HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.202010061
AGENDA
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
October 6, 2020
4:30 PM, WebEx Virtual Meeting See Agenda Packet for
Instructions to join the meeting
WEBEX MEETING INSTRUCTIONS
TO JOIN ONLINE:
Go to www.webex.com and click on "Join" in the top right corner
Enter Meeting Number: 126 821 3871
Enter Password: 81611
Click "Join Meeting"
-- OR --
JOIN BY PHONE
Call: 1-408-418-9388
Enter Meeting Number: 126 821 3871
Enter Password: 81611
I.4:30 PM -- ROLL CALL
II.MINUTES
II.A.8/18/2020 DRAFT Meeting Minutes
minutes.apz.20200818.docx
III.PUBLIC COMMENTS
IV.COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS
V.DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
VI.STAFF COMMENTS
VII.PUBLIC HEARINGS
VII.A.4:40 PM -- 225 N Mill St - Insubstantial Amendment to a Planned Development &
Commercial Design Review
225 N. Mill_Memo_P&Z.docx
Resolution No. X_Series of 2020_225 N. Mill.docx
Exhibit A_Insubstantial Amendment to a Planned Development_Review Criteria.docx
1
2
Exhibit B_Commercial Design Review Criteria.docx
Exhibit C_225 N Mill_Application.pdf
VII.B.5:50 PM -- 214 Cottonwood Ln - Residential Design Standards Variations
Public Hearing
214 Cottonwood Lane MemoGL Edits (002).pdf
214 Cottonwood Lane Exhibit A Review Criteria 1_GL Edits.pdf
214 COTTONWOOD LANE RDS APPLICATION.pdf
214 Cottonwood Lane ResolutionGL Edits.pdf
Survey_214Cottonwood.pdf
Smuggler HOA Approved Plans.pdf
VIII.7:00 PM -- ADJOURN
Typical Proceeding Format for All Public Hearings
1)Conflicts of Interest (handled at beginning of agenda)
2) Provide proof of legal notice (affidavit of notice for PH)
3) Staff presentation
4) Board questions and clarifications of staff
5) Applicant presentation
6) Board questions and clarifications of applicant
7) Public comments
8)Board questions and clarifications relating to public comments
9) Close public comment portion of bearing
10) Staff rebuttal/clarification of evidence presented by applicant and public comment
11) Applicant rebuttal/clarification
End of fact finding.
Deliberation by the commission commences.
No further interaction between commission and staff, applicant or public
12) Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed among commissioners.
13) Discussion between commissioners*
14) Motion*
*Make sure the discussion and motion includes what criteria are met or not met.
CODE OF CONDUCT FOR CITIZEN COMMENTS DURING CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND
ZONING COMMISSION MEETINGS:
Planning and Zoning Commission meetings shall be conducted in a fair and impartial manner. Citizen comments
shall respect the need for civility for effective public discussion of issues.
Citizen comments regarding any matter not on the agenda will be allowed during the designated time on the agenda
and may be disallowed at other times during the meeting.
2
3
Those wishing to address the Commission on any matter not on the agenda will be allowed a three-minute
presentation per speaker. This “three minute rule” shall also be applicable to citizens wishing to address the
Commission during the public comment portion of public hearings for agenda items.
The Chair or presiding officer retains the discretion to allow or disallow public comment on any agenda item that is
not designated as a public hearing.
All citizen comments should be directed to the Commission, and not to individual members of the public.
Defamatory or abusive remarks, shouting, threats of violence or profanity are OUT OF ORDER and will not be
tolerated. Persons violating these policies may be asked to terminate their comments. In the event of repeated
violations or refusal to abide by these policies or directives, the Chair or presiding officer has authority to request
the individual to leave the meeting or direct a peace officer to remove the individual from the Commission meeting.
Revised July 8th, 2019
3
Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission August 18, 2020
Page 1 of 7
Chairperson McKnight called the meeting to order at 4:30 PM.
Commissioners in Attendance: Brittanie Rockhill, James Marcus, Rally Dupps, Scott Marcoux, Teraissa
McGovern, Don Love and Spencer McKnight.
Commissioners not in Attendance: Ruth Carver
Staff in Attendance:
Amy Simon, Deputy Planning Director
Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney
Michelle Bonfils-Thibeault, Project Manager II / Planner
Cindy Klob, Records Manager
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
None
STAFF COMMENTS
Ms. Bryan informed everyone that this will be her last P&Z meeting with the City as the Assistant City
Attorney. She stated it has been a pleasure to work with everyone.
Ms. Simon reminded the board of two upcoming meetings. One on September 15th is a special review
for an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) and on September 21st there will be a joint meeting with City
Council to discuss proposed redevelopment of the N Mill area near Clarks Market and the Post Office.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Ms. McGovern motioned to approve the June 2, 2020 minutes and was seconded by Mr. Marcus.
All in favor, motion carried.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None
DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
None
PUBLIC HEARING
743 and 745 Cemetery Ln – Residential Design Standards Variation.
McKnight opened the hearing and asked Ms. Bryan if proper public notice was provided. Ms. Bryan
stated it was properly noticed.
Mr. McKnight then turned the floor over to Staff.
Ms. Michelle Bonfils-Thibeault introduced herself.
4
Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission August 18, 2020
Page 2 of 7
Ms. Bonfils-Thibeault reviewed the location of the project is towards the southern area of Cemetery Ln.
It is a duplex currently under construction. The project has a previous land use approval to construct the
duplex with garage doors that are side loaded. The neighborhood is zoned R-15 moderate density
residential and the site is outside the infill zone.
The garage placement standard under consideration is the garage is subordinate to the principal
building and located behind or side loaded. The applicant is proposing to change the garage doors to be
front loaded and create a more landscaped area in the courtyard.
Another option to meet the garage placement standard would be to locate the garages 10 ft back from
the façade of the principal building which may not be a practical option. She noted the buildings
approved in the recent years generally have side-loaded garages or the garage is set back from the main
façade of the building. There are also buildings that have not had any changes since the most recent
Residential Design Standards (RDS) were adopted in the late 1990’s She provided a photo showing
duplex property with both a side-loaded garage and one that is set back 10 ft from the principal building.
She noted if the applicant is unable have side-loaded garage or set it back from the front façade, there
needs to be an unusual site constraint. Staff did not find any such constraints on the property. She
concluded her presentation noting the existing approval includes the side-loaded design and therefore
Staff is recommending a denial of the request.
