address:
330 E. Main Street
Legal Description:
Aspen Times/Hotel Jerome
Subdivision PD.
Parcel Identification Number:
PID# 2737-073-21-004
CURRENT ZONING & USE
CC, Commercial Core,
Hotel and accessory uses
PROPOSED LAND USE:
No change
BACKGROUND:
30 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
MEMORANDUM
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
Historic Preservation Officer
, 2019
330 E. Main, Hotel Jerome– Minor Development Review, PUBLIC HEARING
SUMMARY:
The applicant recently completed an interior remodel of the
historic Hotel Jerome and renovation of the former Aspen
building. The Main Street courtyard was also substantially
redesigned as part of this project. In the summer of
was approached by Hotel Jerome management regarding
significant challenges with maintaining natural grass along the
southern end of the courtyard. The Hotel Jerome and staff
agreed to a temporary emergency installation of synthetic grass
to complete the summer season. It was agreed that, to keep this
material long-term , a formal application would have to be made
to HPC.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff does not find that the synthetic grass meets the HPC
design guidelines. Staff recommends the applicant either re
install natural grass or
work with staff and
monitor to determine
an alternative
hardscape material
that can be used in
the problematic area.
Site Locator Map
330 E. Main Street
Page 1 of 3
cityofaspen.com
PUBLIC HEARING
recently completed an interior remodel of the
historic Hotel Jerome and renovation of the former Aspen Times
building. The Main Street courtyard was also substantially
. In the summer of 2018, staff
was approached by Hotel Jerome management regarding
significant challenges with maintaining natural grass along the
end of the courtyard. The Hotel Jerome and staff
installation of synthetic grass
to complete the summer season. It was agreed that, to keep this
a formal application would have to be made
does not find that the synthetic grass meets the HPC
design guidelines. Staff recommends the applicant either re-
P77
IV.A.
Page 2 of 3
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
Historic Sanborn maps indicate that there has never been a structure between the Hotel Jerome and
the Aspen Times building. It is unclear how this area was used in the Victorian era, but when the
Paepcke’s renovated the hotel in the late 1940s, a pool was added and the courtyard became an
important part of the activity at the hotel. For some years, views into the area from the sidewalk were
blocked by a high solid fence designed by Herbert Bayer, which was later replaced with the wrought
iron railing that is in place now.
REQUEST OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals:
· Minor Development (Section 26.415.070.C) for permanent installation of synthetic grass at the
southern edge of the courtyard.
The Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) is the final review authority.
STAFF COMMENTS: HPC reviewed and
approved the recent renovations of the Hotel
Jerome property. A landscape deign was part
of the approval. The illustrative plan at right
represents the approval. The grass areas along
the Main Street lot line are the subject of this
discussion.
Despite efforts to properly install and maintain
this grass, the grass died in the summer of
2018, causing the hotel significant concerns in
the midst of a busy event season. A temporary
solution was allowed.
The applicant worked with other City
Departments to install the synthetic grass
quickly. It was agreed that it would be covered
with burlap in the winter so that when not
covered with snow, the grass would not appear to be unnaturally green. The applicant was required to
prepare an application for HPC review.
Staff finds that synthetic grass in this highly visible location does not meet HPC design guidelines 1.12,
1.24 and 1.25, along with Commercial Design Guideline 1.3. Staff’s primary concerns with the proposal is
that natural, authentic materials are preferred in all aspects of the built environment downtown, and the
synthetic grass does not respect this tradition.
P78
IV.A.
Page 3 of 3
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
We recommend that natural grass be installed again, or that the applicant propose a hardscape
material, perhaps a different material than the brick pavers, to break up the surface of the courtyard,
for review and approval by staff and monitor.
Please note that there is a small area of artificial turf alongside the pool, completely internal to the site.
This turf has no visibility to the public and staff does not object or find that HPC review is needed.
REFERRAL COMMENTS:
The application was referred out to other City departments to preliminarily identify requirements that
may affect permit review. The following is a summary of comments received. See Exhibit B for more
details. Follow-up on these comments is needed.
Building:
1. No building code implications have been identified.
Engineering:
1. Engineering accepts the artificial grass but requires a spec sheet to ensure that the surface
meets all requirements for permeability.
Parks:
1. Parks accepts the installation of artificial turf in a limited area but not within the dripline of trees. Any
artificial turf must be kept a minimum of 4 feet from the trunk of any tree. Wood chip mulch is required
in the driplines.
2. If artificial turf is used, the trees along the west sidewalk need to be encapsulated by an irrigated planting
area.
3. Parks suggested that the artificial turf may have its own set of maintenance issues in terms of cleaning up
debris on the surface.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Historic Preservation Commission deny the request for permanent installation of
the synthetic grass. Natural grass should be installed again, or the applicant should propose a
hardscape material, perhaps a different material than the brick pavers, to break up the surface of the
courtyard, for review and approval by staff and monitor.
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution #____, Series of 2019
Exhibit A – Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Criteria /Staff Findings
Exhibit B – Referral Comments
Exhibit C – Application
P79
IV.A.
HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2019
Page 1 of 2
RESOLUTION #__, SERIES OF 2019
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
GRANTING MINOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 330 E. MAIN STREET, ASPEN TIMES/HOTEL JEROME SUBDIVISION PD, CITY
AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO
PARCEL ID: 2737-073-21-004
WHEREAS, the applicant, Iconic Properties- Jerome LLC, represented by Design
Workshop Inc., has requested HPC approval for Minor Development for the property
located at 330 E. Main Street, Aspen Times/Hotel Jerome Subdivision PD, 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 Minor Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a
staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project’s
conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per
Section 26.415.070.C.3.b of the Municipal Code, and other applicable Code Sections.
The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application
to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and
WHEREAS, HPC reviewed the project on March 13, 2019. 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:
Section 1: Minor Development Review
HPC hereby approves Minor Development for 330 E. Main Street with the following
conditions:
1. The synthetic grass currently in place in the Hotel Jerome courtyard is to be
removed by September 1st, 2019. Natural grass should be installed again, or the
applicant should propose a hardscape material, perhaps a different material than
the brick pavers, to break up the surface of the courtyard, for review and approval by
staff and monitor.
2. All concerns identified by the Engineering and Parks Departments in their referral
comments provided for this land use review must be addressed to the satisfaction of
those Departments.
Section 2: Material Representations
P80
IV.A.
HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2019
Page 2 of 2
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the
development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or
documentation presented before the Community Development Department, the Historic
Preservation Commission, or the Aspen City Council are hereby incorporated in such
plan 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.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the _____ day of
_______, 2019.
Approved as to Form: Approved as to Content:
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________
Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Gretchen Greenwood, Chair
ATTEST:
_________________________________________________________________
Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk
P81
IV.A.
Page 1 of 6
Exhibit A
Design Guidelines
Staff Findings
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.
26.415.070.C. Certificate of appropriateness for a minor development.
3. The procedures for the review of minor development projects are as follows:
a) The Community Development Director will review the application materials and if they are
determined to be complete, schedule a public hearing before the HPC. The subject
property shall be posted pursuant to Paragraph 26.304.060.E.3.b.
b) Staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a report that analyzes the project's
conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code sections. This
report will be transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project
and a recommendation to approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons
for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the report and the evidence
presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City Historic
Preservation Design Guidelines.
c) The HPC shall approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to
obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. If the
application is approved, the HPC shall issue a certificate of appropriateness and the
Community Development Director shall issue a development order.
d) The HPC decision shall be final unless appealed by the applicant or a landowner within
three hundred (300) feet of the subject property in accordance with the procedures set
forth in Chapter 26.316.
P82
IV.A.
Page 2 of 6
P83
IV.A.
Page 3 of 6
Relevant Design Guidelines:
Historic Preservation Design Guidelines
1.7 Provide positive open space within a project site.
· Ensure that open space on site is meaningful and consolidated into a few large spaces rather
than many small unusable areas.
· Open space should be designed to support and complement the historic building.
1.8 Consider stormwater quality needs early in the design process.
· When included in the initial planning for a project, stormwater quality facilities can be better
integrated into the proposal. All landscape plans presented for HPC review must include at
least a preliminary representation of the stormwater design. A more detailed design must be
reviewed and approved by Planning and Engineering prior to building permit submittal.
· Site designs and stormwater management should provide positive drainage away from the
historic landmark, preserve the use of natural drainage and treatment systems of the site,
reduce the generation of additional stormwater runoff, and increase infiltration into the
ground. Stormwater 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.
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.
P84
IV.A.
Page 4 of 6
· 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.
P85
IV.A.
Page 5 of 6
1.24 Preserve historically significant landscapes with few or no alterations.
· An analysis of the historic landscape and an assessment of the current condition of the
landscape should be done before the beginning of any project.
· The key features of the historic landscape and its overall design intent must be preserved.
1.25 New development on these sites should respect the historic design of the landscape and its
built features.
· Do not add features that damage the integrity of the historic landscape.
· Maintain the existing pattern of setbacks and siting of structures.
· Maintain the historic relationship of the built landscape to natural features on the site.
· All additions to these landscapes must be clearly identifiable as recent work.
· New artwork must be subordinate to the designed landscape in terms of placement, height,
material, and overall appearance. Place new art away from significant landscape features.
· Avoid installing utility trenches in cultural landscapes if possible.
12.1 Address accessibility compliance requirements while preserving character defining features
of historic buildings and districts.
· All new construction must comply completely with the International Building Code (IBC) for
accessibility. Special provisions for historic buildings exist in the law that allow some
flexibility when designing solutions which meet accessibility standards.
Commercial Design Guidelines
1.3 Landscape elements (both hardscape and softscape) should complement the surrounding
context, support the street scene, and enhance the architecture of the building.
· This applies to landscape located both on-site and in the public right-of-way.
· High quality and durable materials should be used.
· Early in the design process, consider stormwater best management practices as an integral
part of the landscape design process.
STAFF RESPONSE: Staff’s primary concerns with the proposal is that natural, authentic materials are
preferred in all aspects of the built environment downtown, and the synthetic grass does not respect
this tradition. Grass has been part of the courtyard landscape for decades. Maintaining a small area of
P86
IV.A.