Mr. McKnight asked the commission if there were any questions for staff.
Mr. Marcoux asked how far the garage for the north duplex is located off Cemetery Ln. Ms. Bonfils-
Thibeault responded the required setback is 25 ft from Cemetery Ln and currently the garages meet the
setback requirement.
Mr. Love asked if it would be difficult or not practical to have the garage façade set behind the building
façade. Ms. Bonfils-Thibeault stated the applicant is very far along in construction and the building
would have to be demo’d.
Mr. McKnight then turned the floor over to the applicant.
Mr. Mitch Haas introduced himself along with Ms. Gretchen Greenwood as the architect. He also
introduced Mr. Chet Winchester as the applicant.
Mr. Haas displayed a survey of the site before the project began and noted the applicant demolished a
duplex on the property that had two driveway curb cuts providing access to front-facing garages.
He then displayed a plan showing the new structure under construction showing the property and
setback lines. He pointed out the existing side-loading garages, noting this design was found to be
compliant with the RDS. During the permit review and construction process, the access to the garages
has been determined to be somewhat problematic from a functional standpoint. They also feel it does
5
Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission August 18, 2020
Page 3 of 7
not meet the intention of the RDS as well as it could. They feel the front-facing garages will provide a
better design for everyone and is now the favored approach by the applicant.
They feel the new design better addresses functionality, safety and the intent of the design standards.
He added forty or so neighbors also feel the same and have provided letters of support.
Mr. Haas stated to request the variation be granted, they needed to provide an alternative design
approach that meets the overall intent of the standard for the garage as well as the general intent of the
RDS. They are not claiming a site-specific constraint requires the variation. He stated the only relative
and applicable question is whether the proposed design meets the intent of the garage placement
standard and the overall intent of the RDS.
He then displayed a text section of the garage placement RDS code with “This standard seeks to prevent
large expenses of unarticulated facades close to the street” in red text. He then displayed renderings
showing the project from multiple angles for the compliant side loaded garages and proposed
alternative front-loading garages. He noted the approved design required no variation as a result of the
setback requirement and the need for two access driveways with one permissible curb cut. He noted the
example shown by Ms. Bonfils-Thibeault with one side-loading garage and a front-loading garage had
two curb cuts. The City Engineering department is not allowing two curb-cuts for this project which
eliminated the option of placing the garages on the side or back of the structure. In addition, the
property backs up to the Municipal Golf Course. The structure was designed to take advantage of the
views and have accessible outdoor space in the rear yard away from the Cemetery Ln traffic. He also
mentioned, the only two available options are the side-loading garages or the front-loading garages.
He stated the compliant design result in large expanses of unarticulated walls on the sides of the
garages being the most prominent portion of the building viewed from the street. This also lacks a
connection to the entry from the street as well. He then displayed a rendering as shown from above the
lane onto the front of the site noting the differences in the hardscapes between the existing and
proposed designs.
Another rendering showed the approved plan with 3,560 sf of hardscape and the proposed plan with
2,085 sf of hardscape. The proposed design reflects a reduction of 42% of the hardscape. With the
proposed design, the area between the garages can be landscaped to soften the views and a sidewalk
will improve the connection with the streetscape. He then showed a rendering of the approved and
proposed landscape plans. They feel the proposed design meets the overall intent and spirit of the
garage placement standard more than the approved design. He displayed a text portion of the RDS in
section 26.410.010A regarding intent and highlighted “ensure a strong connection between residences
and streets; ensure buildings provide articulation to break up bulk and mass; and preserve historic
neighborhood scale and character”…..”require that each home, while serving the needs of its owner,
contribute positively to the streetscape” and stated the proposed design is far more successful at
meeting the intent as highlighted.
Mr. Haas then displayed a map of the neighborhood identifying the project site along with other
properties as front garage, side garage or no garage. He noted the alternative design is far more
6
Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission August 18, 2020
Page 4 of 7
consistent with the established neighborhood character than the compliant design. He stated code
specifically calls for preserving the neighborhood character. He stated Staff’s position makes sense for
properties in the West End where there are alley access and few properties have garages along the
street. The map reflects the applicant survey of 202 neighborhood sites with 155 with front-loading
garages, 19 do not have a garage and only 28 have a side-loaded garages. He noted the side-loading
garages are more practical for single family residences than duplexes. He believes the side-loading
garages are more out of intent with the neighborhood.
Mr. Haas reviewed the improvements including an improved street experience for pedestrians and
vehicles and an architecturally interesting articulation of the garage doors while having the same height,
massing, scale and setback of forms. He stated the City has received 40 plus letters in support of the
proposed changes and only one in opposition. He closed his presentation asking if there were any
questions and he also asked Ms. Greenwood or Mr. Winchester if they had anything to add.
Ms. Greenwood thought Mr. Haas covered the application beautifully regarding what is being requested
and the RDS. She added neighbors and other architects have noted the landscaped courtyard between
the two masses gives it a more residential single-family quality to it. After the applicant decided he
wanted to pursue this process for a variation, she studied duplex development on Cemetery Ln and the
garage placement standard. Generally, she feels the standard places the garage faces right on the
setback and one important aspect of this is that he decided to move the buildings back 25 ft from the
front setback of the property which makes the north unit 80 feet from Cemetery Ln and the south unit
73 feet from the front setback. The owner has decided to take away the development from the rear of
the property where the views are to create some distance between the structure and Cemetery Ln. She
added the RDS for garage placement would have the structure closer to the street. Ms. Greenwood also
mentioned the 35 trees that will be planted for mitigation. With the landscaping, she believes you will
only see two individual one-story buildings.
She provided a picture of a duplex property with two front-facing garages the applicant currently lives
in. She added the structure was approved a number of years ago for an internal courtyard and is not as
far back as the current project and the courtyard is shallower than the current project. She stated the
current project is using different materials, but it is almost identical to the applicant’s current residence.
Mr. Winchester stated he has lived on Cemetery Ln since 1977 and he loves it. He has received many
comments on the landscaping and appearance of his current residence. He purchased the project
property about 14 years ago. He stated they pushed back the structure on the project property to allow
for more landscaping between the sidewalk and parking in front of the garage. He has talked with a lot
of people in the neighborhood about the design and estimates about 43 letters sent in.
Ms. Greenwood added the proposed design gives up visitor parking and they feel this design defines
why RDS exists to provide a better site plan for the community. She hopes it will be supported.
Mr. McKnight asked if there were any questions from the commissioners for the applicant.
7
Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission August 18, 2020
Page 5 of 7
Ms. McGovern asked Mr. Haas if he knew the number of front-loading garages that conform with the 10
ft setback in the RDS. Mr. Haas said they did not gather that specific information. Ms. Greenwood
replied the design regulations do allow front-loading garages and it expects the living space and porch to
be in front of the garage. Her analysis of this indicates this creates a direct conflict with the RDS by not
having a solid façade all the way across. This also creates a lot of conflict with people going entering the
unit and the cars. She reiterated the proposed design has less concrete than other compliant designs.
She does not feel the RDS allows for good garage placement on duplex properties. Mr. McKnight asked
Ms. McGovern to repeat her question. After doing so, Mr. Haas feels the majority do not comply. Ms.
Greenwood stated the applicant’s current residence has a variation.
Ms. McGovern feels the RDS has some areas that were missed, one being the idea that it is a pedestrian
interface with the street and not a vehicle interface so pushing the front of the buildings back and
having the only real view of the building is from the garage doors doesn’t make it inviting from a
pedestrian’s perspective. She doesn’t feel it meets this and the other part of the garage standard is that
it is supposed to be subordinate to the main house. In her opinion, making the garage doors the only
visible portion of the building does not make it subordinate to the house. She understands from a design
standpoint, exactly why they want to do this and feels it is unfortunate this did not come up in the
permit process.
Mr. Marcoux asked what the distance is between the north and south facing garage doors and what is
the turning radius when you pull straight in and then turn. He also asked what is not working now that
worked on the plans. Ms. Greenwood replied 32 ft to his first question. She added the current design
requires you to make a couple of turns to pull in and to pull out and it is like a five way turn. This issue
came to light when the construction vehicles were onsite. She said the design is doable, but it is
problematic.
Mr. Marcoux asked if the neighbors that wrote letter were shown Poss’s renderings or the print
elevations with the stone veneer and larger gable windows on the front east-facing garage wall. He
believes the renderings are different than what is existing. Mr. Winchester replied they did not have
renderings available when interacting with the neighbors. Ms. Greenwood noted the neighbors know his
current home located three doors down and it is identical to the current building. Mr. Haas noted all the
renderings displayed at the hearing were included in the application. There were two photographs
shown during the meeting of the applicant’s current property and one of the new development.
Mr. Marcoux asked if it had been discussed to place landscaping on the east facing garage walls to limit
the hardscape and keep the concrete on the inside. Mr. Haas pointed out the areas needed for vehicle
maneuvering on the site plan.
Mr. Love stated with all due respect, he is sort of surprised this is being addressed now. He feels this is
basic land planning to figure out turning radiuses and to have it come up from a field experience doesn’t
make sense to him. He doesn’t want to hammer anyone but wonders if he is missing an agenda with the
desired change once the framing has been done. Mr. Haas replied that once there was more than one
pickup on site, it became obvious what a conflict it is in practice. He added on a plan, the turning
radiuses work for a single car but if multiple vehicles or weather conditions are considered, it becomes
8
Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission August 18, 2020
Page 6 of 7
problematic. Ms. Greenwood noted a study she completed regarding how garage doors work with
duplexes and in her professional opinion, she finds the proposed design the best solution on the
property.
Mr. Love asked if there is a design standard for the garage door itself. Mr. Haas replied the door is
required to be designed so that it appears as two separate single car entries.
Mr. McKnight then opened for public comment.
Ms. Cathy Meyer, 775 Cemetery Ln, noted when she first saw the property she was attracted by the
plantings and walking up to the front doors with the feeling you were at a home. She likes the proposed
planting in the front by the doors and it makes it feel like a home.
Mr. Gary Hughes, 743 Cemetery Ln, discussed the additional proposed landscaping between the houses
will be more subtle for pedestrians walking down the road.
Ms. Jo (surname not provided), previously lived on Cemetery Ln and stated from a design perspective,
the courtyard is more appealing and believes it will be challenging to have side loaded garages and
prefers the forward-facing garage design.
Mr. Luis Hernandez, contractor for 743 Cemetery Ln, commented on the challenges of backing out of
the side-facing garages and believes it is not functional.
Mr. McKnight then closed public comment and opened for commissioner deliberation.
Ms. Rockhill believes it makes sense to move the garage doors and it could possibly avoid some vehicle –
pedestrian as well as vehicle – vehicle safety issues.
Mr. Love stated the aesthetics of the front-facing garage doors provides a more interesting design. He
thinks the proposed change is fine.
Mr. Marcus agrees from a functional aspect, it makes more sense to have front-facing garage doors and
he also likes the reduction in hardscape. It will look better from a pedestrian’s point of view. He feels
although it does not technically meet the standard, this is a good example to find a better solution that
generally resembles what is found in the community. Clearly the neighbors support it as well so he
would feel good supporting it as well.
Ms. McGovern stated it is hard to say it meets the intent of the design standard.
Mr. Marcoux agrees with Ms. McGovern and believes it is too late in the game. This should have been
thought over back in the design stage.
Mr. McKnight stated is also in line with Ms. McGovern and Mr. Marcoux. He agreed with Mr. Love
regarding the board being in a position to agree to a better-looking rendering. He feels it is challenging
9
Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission August 18, 2020
Page 7 of 7
for the board to have approved design standards to be followed and then be asked to go against them.
He is leaning toward them sticking to the original design.
Mr. Marcus added that he appreciates Mr. Love bringing up the timing of the request and clearly it
would have made more sense to have asked for the variance pre-construction. But he feels it is
important to keep in mind is the applicant is the most impacted by the change because they will need to
incur the costs of work that has been completed and the costs to make the change. He does not feel the
current design is not functional for everyday living.
Mr. McKnight agrees with Mr. Marcus but at what point are they going against what the board is
charged to due.
Mr. Dupps feels they are getting off track and he feels the proposed design is clearly better. The design
standards exist, but he feels the board is there to improve the standards because the standards are not
a complete, perfect document and it needs citizens input and board volunteers to address the
imperfections. He feels the garage standard has always been imperfect and clearly Cemetery Ln is an
exception. He added with the support from the neighbors the commission should give a gift to the
applicant including a better pedestrian experience. He will vote for it.
Mr. McKnight reviewed where the commissioners stand at this point. Mr. Dupps, Mr. Marcus, Mr. Love
and Ms. Rockhill have expressed they support the application request. Ms. McGovern, Mr. Marcoux and
Mr. McKnight are against the request.