Page 6 of 6
turf is ideal, however if it is not practical, staff recommends installation of a natural hardscape
material.
Historic Preservation Guidelines 1.12, 1.24 and 1.25 all indicate that simple, historically appropriate
landscape should be installed around landmarked structures. New planting is to be species that were
used historically or species of similar attributes. Staff finds the permanently green synthetic turf to be
an obvious artificial element of the landscape and therefore inappropriate. Commercial Design
Guideline 1.3 is also applicable to this project and also is not met, in particular in terms of being
consistent with the surrounding context.
P87
IV.A.
From:PJ Murray
To:Amy Simon
Subject:RE: Referral of HPC Project - Hotel Jerome
Date:Tuesday, February 19, 2019 1:25:29 PM
Attachments:image001.png
Hi Amy,
As a concept, Engineering does not have an issue with the artificial grass. Please have the applicant
provide the spec sheet that shows this surface meets our requirements for permeability. They
provided this before they installed but I’d like it provided in the landuse application as well.
Thanks,
PJ
PJ Murray
Civil Engineer
Engineering
130 South Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
p: 970.920.5056
www.cityofaspen.com
From: Amy Simon
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2019 11:56 AM
To: Sarah Yoon <sarah.yoon@cityofaspen.com>; Ben Carlsen <ben.carlsen@cityofaspen.com>; Bob
Narracci <bob.narracci@cityofaspen.com>; Bonnie Muhigirwa
<bonnie.muhigirwa@cityofaspen.com>; David Radeck <david.radeck@cityofaspen.com>; Denis
Murray <denis.murray@cityofaspen.com>; Ian Gray <ian.gray@cityofaspen.com>; Jack Danneberg
<jack.danneberg@cityofaspen.com>; Jim Pomeroy <jim.pomeroy@cityofaspen.com>; Mike Horvath
<mike.horvath@cityofaspen.com>; Nick Thompson <nick.thompson@cityofaspen.com>; PJ Murray
<pj.murray@cityofaspen.com>; Trish Aragon <Trish.Aragon@cityofaspen.com>
Subject: Referral of HPC Project - Hotel Jerome
Hi everyone-
We have received an HPC Land Use application (attached) from the Hotel Jerome. We allowed them
P88
IV.A.
From:Ian Gray
To:Amy Simon
Cc:David Radeck; Sarah Yoon
Subject:RE: Referral of HPC Project - Hotel Jerome
Date:Thursday, February 14, 2019 2:40:35 PM
Attachments:image001.png
Hi Amy,
I think Dave Radeck sent an initial reply. I would add that Parks has no issues per se with artificial turf
for smaller open turf areas that are challenged by space and traffic volume, but would not agree to
the same within the driplines of trees. This should be woodchip mulch as a preference. Any artificial
turf should be kept a minimum of 4 feet from the trunk of any tree. If the applicant wanted to
delineate the edge of the mulch/turf they could add a narrow planting strip.
I hope this helps.
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
From: Amy Simon
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2019 11:56 AM
P89
IV.A.
From:David Radeck
To:Amy Simon; Sarah Yoon
Subject:RE: Referral of HPC Project - Hotel Jerome
Date:Tuesday, February 12, 2019 5:15:32 PM
Attachments:image001.png
Hi Amy & Sarah,
If this project is allowed, it would be Parks preference to see the trees along the west sidewalk
encapsulated by an irrigated planting area such as depicted along Main street. This would benefit the
root zones for the Spring Snow Crabapple trees as they grow into maturity. Irrigation will be a
requirement for all of the trees around the courtyard.
One question that would need to be answered is: Would the irrigation piping that was originally
installed for the sod need to remain? They may want to keep it in place due to the following personal
statement….. (they may want to try other options, such as a flagstone patio or a different grass)
My personal statement would be: There is an ongoing maintenance issue that will need to be
addressed due to food, alcohol, gum, cigarette butts, dog poo, and anything else that may bring forth
odors and messes that would not be conducive to a high end gathering. Just saying….
David Radeck
Project Technician
Parks Department
585 Cemetery Lane
Aspen, CO 81611
p: 970.429.2025
f: 970.920.5128
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
From: Amy Simon
P90
IV.A.
P91
IV.A.
P92IV.A.
AHPC
Minor Development
330 E. Main St.
1
CITY OF ASPEN
PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PLANNER: Amy Simon, 429.2758 DATE: July 20, 2018
PROJECT: 330 E. Main Street
APPLICANT: Hotel Jerome, represented by Rowland + Broughton
TYPE OF APPLICATION: Commercial Design Review, HPC Minor Development
DESCRIPTION: The Hotel Jerome has recently completed a significant renovation of the courtyard
facing Main Street. The courtyard is a mix of patio, grass, flowers and shrubs. The hotel is finding grass
difficult to maintain given the intense use of the space. An alternative, which may be synthetic grass,
crushed stone, decking or another solution, will be proposed for HPC review.
HPC will conduct Commercial Design and Minor Development review of the project. All decisions will be
based on relevant standards and guidelines found in the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District
Standards and Guidelines and the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines.
This review is a one-step hearing, meaning that all details of the proposal will be presented to HPC in one
application. Staff will review the project and make a recommendation to HPC.