Mr. Bryan wanted to confirm with Mr. Dupps that he could hear and see the presentations from both
the applicant and staff as well as the discussion. Mr. Dupps replied he was able the hear and see the
presentations.
Mr. McKnight asked for someone to make a motion to approve the resolution as written. Mr. Dupps
motioned to approve the resolution as written and was seconded by Mr. Marcus.
Mr. McKnight requested a roll call. Roll call: Ms. Rockhill, yes; Mr. Marcus, yes; Mr. Marcoux, no; Ms.
McGovern, no; Mr. McKnight, no; Mr. Dupps, yes; Mr. Love, yes; for a total of four (4) in favor – three (3)
not in favor. The motion passed.
Mr. McKnight thanked everyone and asked for someone to motion to adjourn.
Ms. McGovern motioned to adjourn and was seconded by Mr. Marcus. All in favor and the meeting was
adjourned at 5:22pm.
OTHER BUSINESS
None
Cindy Klob, Records Manager
10
Page 1 of 5
Memorandum
TO: Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission
FROM:Kevin Rayes, Planner
THROUGH:Amy Simon, Interim Planning Director
MEETING DATE:October 6, 2020
RE:225 N. Mill Street –Insubstantial PD Amendment & Commercial Design
Review –PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICANT /OWNER:
225 North Mill Street, LLC
REPRESENTATIVE:
Stryker Brown Architects
LOCATION:
Street Address:
225 N. Mill Street
Parcel Identification Number:
PID#2737-073-17-004
CURRENT AND PROPOSED ZONING &USE
NC (Neighborhood Commercial),
Commercial Space
SUMMARY:
The applicant requests an Insubstantial
PD Amendment and Commercial Design
Review to remodel the existing building.
The scope of work includes the
development of a new enclosed glass
entry along Mill Street, to accommodate a
new elevator and stairway. ADA-
compliant access will be provided to the
building and within existing bathrooms.
The interior of the first and second floors
will be reconfigured to improve pedestrian
circulation throughout the building and to
update existing offices. HVAC equipment
will be updated within the basement and
other areas of the building.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Planning &Zoning
Commission approve the request for an Insubstantial
Amendment to a Planned Development and for
Commercial Design Review, subject to the
conditions listed on page 5 of this memo.
Figure 1:Site Locator Map
225 N. Mill
Figure 2:Existing Front Façade (as viewed
from Mill Street)
11
Page 2 of 5
BACKGROUND:
225 N. Mill Street is located on a rectangular, 18,458 sq. ft. lot. The property is within the
Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zone district and has a Planned Development designation. The
site is improved with a two-story commercial building with street frontage along Mill Street. A
paved driveway along the northern side of the property provides access to twenty parking
spaces behind the building.
The existing building was originally developed in 1978 to house the Aspen Savings and Loan
Association. At the time the property was zoned Neighborhood Commercial with a Specially
Planned Area Overlay (SPA). A Development Agreement was never recorded.
Since the original development of the building, the SPA has been amended from time to time to
accommodate various uses. Most notably, in 1992, several minor land use actions were
approved by City Council via Ordinance No. 55, Series of 1992. A Specially Planned Area
Development Agreement was entered between the owner and the City and a Final SPA
Development Plan was recorded (Exhibit A). These documents approved the following:
A 324 sq. ft. elevator was approved, subject to the elevator being depicted in the Final
SPA Plan. The recorded plan does not show a location or configuration of the elevator.
The documents confirmed that the existing building contained 8,082 sq. ft. of floor area
and 9,324 of net leasable area. Please note that the calculations provided in the
application indicate that the building is smaller than the 1992 calculations in both floor
area and net leasable area. The proposed project remains below the agreed upon caps
and is represented to be 7,738 square feet of floor area and 8,985 square feet of net
leasable. As part of this PD Amendment, staff has included a condition of approval
establishing these figures as the maximum building dimensions unless adjusted through
a future amendment.
Figure 3:Existing Site Plan
12
Page 3 of 5
REQUEST OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION (P&Z)
The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals:
Insubstantial Amendment to a Planned Development (Section 26.445.110.a)
To remodel the interior of the existing building, to install an elevator, to update existing
HVAC equipment and to improve existing bathrooms to comply with ADA accessibility
requirements.
Commercial Design Review (Section 26.412.020)
To construct an enclosed glass entryway along Mill Street.
PROJECT SUMMARY:
The applicant plans to remodel the existing building to improve egress, ingress and internal
circulation. The existing configuration is confusing for individuals entering the building in search
of a specific business. It appears that the door along the eastern façade of the building (facing
Mill Street) is the main entry. However, this door provides access only to a single business in
the building. Pedestrians entering the property via Mill Street are often redirected to use the
entrance along the north side of the building (facing the driveway). The applicant hopes to
address this challenge by reconfiguring the office spaces and the common areas to create a
more intuitive layout. An enclosed glass addition is proposed along the façade facing Mill Street
to provide a more obvious entry. The enclosure will contain an elevator and stairwell accessing
all floors of the building. Additionally, the applicant plans to update existing HVAC equipment
located in the basement and to update all existing bathrooms to comply with ADA accessibility
requirements. A Minor Amendment to a Planned Development and Commercial Design Review
are requested to complete this project.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Commercial Design Review
The subject property is located within the River Approach Character Area as defined in the
Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Standards and Guidelines. This area has
historically functioned as a light industrial zone. There is a mix of architectural styles in this
neighborhood, including small-scaled traditional commercial buildings and warehouse style
buildings. The pedestrian experience is important, and the area is a juncture for a number of
trails. Building materials and details should reflect upon the industrial, innovative and creative
history of this neighborhood and the natural setting created by parks and river frontage in the
area.
Glass
entry
Figures 4 & 5:New Glass Enclosure Location & Design
13
Page 4 of 5
Staff finds the proposed remodel enhances the building’s architecture as it relates to the
Commercial Design Criteria in the River Approach Character Area. The expansive fenestration
proposed along the front façade improves the pedestrian experience along Mill Street while also
preserving the buildings industrial style. The use of expansive fenestration and metal is an
appropriate mix of materials in this historically industrial area. Although the height of the glass
enclosure will raise the tallest point of the building from approximately 24-ft. to 26-ft., the building
is still 2-ft. below the 28-ft. maximum height limit allowed within the NC zone district. Staff finds
that the modest height increase is appropriate for this project and the building.