Below are links to relevant documents and a list of information needed to submit an application.
Historic Preservation Land Use Application form:
https://www.cityofaspen.com/DocumentCenter/Home/View/305
Land Use Code:
https://www.cityofaspen.com/191/Municipal-Code
Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Standards and Guidelines:
https://www.cityofaspen.com/DocumentCenter/View/412/Commercial-Design-Standards-Book-PDF
HPC Design Guidelines:
https://www.cityofaspen.com/DocumentCenter/Home/View/310
Land Use Code Section(s)
26.304 Common Development Review Procedures
26.412 Commercial Design Review
26.415.070.C Certificate of Appropriateness for a Minor development
Review by: Staff for completeness and recommendations. HPC for determinations.
Public Hearing: Yes.
Referral Agencies: None
Planning Fees: $1,300.00 deposit for up to 4 billable hours (additional/fewer hours will be
billed/refunded at a rate of $325 per hour)
P93
IV.A.
2
To apply, submit 1 copy of the following information:
Completed Land Use Application and signed fee agreement.
Pre-application Conference Summary (this document).
Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur,
consisting of a current (not older than 6 months) certificate from a title insurance company, an
ownership and encumbrance report, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado,
listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements,
contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner’s right to apply for
the Development Application.
Applicant’s name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant that states
the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of
the applicant.
A site improvement survey (not older than a year from submittal) including topography and
vegetation showing the current status of the parcel certified by a registered land surveyor by
licensed in the State of Colorado. (NOT REQUIRED FOR THIS PROJECT)
HOA Compliance form (Attached).
An 8 1/2” by 11” vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen.
A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form of how
the proposed development complies with the design standards and guidelines relevant to the
development application.
A site plan and landscape plan.
Representations of all proposed materials and finishes in the form of samples or clearly
illustrated photographs.
Once the application is determined to be complete, submit:
A digital copy of the application emailed to amy.simon@cityofaspen.com.
12 copies of the project graphics.
Total deposit for review of the application.
Disclaimer:
The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on
current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not
be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right.
P94
IV.A.
Land Title Gua ra ntee Company
Customer Distribution
PREVENT FRAUD - Please remember to call a member of our closing team when
initiating a wire transfer or providing wiring instructions.
Order Number:BANA62009999 Date: 12/20/2018
Property Addres s :310 E M AIN ST, ASPEN, CO 81611
PLEASE CONTACT YOUR CLOSER OR CLOSER'S ASSISTANT FOR WIRE TRANSFER INSTRUCTIONS
For Closing Assistance For Title Assistance
Roaring Fork Valley Title Team
200 BASALT CENTER CIRCLE
BASALT, CO 81621
(970) 927-0405 (Work)
(970) 925-0610 (Work Fax )
valleyresponse@ltgc.com
Buyer/Borrower
ICONIC PROPERTIES JEROME LLC
1375 ENCLAVE PKWY
HOUSTON, TX 77077
Deliv ered via: Electronic M ail
HOTEL JEROME, AUBERGE RESORTS COLLECTION
Attention: SHELDON HOELSKEN
330 EAST MAIN STREET
Aspen, CO 81611
(970) 429-7664 (Work )
(970) 429-7783 (Work Fax)
sheldon.hoelsken@aubergeres orts.com
Deliv ered via: Electronic M ail
P95
IV.A.
Order Number:BANA62009999 Date: 12/20/2018
Property Addres s :310 E M AIN ST, ASPEN, CO 81611
Chain of Title Documents:
Pitkin county recorded 02/10/2015 under reception no. 617309
Pitkin county recorded 02/10/2015 under reception no. 617310
Plat Map(s):
Pitkin county recorded 01/31/2017 at book 117 page 69
P96
IV.A.
This Report is based on a limited search of the county real property records and provides the name(s) of the
vested owner(s), the legal description, tax information (taken from information provided by the county treasurer on
its website) and encumbrances, which, for the purposes of this report, means deed of trust and mortgages, and
liens recorded against the property and the owner(s) in the records of the clerk and recorder for the county in
which the subject is located. This Report does not constitute any form of warranty or guarantee of title or title
insurance. The liability of Land Title Guarantee Company is strictly limited to (1) the recipient of the Report, and no
other person, and (2) the amount paid for the report.
Prepared For:
HOTEL JEROME, AUBERGE RESORTS COLLECTION
This Report is dated:
11/30/2018 at 5:00 P.M .
Address:
310 E M AIN ST, ASPEN, CO 81611
Legal Description:
ASPEN TIM ES/HOTEL J EROM E SUBDIVISION/PD,
ACCORDING TO THE PLAT RECORDED JANUARY 31, 2017 IN PLAT BOOK 117 AT PAGE 69 AS RECEPTION
NO. 635789.
Record Owner:
ICONIC PROPERTIES - J EROM E, L.L.C., A DELAWARE LIM ITED LIABILITY COMPANY
We find the following documents of record affecting subject property:
1.DEED OF TRUST RECORDED FEBRUARY 10, 2015 UNDER RECEPTION NO. 617311.