There are two dimensional calculations which must be verified as part of Commercial Design
Review; Pedestrian Amenity and Second Tier Space. With regard to Pedestrian Amenity, the
property is required, per Section 26.412.070.A of the Municipal Code to maintain 100 percent of
the existing pedestrian amenity or at least 25 percent of the site in a configuration that meets
the design guidelines, whichever is less. The existing landscaped area in front of and
immediately along the north side of the building is 16.7 percent of the lot area. The only change
to this condition resulting from the proposed project is the new overhang associated with the
entry addition. This small area reduces compliance to 16.3 percent because Pedestrian Amenity
is to be open to the sky. Staff recommends P&Z allow this condition by finding the following
guideline to be met. The slight overhang provides protection from weather at the entry and, as
a cantilevered overhang, has a minimal impact on the sense of open space at the front of the
property.
PA1.5 Street level Pedestrian Amenity areas shall be open to the sky.
Direct access to the Pedestrian Amenity from the street is required.
A street level Pedestrian Amenity space may be covered, subject to HPC or P&Z
approval. If the space is covered, the street-facing portion shall be entirely open.
The application must also demonstrate compliance with the Second Tier Space requirements of
Commercial Design Review. Second Tier Commercial Space has, by virtue of its location in
areas of a building without direct access and street presence, typically provided opportunities
for lower lease rates to support businesses not requiring “prime” visibility. This type of space
has been determined to be declining through redevelopment and so a new requirement to
preserve a certain amount of Second Tier Spaces in any redevelopment was adopted. Second
Tier Space in the subject building is the net leasable area on the basement and upper floor. The
interior reconfiguration of the building triggers the need for the applicant to verify at building
permit that they are maintaining no less than 50 percent of the existing Second Tier Space,
which is clearly the case.
Staff finds that all criteria related to Commercial Design Review are met with conditions.
Insubstantial Amendment to a Planned Development
The existing building was approved as a Specially Planned Area (SPA) in 1978 and was
subsequently amended in 1992. Today redevelopment of the property is subject to the review
standards of a Planned Development. To qualify for an insubstantial amendment, the proposed
work cannot change the use or character of the development. Additionally, the request must be
consistent with the conditions and representations from the project’s original approval or
otherwise represent an insubstantial change. Lastly the request should not require a variation
from the project’s allowed uses. Any proposed changes to the dimensional requirements should
14
Page 5 of 5
be limited to a technical nature, respond to a design parameter that could not have been
foreseen during the Project Review approval, and remain within the dimensional tolerances
stated in the Project Review, or otherwise represent an insubstantial change.
The existing building houses several offices. The uses in the building are consistent with
previous approvals and will remain as offices following redevelopment. The proposed project
will improve ingress, egress and pedestrian circulation within the building. Today, the exterior
door located along the east side of the building, (facing Mill Street) appears to serve as the main
entrance to access all interior offices. This door provides access only to a single office within the
building. Pedestrians often mistake this door as the main entry and are redirected to the door
located along the North side of the property (facing the driveway) to access other offices. The
applicant hopes to improve the existing layout by reconfiguring the interior of the building to
provide a more intuitive experience when accessing the offices. The enclosed glass entry
proposed along the east side of the property will support this change. Upon entering the
enclosure from Mill Street, a stairwell and elevator will provide access to all floors of the building,
significantly improving pedestrian circulation. Although an elevator does not currently exist within
the building, Ordinance No. 44, Series of 1992 approved the installation of one, for up to 324 sq.
ft. in area. Lastly, although the development of the glass enclosure will increase the building
height by two ft. (24-ft. to 26-ft.), the NC zone district prescribes a maximum height of 28-ft. This
modest increase in height is within the dimensional tolerances prescribed for the NC zone
district. Staff finds that all applicable criteria for an Insubstantial Amendment to a Planned
Development are met.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) approve the request to redevelop
the property at 225 N. Mill Street, subject to the following:
1.This Insubstantial PD Amendment shall establish the maximum allowed floor area to be
7,738 square feet, the maximum allowed net leasable area to be 8,985 square feet and
the maximum allowed height as 26-ft., 2-inches related to the new entry addition, as
represented in the application.
2. P&Z hereby allows a reduction in the existing Street-Level Pedestrian Amenity Space
related to the overhang protecting the new entry doors, finding that Commercial Design
Guideline PA1.5 is met. The existing Pedestrian Amenity is 16.7 percent of the lot and
the approved Pedestrian Amenity is 16.3 percent of the lot.
3.As part of building permit review, the applicant must document the existing and proposed
Second Tier Commercial Space and confirm that no less than 50 percent will continue to
meet the Municipal Code requirements.
4. Any tree removal or landscaping is subject to review and approval from the Park’s
Department.
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution #____, Series of 2020
Exhibit A – Insubstantial PD Amendment Review Criteria
Exhibit B – Commercial Design Review Criteria
Exhibit C – Application
15
Page 1 of 8
RESOLUTION #XX
(SERIES OF 2020)
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
APPROVING AN INSUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT TO A PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT, AND COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR A PROPERTY
LEGALLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A, COMMONLY KNOWN AS 225 N. MILL
STREET.
Parcel No.2737-073-17-004
WHEREAS,the Community Development Department received an application from 225
N. Mill Street, LLC, 1530 Broadway, 3
rd Floor, New York, NY 10036, requesting approval for an
Insubstantial Amendment to a Planned Development and Commercial Design Review for the
property located at 225 N. Mill Street; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department Staff reviewed the application for
compliance with the applicable review standards; and,
WHEREAS,upon review of the application and the applicable Land Use Code standards,
the Community Development Director recommended approval of the Insubstantial Amendment to
a Planned Development & Commercial Design Review; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and considered
the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein,
reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and took
and considered public comment at a duly noticed public hearing on October 6, 2020; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and
considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as
identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development
Director, and has taken and considered public comment at a duly noticed public hearing on October
6, 2020; and,
WHEREAS,the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development
proposal meets the applicable review criteria and that the approval of the request is consistent with
the goals and objectives of the Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS,the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution
furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare; and,
WHEREAS,the Planning and Zoning Commission approves Resolution X, Series of
2020, by a X to X (X-X) vote, granting approval of the Insubstantial Amendment to a Planned
Development and Commercial Design Review as identified herein.