NOTE: A RELEASE FOR THE ABOVE DEED OF TRUST WAS RECORDED J ANUARY 10, 2017 AS
RECEPTION NO. 635287, HOWEVER, NO LEGAL DESCRIPTION WAS ATTACHED.
2.DEED OF TRUST RECORDED APRIL 04, 2017 UNDER RECEPTION NO. 637295.
***************** PROPERTY TAX INFORMATION **********************
Parc el No.: 273707321004
2018 Land Assessed Value $32,000,000.00
2018 Im provem ents As s es s ed Value $20,500,000.00
2018 real property taxes PAID in the am ount of $484,246.36.
****************************************************************
***************** PROPERTY TAX INFORMATION **********************
Land Title Guarantee Company
Property R eport
Order Num ber:BANA62009999
P97
IV.A.
Parc el No.: 273707321004
2018 Comm ercial Pers onal Property Value $2,351,800.00
______ pers onal property taxes PAID in the am ount of $21,692.32.
****************************************************************
Land Title Guarantee Company
Property R eport
Order Num ber:BANA62009999
P98
IV.A.
P99IV.A.
P100IV.A.
BLEEKER
S
T
R
E
E
T
PROJECT SITE:
HOTEL JEROME
330 E MAIN ST.
MAIN STR
E
E
T
(
H
W
Y
8
2
)MONARCH STREETMILL STREETVICINITY MAP
ASPEN, CO
P101
IV.A.
Design Workshop, Inc.
Landscape Architecture
Planning
Urban Design
120 East Main Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
970.925.8354
970-920-1387 fax
designworkshop.com
January 3, 2019
Amy Simon
Historic Preservation Officer
970-429-2758
Re: Commercial Design Review, HPC Minor Development – Hotel Jerome
Dear Amy:
This summary letter is an application for Commercial Design and Minor Development Review. From the
pre-application conference summary dated July 20, 2018, the applicable review summary of the
proposed development is below.
I. Introduction and Background
The Hotel Jerome has recently completed a significant renovation of the courtyard facing Main Street.
The courtyard is a mix of patio, grass, flowers and shrubs including a 1400 SF front lawn acting as the
traditional community gathering room of this significant Aspen property. Given the intense use of the
space, the hotel is finding the lawn difficult to maintain.
In this renovation the Hotel committed significant resources in deep amended soils, drainage, and turf
species selections, making every attempt to succeed with natural lawn in the renovation. However,
traffic flow and landscape micro-climate in the courtyard simply do not allow for the natural turf to
succeed or thrive, resulting in a highly deteriorated and un-sustainable condition.
The applicant is requesting approval to maintain the currently installed temporary synthetic turf
solution as the permanent lawn (per photos included in this application). This new synthetic lawn
greatly improves the landscape in integrity, aesthetic and environmental permeability over the
previous existing condition – functioning with the already in place naturally amended soils. Prior to the
most recent courtyard renovation there existed a rather commercial ‘astro-turf’ type ground cover in
the courtyard, hiding the deteriorating landscape condition of the heavily used spaces. In contrast to
this previous commercial aesthetic, the proposed crafted synthetic lawn condition can be viewed in the
photos attached to this application in its success of maintaining not only the usability, but also
character of the courtyard landscape.
The proposed solution meets the City of Aspen Parks Department’s expectations for the landscape. The
proposed synthetic lawn also meets the City of Aspen Engineering Department’s permeability
requirements of the renovation agreement and stormwater requirements have not been altered in any
way.
Per the Introduction of Aspen’s Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, it is stated that, “Aspen is a
unique community, rich with history, dramatic landscapes, a vibrant economy, and vital cultural scene.
Each of these elements contributes to the appeal of the City and enhances its livability…” There are few
landscapes which work as hard as the Hotel Jerome’s Courtyard to represent this rich history and
contribute to that vibrant economy and cultural scene of Aspen; a deteriorated lawn, adjacent to such
historically significant architecture and successful terraces, planting beds, and street frontage,
however, does not create that image. The applicant has carefully selected and proposed a solution
which attains these values in a sustainable and characteristic aesthetic for this site. The City of Aspen’s
definition of historic preservation focuses on “long-term cultural awareness and sustainability,” which
the proposed solution aims to achieve by harkening back to the original courtyard’s aesthetic, sense of
community, cultural placemaking and sustained vitality.
P102
IV.A.
+
H
P
6
.
3
0
+
H
P
6
.
1
2
+
H
P
6
.
0
0
LP 7.55
TW 8.62
5.91
5.78
5.785.69
5.69
5.60
5.65
5.65
LP 5.58
LP 5.54 LP 5.59
2%
(EXIST) TS.
7906.07
6.16
5.90
TW 9.47
5.65
6.276.00(PROP.) FFE 7905.66(PROP.) FFE
7905.66 +2%SLOT DRAIN 5.64(EXIST) FFE
7905.40
5.45
6.42
2%2%BW. 5.97
6.356.23 1.5%1.3%1%
5.65
1.4%
6.13 (EX)
6.44 (EX)
2.4% (EX)
5.82
6.75 (EX)
LP 5.41
1.5%
5.552.5%1.1%5.55
1.6% (EX)
5.935.73
LP 5.79
6.156.07
LP 5.55
1.8%
1.8%
1.1%SLOT DRAIN 5.585.45
1%TS 7.70(4) RISERS@ 6" EA.LP 6.58
1.3%1.4%.4%1.3%1%1.4%0.8%0.08%0 8 16SITE / LANDSCAPE PLAN
ASPEN TIMES JEROME BAR
MAIN STREET SIDEWALK
ASPEN, CO
ORIGINAL SCALE 11”X 17” - 1”=8’0”
DASHED HEAVY LINE IS THE SUB
GRADE DRAINAGE INFILTRATION.