16
Page 2 of 8
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission:
Section 1: Insubstantial Amendment to a Planned Development:
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the
Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves the request for an Insubstantial Amendment to
a Planned Development to reconfigure the interior space, to develop an enclosed glass entry along
the east façade,to update existing HVAC equipment and to improve existing bathrooms to comply
with ADA accessibility requirements.
Section 2: Commercial Design Review:
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code and
the Commercial, Lodging, and Historic District Design Standards and Guidelines, the Planning
and Zoning Commission hereby approves Commercial Design Review to develop the exterior
glass enclosure as depicted in Figure B of this resolution.
Section 3: Conditions of Approval:
The approval is granted with the following conditions of approval.
1.This Insubstantial PD Amendment shall establish the maximum allowed floor area to be
7,738 square feet, the maximum allowed net leasable area to be 8,985 square feet and the
maximum allowed height of 26-ft., 2-inches related to the new entry addition, as
represented in the application.
2. P&Z hereby allows a reduction in the existing Street-Level Pedestrian Amenity Space
related to the overhang protecting the new entry doors, finding that Commercial Design
Guideline PA1.5 is met. The existing Pedestrian Amenity is 16.7 percent of the lot and
the approved Pedestrian Amenity is 16.3 percent of the lot.
3.As part of building permit review, the applicant must document the existing and proposed
Second Tier Commercial Space and confirm that no less than 50 percent will continue to
meet the Municipal Code requirements.
4.Any tree removal or landscaping is subject to review and approval from the Park’s
Department.
Section 4:
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 Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in such site development approvals
and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized
entity.
Section 5:
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.
17
Page 3 of 8
Section 6:
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 meeting on October 6, 2020.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION:
_________________________________________________________
Jim True, City Attorney Spencer McKnight, Chair
ATTEST:
____________________________
Cindy Klob, Records Manager
Exhibit A: Legal Description of property
Exhibit B: Approved plans
18
Exhibit A- 225 N. Mill Legal Description
Page 4 of 8
19
Exhibit A- 225 N. Mill Legal Description
Page 5 of 8
20
Exhibit B- 225 N. Mill Approved Plans
Page 6 of 8New overhang21
Exhibit B- 225 N. Mill Approved Plans
Page 7 of 8
22
Exhibit B- 225 N. Mill Approved Plans
Page 8 of 8
23
Exhibit A
Insubstantial Amendment to a Planned Development
Section 26.445.110.a, Planned Development, Insubstantial Amendments
Insubstantial Amendments.An insubstantial amendment to an approved Project Review
or an approved Detailed Review may be authorized by the Community Development
Director. An insubstantial amendment shall meet the following criteria:
1. The request does not change the use or character of the development.
Staff Response: The proposed remodel will not change the use of the building.
The property will still consist of office uses. The enclosed glass entry will improve
wayfinding and circulation of the building and will be more intuitive for pedestrians
entering from Mill Street.
Staff finds this criterion is met.
2. The request is consistent with the conditions and representations in the project's
original approval, or otherwise represents an insubstantial change.
Staff Response: A 324 sq. ft. elevator was approved via Ordinance No. 44,
Series of 1992 but was never built. The previous approvals represented the
elevator along the north side of the building (adjacent to the existing driveway
that accesses the rear parking). Moving the elevator and stairwell from the north
side of the building to the east side (facing Mill Street), will provide a more direct
and less confusing common entry than the current condition where many
pedestrians mistakenly approach the door facing Mill Street, which provides
access only to an architecture office and not the rest of the building.
Staff finds this criterion is met.
3. The request does not require granting a variation from the project's allowed
use(s) and does not request an increase in the allowed height or floor area.
Staff Response:Although an elevator does not currently exist within the building,
Ordinance No. 44, Series of 1992 approved the installation of one, for up to 324
sq. ft. in area. The elevator is within the permitted height limit for the zone district.
Staff finds this criterion is met.
4. Any proposed changes to the approved dimensional requirements are limited to
a technical nature, respond to a design parameter that could not have been
foreseen during the Project Review approval, are within dimensional tolerances
stated in the Project Review, or otherwise represents an insubstantial change.
Staff Response: Although the development of the glass enclosure will increase
the building height by two ft. (24-ft. to 26-ft.), the NC zone district prescribes a
maximum height of 28-ft. This modest increase in height is within the dimensional
tolerances prescribed for the NC zone district.
The proposed floor area and net leasable area are less than the previous caps
set by a 1992 land use approval for this property.
Staff finds this criterion is met.
24
Exhibit A
Insubstantial Amendment to a Planned Development
5. An applicant may not apply for Detailed Review if an amendment is pending.
Staff Response:
Not applicable.
25
Exhibit B
Commercial Design Review
Land Use Code Section 26.412.020, Commercial Design Review Criteria
An application for commercial design review may be approved, approved with conditions
or denied based on conformance with the following criteria:
1. The Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Standards and
Guidelines are met as determined by the appropriate Commission. The
Standards and Guidelines include design review criteria that are to be used to
determine whether the application is appropriate.
Staff Response:The applicant provided a Commercial Design Review Context
Study within the application. This study responds to each of the applicable Design
Standards and Guidelines and demonstrates that the proposed project will
comply with the applicable standards.
Staff finds this criterion is met.
2. All applicable standards in the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design
Standards and Guidelines shall be met unless granted a Variation pursuant
to Section 26.412.040(d), Variations.
Staff Response: The project requires a small reduction in the required
Pedestrian Amenity space. Open space that currently exists along the east
(front) and north sides of the building meets the definition of Pedestrian Amenity
and cannot be reduced in size without approval. The small overhang proposed
to shelter the entry doors into the new addition decreases the Pedestrian Amenity
because the area below it will no longer be “open to the sky” as required.
Currently, 3,077 sq. ft. or 16.7 percent of this 18,458 square foot lot is Pedestrian
Amenity. The overhang is 71.7 sq. ft. reducing the Pedestrian Amenity to 3,005
square feet or 16.3 percent of the lot.
The review criteria are:
D. Variations. An application requesting a variation from the Standards of
Commercial, Lodging, and Historic District Design Standards and Guidelines shall
be reviewed during either Conceptual Design Review or Final Design Review, as
determined by the Community Development Department. The Planning & Zoning
Commission or Historic Preservation Commission, during a duly noticed public
hearing, shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for
variation. The application shall demonstrate, and the deciding board shall find that
the variation, if granted, would:
1. Provide an alternative design approach that meets the overall intent of
the standard. The reviewing board shall consider the appropriateness of
the design features, building elements, and existing neighborhood context
to determine that the exception is appropriate; or
26
Exhibit B
Commercial Design Review
2. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-
specific constraints.