DRY WELL PER CIVIL RENOVATION
DRAWINGS WHICH DRAINAGE GOES TO
ONCE INFILTRATION THROUGH
SUBGRADE LAWN INFILTRATION
TYPICAL IRRIGATED
PLANTING BEDS
PROPOSED FAUX LAWN (TO BE
PERMEABLE PER SAMPLE) 1400SF
OF LAWN EXISTING REDUCE BY 51
SF PER PARKS REQUEST FOR 1’0”
REDUCTION.P103IV.A.
~ 1950 | Jerome Hotel Terrace and Front Lawn
Summer 2018 | Jerome Hotel Terrace and Front Lawn (Proposed Condition)
Image Depicts the Current Temporary Synthetic Turf Condition
Being Requested for Permanent Approvals
P104
IV.A.
Summer 2018 | Jerome Hotel Front Lawn from Main Street Sidewalk
(Proposed Condition)
Image Depicts the Current Temporary Synthetic Turf Condition
Being Requested for Permanent Approvals
P105
IV.A.
Summer 2018 | Jerome Hotel Front Lawn from Main Street Sidewalk
(Proposed Condition)
Image Depicts the Current Temporary Synthetic Turf Condition
Being Requested for Permanent Approvals
P106
IV.A.
2018 | Jerome Hotel Terrace and Front Lawn
(Deteriorated Con dition Trying to Attain Natural Turf Lawn )
Failure of the lawn occurred despite the deep (14” plus ) of amended soils, n ew
irrigation systems installation, and turf species specifically grown for the high mountain
regions of Colorado.
P107
IV.A.
Design Workshop, Inc.
Landscape Architecture
Planning
Urban Design
Strategic Services
120 East Main Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
970.925.8354
designworkshop.com
February 14, 2019
Amy Simon
Historic Preservation Officer
970-429-2758
Re: Commercial Design Review, HPC Minor Development – Hotel Jerome
Dear Amy:
Below are our preliminary responses to the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines and Commercial
Guidelines sections that were provided. We believe that the proposed minor amendment adheres to
and aligns well with both sets of applicable guidelines. While the responses are specific to each
guideline, our overall approach is to present a more sustainable option for the site that can withstand
the high amount of foot-traffic and harsh microclimate (which inhibits natural plant growth) that
currently occur between the existing structures. This specific synthetic lawn material was chosen to
respect and pay homage to past site plans that attempted to achieve the natural-feeling community
gathering setting adjacent to the historic structure. We are receptive to mitigating the “green-ness” of
the synthetic lawn during the winter time to preserve the natural seasonality of the site, such as by
capping or covering the lawn during winter seasons with burlap or fence screening. These materials
can be provided in browns or dulled greens so as not to draw attention to the lawn. They are also
permeable for stormwater infiltration, and have varying levels of visual porosity so as to avoid
unnatural consistency or solid color aesthetics.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION DESIGN GUIDELINES
1.7 – Provide positive open space within a project site.
• Ensure that open space on site is meaningful and consolidated into a few large spaces
rather than many small unusable areas.
The open space throughout the site has been largely preserved in its original form and
function, providing several large spaces with meaningful and practical functions. In the dining
patio or central public access dining zone, the space remains open to increase its flexibility
and to promote it as a community gathering area.
• Open space should be designed to support and complement the historic building.
The open space is also designed in full accordance with the historic preservation guidelines,
and complements the historic building by incorporating all elements of the original designs’
form and function. Per photos provided, this space has historically been lawn, and we have
maintained that character.
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
P108
IV.A.
2
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.
In accordance with the historic design guidelines the site plan responded to stormwater
quality needs through an integrated system of permeable surfaces. The installation of
permeable paving in tandem with a synthetic turf enables the site to more efficiently move
stormwater while simultaneously keeping the historic integrity of the site. The proposed
solution meets the City of Aspen Parks Department’s expectations for the landscape. The
proposed synthetic lawn also meets the City of Aspen Engineering Department’s
permeability requirements of the renovation agreement and stormwater requirements have
not been altered in any way.
• 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.
The proposed synthetic lawn will enhance drainage as compared to a compacted natural
planting scheme, as shown in the site/landscape plan in the application. The proposed
material will allow infiltration to the subgrade drainage system, pulling water away from the
historic assets on site. This proposed system will not contribute to additional stormwater
runoff, and will likely decrease runoff due to the enhanced infiltration.
• Refer to City Engineering for additional guidance and requirements.
City Engineering was contacted for guidance and their requirements were adhered to. The
proposed synthetic lawn also meets the City of Aspen Engineering Department’s
permeability requirements of the renovation agreement and stormwater requirements have
not been altered in any way.
1.11 – Preserve and maintain historically significant landscaping on site, particularly landmark
trees and shrubs.
• Retaining historic planting beds and landscape features is encouraged.
The current layout of planting beds is in accordance with geometries of the historic site plan
as well as the location and scale of the courtyard lawn. Though due to experienced
deterioration, the courtyard lawn has been converted into a synthetic turf for year-round
success and stability within a space with heavy foot traffic.
• Protect historically significant vegetation during construction to avoid damage. Removal of
damaged, aged, or diseased trees must be approved by the Parks Department.
On approval from the Parks Department, diseased, aged or otherwise damaged trees and
shrubs were removed from the site plan and replaced with healthy non-fruit bearing
specimens keeping with similar attributes and species selection of the historic site.
P109
IV.A.
3
• If a significant tree must be removed, replace it with the same or similar species in
coordination with the Parks Department.
No significant trees were removed during the project.
• The removal of non-historic planting schemes is encouraged.
On initial survey, the lawn was intended to be returned to a natural living grass ecosystem.
However, due to intensive foot traffic, unsuccessful turf stabilization trials, and increased
maintenance costs the natural grass planting was converted into a synthetic turf material.
Moreover, the previously installed non-historic astro-turf cover was redesigned and re-
specified to a more natural-feeling synthetic lawn to better reflect the historic aesthetic of the
site.
• Consider restoring the original landscape if information is available, including original plant
materials.
Many plants existing in the original planting list have been utilized in the updated planting
plan. The proposed courtyard consists of historically consistent trees which are grounded in
an enhanced native pallet of shrubs, perennials, and vines to provide rich color, seasonality
and a charming mountain character to the public spaces.
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
over textured 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.
Areas within the parameter of Zone A have been planted with species used historically and
are consistent with a native planting pallet. Simplicity in plant variation and textures ground
the site within Aspen and historic significance.
• In areas immediately adjacent to the landmark, Zone A and Zone B, plants up 42” in height,
sod, and low shrubs are often appropriate.
Areas immediately adjacent to the landmark, Zone A and Zone B, have been planted with
low growing shrubs and several different species of low growing perennials. A small
diversity in plant species and textures allows for year-round interest, plant heights and
textures. Sod was utilized within Zone A to keep with the historic landscape as well as
satisfy the historic design guidelines. Though due to early challenges associated with an
enclosed south facing microclimate the natural lawn was unsuccessful in establishing, and
subsequently converted into a synthetic lawn material.
• 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.
P110
IV.A.
4
All landscape features and planting within Zone A are keeping with the historic land-use of
the site. Contemporary features were reserved for Zone C, but still retain historic elements,
as well as complement the historic architecture.
• Do not cover areas which were historically unpaved with hard surfaces, except for a limited
patio where appropriate.
All areas that were historically unpaved or paved are remain consistent with the updated site
plan. The hardscape and paving areas have been updated to meet modern standards,
consisting of brick paving and stone to match the historic character of the building, enhanced
concrete similar to that found in other similar projects recently built within the downtown core,
permeable paving to increase stormwater absorption and quality detailing of timeless intent
to provide for a place of charm and active character.
• 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.
N/A
• 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.
N/A
• Contemporary landscapes that highlight an Aspen Modern architectural style are
encouraged.
The layout and location of planting beds is in accordance with the historic landscape while
the planting pallet is reinvigorated with native shrubs, perennials, ground covers and vines
associated with a contemporary landscape. As noted above, modern materials were chosen
which both achieve a higher performance standard as well as provide a contemporary
aesthetic that respects the architecture of the building.
P111
IV.A.
5
1.24 – Preserve historically significant landscapes with few or no alterations.
• An analysis of the historic landscape and an assessment of the current condition of the
landscape should be done before the beginning of any project.
Per review of the redevelopment project and courtyard approvals, this analysis was conducted
and has been referenced in context to the lawn.
• The key features of the historic landscape and its overall design intent must be preserved.
The design intent of the updated site plan defers to the original layout. The previous astro-turf
cover was revised to support a more natural planting regiment. However, even after investing
in the landscape infrastructure necessary for the natural planting, the landscape suffered and
would not establish due to the high amount of traffic and harsh microclimate. The proposed
synthetic lawn would ameliorate these issues, as well as defer to the original design intent.
1.25 – New development on these sites should respect the historic design of the landscape and
its built features.
• Do not add features that damage the integrity of the historic landscape.
All landscape features are in accordance with the integrity of the historic landscape.
Hardscape materials have been amended to satisfy the contemporary design aesthetic and
the functionality of sites throughout Aspen. The lawn located in the courtyard has also been
amended to a synthetic turf material due to challenges in establishing a native turf associated
with an enclosed south facing microclimate. Enhancement to the consistency of healthy tree
P112
IV.A.
6
planting with sufficient soil volume for root growth was provided by Silva Cells and sufficient
water was provided by new irrigation design.
• Maintain the existing pattern of setbacks and siting of structures.
All existing setbacks and siting of structures on site have been maintained.
• Maintain the historic relationship of the built landscape to natural features on the site.