The slight overhang provides protection from weather at the entry and, as a
cantilevered element, has a minimal impact on the sense of open space at the
front of the property, and meets the intent of the guideline below.
PA1.5 Street level Pedestrian Amenity areas shall be open to the sky.
Direct access to the Pedestrian Amenity from the street is required.
A street level Pedestrian Amenity space may be covered, subject to HPC
or P&Z approval. If the space is covered, the street-facing portion shall be
entirely open.
Staff finds this criterion is met.
3. Not every guideline will apply to each project, and some balancing of the
guidelines must occur on a case-by-case basis. The applicable Commission
must:
a. Determine that a sufficient number of the relevant guidelines are
adequately met in order to approve a project proposal;
b. Weigh the applicable guidelines with the practicality of the measure.
Staff Response:Staff finds that a sufficient number of relevant guidelines are
met.
27
Exhibit B
Commercial Design Review
General
Site Planning & Streetscape
1.1 All projects shall provide a context study.
A context study was provided as part of this application. Staff finds this
criterion met.
1.2 All projects shall respond to the traditional street grid.
The existing building is situated parallel to N. Mill Street. The proposed
project will not alter the building orientation. Staff finds this criterion met.
1.3 Landscape elements (both hardscape and softscape) should complement
the surrounding context, support the street scene, and enhance the
architecture of the building.
All but one existing tree will remain in place. Additional shrubs will be
planted to soften the base of the addition. Much of the street facing sod
will be replaced with river rock xeriscaping. Any tree removal requires
approval from the Parks Department. Staff finds this criterion met.
1.4 Where there is open space on a site, reinforce the traditional transition
from public space, to semi-public space to private space.
Permeable pavers will be installed from the sidewalk along N. Mill Street
to the new entry door. Staff finds this criterion met.
1.5 Maintain alignment of building facades where appropriate.
The existing building is closely aligned to Clark’s Market to the north and
the adjacent duplex to the south. The building orientation will not change
as part of this project. Staff finds this criterion met.
1.6 When a building facade is set back, define the property line. Review the
context of the block when selecting an appropriate technique.
The existing planter links the public streetscape and entry to the property.
New benches on top of the planter are proposed as a pedestrian amenity.
Staff finds this criterion met.
Alleyways
1.7 Develop alley facades to create visual interest.
N/A
1.8 Consider small alley commercial spaces, especially on corner lots or lots
with midblock access from the street.
N/A
28
Exhibit B
Commercial Design Review
Parking
1.9 Minimize the visual impacts of parking.
N/A
Building Mass, Height, and Scale
1.10 A new building should appear similar in scale and proportion with
buildings on the block.
The existing building and proposed entry addition are similar in scale and
proportional to adjacent buildings. Staff finds this criterion met.
1.11 A minimum building height difference of 2-ft. from immediately adjacent
buildings is required.
The entry addition will be 2-ft, 2-inches higher than the existing building
and noticeably different from the two adjacent buildings. Staff finds this
criterion met.
1.12 On lots larger than 6,000 sq. ft., break up building mass into smaller
modules.
The proposed entry can be considered a unique, smaller module, relative
to the remainder of the building. The new addition will help to break up
building mass. Staff finds this criterion met.
1.13 Development adjacent to a historic landmark should respond to the
historic resource.
N/A
Street Level Design
1.14 Commercial entrances shall be at the sidewalk level and oriented to the
street.
The proposed entry addition is accessed from the sidewalk and is
oriented towards North Mill Street. One of the principal design goals of
this project is to establish a single, street-oriented entrance to all
businesses within the building. Currently, most of the businesses are
accessed via the rear of the building. Staff finds this criterion met.
1.15 Incorporate an internal airlock or air curtain into first floor commercial
space.
The entry addition is designed as a 3-level airlock with automatic closing
doors at each level. Staff finds this criterion met.
29
Exhibit B
Commercial Design Review
1.16 Entries that are significantly taller or shorter than those seen historically
or that conflict with the established scale are highly discouraged.
The proposed entry is slightly taller than the existing building but is still
considered proportional in scale and mass to the existing building. The
size and height of the entry is also proportional to buildings within the
surrounding neighborhood. Staff finds this criterion met.
1.17 ATMs and vending machines visible from the street are prohibited.
N/A
Roofscape
1.18 The roofscape should be designed with the same attention as the
elevations of the building.
N/A
1.19 Use materials that complement the design of the building façade.
The modern design of the glass and steel entry addition contains the
internal function of the elevator shaft and stairway that wraps it. The
chosen use of the steel in the entry relates to other steel elements in the
neighborhood such as the Ron Krajian Bridge. Staff finds this criterion
met.
1.20 Incorporate green roofs and low landscape elements into rooftop design
where feasible.
The new roof membrane will match with the existing. The new roof will
have high reflectance properties to reduce localized heat island effects.
Staff finds this criterion met.
1.21 Minimize visibility of rooftop railings.
N/A
Materials & Details
1.22 Complete and accurate identification of materials is required.
The applicant has provided a complete list of materials. Staff finds this
criterion met.
1.23 Building materials shall have these features:
Convey the quality and range of materials found in the current block
context or seen historically in the Character Area.
Convey pedestrian scale.
Enhance visual interest through texture, application, and/or dimension.
Be non-reflective. Shiny or glossy materials are not appropriate as a
primary material.
30
Exhibit B
Commercial Design Review
A material with an integral color shall be a neutral color. Some variation
is allowed for secondary materials.
The two primary materials of the entry connection include black
structural steel and glass. These materials will be used extensively to
complement the adjacent building to the south, 201 North Mill as well as
the brick façade of the existing building, which remains the dominant
element. Visual interest is enhanced by the use of glass walls by allowing
pedestrians to see the elevator shaft and winding wood stair treads
within. The glass will be non-reflective and the steel will be matte. Staff
finds these criteria met.
1.24 Introducing new material, material application, or material finish to the
existing streetscape may be approved by P&Z if the following criteria
are met [Not listed here].
N/A
1.25 Architecture that reflects corporate branding of the tenant is not
permitted.
N/A
Lighting, Service and Mechanical Areas
1.26.The design of light fixtures should be appropriate to the form, materials,
scale and style of the building.
Lighting selection was conducted with respect to maintaining night sky
requirements and a minimalist design aesthetic to reflect upon the
modern entry addition. Staff finds this criterion met.