Natural features on site have been maintained to historic standards and within the surrounding
streetscape. The courtyard area’s landscape features have been enhanced with increased soil
depths and composition.
• All additions to these landscapes must be clearly identifiable as recent work.
No additions or changes to the approved landscape of the project have been made other than
this particular request for the synthetic. Lawn.
• New artwork must be subordinate to the designed landscape in terms of placement, height,
material, and overall appearance. Place new art away from significant landscape features.
N/A
• Avoid installing utility trenches in cultural landscapes if possible.
No utilities are being modified or trenching taking place under this request.
12.1 – Address accessibility compliance requirements while preserving character defining
features of historic buildings and districts.
• All new construction must comply completely with the International Building Code (IBC) for
accessibility. Special provisions for historic buildings exist in the law that allow some
flexibility when designing solutions which meet accessibility standards.
Per prior approvals for the redevelopment project, the site meets IBC Accessibility
Requirements in all aspects.
COMMERCIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES
1.3 – Landscape elements (both hardscape and softscape) should complement the
surrounding context, support the street scene, and enhance the architecture of the building.
• This applies to landscape located both on-site and in the public right-of-way.
The landscape elements introduced and restored on-site and in the right-of-way provide a
welcoming aesthetic that brings focus to the historic architectural features of the building.
• High quality and durable materials should be used.
P113
IV.A.
7
The materials chosen for the renovation, such as impervious pavers and enhanced concrete,
are intended for long-term, sustainable use. The synthetic lawn will also provide durability in
the high foot-traffic area of the courtyard.
• Early in the design process, consider stormwater best management practices as an integral
part of the landscape design process.
In concert with its Aspen surroundings, the hardscape and paving materials consist of brick
paving and stone to match the historic character of the building, enhanced concrete similar
to that found in other similar projects recently built within the downtown core, permeable
paving, and quality detailing of timeless intent to provide for a place of charm and active
character. The planting pallet consists of hardy low growing shrubs and several different
species of low growing perennials. A small diversity in plant species and textures allows for
year-round interest and is keeping with the overall Aspen aesthetic. The necessary addition
of a synthetic lawn in tandem with the permeable courtyard hardscape ensures stormwater
best management practices through a fully integrated permeable space.
P114
IV.A.
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED I3Y SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE
ADDRF- S OF PROPERTY:
330 i:. M v j Srf , Aspen, CO
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE:
March 13, , 2019
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
County of Pitkin )
1. C.NUfTJFi (z PF2r6S (panic, please; print)
hein�-, or representing an Applicant to the Cite of Aspen. Colorado, hereby personally
certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section ')6.'04.06()
(F) ofthe Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner:
Puhlicalion 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. .4 copy cif the publication is atlachecl hereto.
Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the
Co11111111111ty 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 21� day of fE13eybe l 201 , to and including the date and time
of the public hearing. A phologral)h of the posted notice (sign) is allached hereto.
,flailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Con1n1w1ity
Development Department. which contains the information described in Section
26.30=4.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to
the public hcarin�g), 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 nares and addresses of
property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin Count\, as they
appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. .4
cojiv gfthe ou•nei-s and gorei-nmental agencies so noticed is atlachecl hereto.
Neig,hhorhoocl Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach.
summarized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearin() as
required in Section 26.304.035. Neighborhood Outreach. .4 cop}' of the
neighhorhooil outreach .tiummai-v. inclueling the nlethocl of public notification and
a copy cif any clocumentation that eras pl•esenlecl to the public is altachecl hei-elo.
(continue(l on next page)
11ineral Estate Chrner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt
requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the
date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development.
The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current
tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum. Subdivisions, PDs that create more
than one lot, and new Planned Developments are subject to this notice
requirement.
Refoning or test cnnenclnrent. Whenever the official zoning district map is in ally
wav to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this
Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be
made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or
otherwise. the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal
description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of
real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However. the
proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning
agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing
On Such amendments.
Signature
The foregoing "Affidavit o1'Notice" was acknowledged before me this Qtday
0 f 20V� , by
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
KELBY FARIAS My commission expires: 11 ail
NOTARY"PUBLIC
STATE OF COLORADO
NOTARY ID#20184045165
My Commission E)Oms Noslelnber 26,2022 tar 1 is
ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE:
• COPY OF THE PUBLICA TION
• PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN)
•
LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED
BY MAIL
• APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTATE OWNERS NOTICE
AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3
• t v p � r
r
1
i
PUBLIC NOTICE
Date. ,
f
Time:- r'
Place: � ----
Purpose:
I
r
+p4:
vim•*• + 'tis;� h'-.•:dti,F•y
1.lqppy�
r
N\
PUBLIC NOTICE -•
Date: March 13, 2019
Time: 4:30 PM
Piaci: City Hall, 130 S. Galena St
Oty-Council Chambers
Purpose:
Iconic Proaerties Jerome LLC, 1375
Enclave Parkway, Houston,_,TX
77077, requests HPC Minor
Development approval for landscape
improvements in a portion of this
courtyard. For more information,
contact the City of Aspen Community
Development Department at .�.�►�
429-2758 or
arn)Lsimon a_cityofaspen.com. ���