1.27 Trash and recycle service areas shall be co-located along an alleyway
where one exists and screened from view with a fence or door.
N/A
1.28 Design trash and recycle areas thoughtfully and within the style of the
building, with the goal of enhancing pedestrian and commercial uses
along alleys.
N/A
1.29 Delivery areas shall be located along an alleyway where one exists.
N/A
1.30 Mechanical equipment, ducts, and vents shall be accommodated
internally within the building and/or co-located on the roof.
All mechanical equipment will be located out of site from Mill Street.
Staff finds this criterion met.
31
Exhibit B
Commercial Design Review
1.31 Minimize the visual impacts of utility connections and services boxes.
Existing street-side service and utility boxes will be minimized and
screened with new evergreen shrubs. Staff finds this criterion met.
1.32 Transformer location and size are dictated by City and utility company
standards and codes.
N/A
Remodel
1.33 All remodel projects shall meet Standards 1.22 and 1.23
See standards 1.22 & 1.23
1.34 Consider updating windows, doors, and/ or primary entrances to better
relate to the Character Area and pedestrian experience.
The proposed entry connection with its industrial steel frame, uses new,
high performance windows and an entry door that relate closely to the
adjacent 201 North Mill building and the character of the River Approach
zone. Staff finds this criterion met.
1.35 Design alterations to relate to the existing building style and form that
may remain.
The black steel frame and the natural color palette of the interior
materials will blend well with the brick facades of the existing building
which remain the dominant element. Staff finds this criterion met.
1.36 Incorporate elements that define the property line in accordance with
Guideline 1.6.
An existing planter bridges the public streetscape and entry to the
property. A new bench on top of the planter is proposed as a pedestrian
amenity. Staff finds this criterion met.
1.37 Creative solutions that incorporate ADA compliance into the architecture
are encouraged.
Part of this remodel includes making all three floors and all bathroom
facilities ADA compliant with the introduction of the street accessible
elevator.
Pedestrian Amenities
This project does not trigger demolition. The proposed reduction is addressed
above. Additionally, the applicant proposes adding south and north facing
benches mounted onto the existing triangular concrete planter. Staff finds all
applicable criteria related to pedestrian amenities met.
32
Exhibit B
Commercial Design Review
River Approach Character Area
7.1 Place a building to respond to the natural environment.
N/A
7.2 Minimize retaining walls where possible by siting building into topography.
N/A
7.3 Incorporate open space into the building placement and site design.
N/A
Architecture
7.4 Preserve the diverse and industrial character of the neighborhood and
encourage connection to the river and natural environment.
The proposed entry connection uses exposed, black structural steel to
define the mass of the element within the larger existing brick building.
This helps tie 225 North Mill to the historical and neighborhood vernacular
of the River Approach Zone. Staff finds this criterion met.
7.5 Use eclectic and creative approaches to the break up building mass and
scale.
By nature of the project’s scale, the massing of the new entry addition
breaks up the monotony of the existing homogenous brick walls. Staff
finds this criterion met.
7.6 Unique roof forms and overall building shape are encourages in this
neighborhood.
The roof form seeks to relate to the adjacent building to the south, 201
North Mill with a flat roof. Staff finds this criterion met.
7.7 Enhance the natural environment and funky character through materials
and details.
The new elevator shaft and wood stair treads resembling railroad ties will
be visible through the new front fenestration. Staff finds this criterion
met.
7.8 Larger, more industrial sized fenestration is appropriate here.
Large, industrial sized fenestration is prominent in the entry addition of
225 North Mill.
33
225 NORTH MILL STREET, STE 100 ASPEN, COLORADO, 81611 WWW.STRYKERBROWN.COM 9 7 0 . 9 2 5 . 2 1 0 0
June 18, 2020
Mr. Ben Anderson, Principal Planner
City of Aspen Community Development Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: 225 NORTH MILL STREET INSUBSTANTIAL PD AMENDMENT AND
COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW
Dear Ben,
Please consider this letter to be an application for review of a planned addition to and internal
remodel of the office building located at 225 North Mill Street in Aspen. The following
changes are planned to the building, as illustrated in the attached drawing set:
• Creation of a new enclosed glass entry along Mill Street, within which there will be a
new elevator and stairway, providing ADA-compliant access to the entire building.
• Full remodel of the basement level, including replacement of the outdated HVAC
equipment with a new, high efficiency system, and remodel of the existing offices and
tenant storage spaces into modern office spaces.
• Limited remodel of the first and second floors, to create new hallway connections
from the elevator and stairway to the existing offices and to make the bathrooms
ADA-complaint.
The subject property is located along North Mill Street between Bleeker Street and Puppy
Smith Street (see attached vicinity map). The property’s Pitkin County Parcel ID number is
273707317004. The legal description of the property is Lots D, E, F, G, H, and I, Block 78,
City and Townsite of Aspen, along with an adjoining triangular parcel of land which is part
of Tract A of the Aspen Townsite Addition.
The property is zoned Neighborhood Commercial (NC) with a Planned Development (PD)
Overlay. Offices are a permitted use in the NC zone district.
The property is owned by 225 North Mill Street, LLC (hereinafter, “the applicant”). Proof of
the ownership of the property is provided by Exhibit #1, the attached letter from the
applicant’s attorney. Authorization for Stryker Brown Architects to submit this application to
the City of Aspen is provided in a letter from the property owner attached as Exhibit #2.
You provided us a Pre-Application Conference Summary (see Exhibit #3) which states that
the following land use review procedures apply to this proposal:
34
225 NORTH MILL STREET, STE 100 ASPEN, COLORADO, 81611 WWW.STRYKERBROWN.COM 9 7 0 . 9 2 5 . 2 1 0 0
Insubstantial PD Amendment, pursuant to Section 26.445.110.A; and
Commercial Design Review, pursuant to Section 26.412.
Responses to the standards applicable to these review procedures follow below. First,
however, a brief description of the property and a summary of the property’s prior land use
approvals are provided as background to this land use application.
Property Description
An Improvement and Topographic Survey prepared by High Country Engineering, dated
6/2/16, is included with this application. The survey depicts existing conditions on this
property. The applicant is aware that this survey is more than 6 months old. However,
because of the Stay-At Home orders which were in effect in Colorado and Pitkin County this
spring, the surveyor has been unable to conduct a field update of the property. The applicant
will provide an updated survey to the City as soon as is practical, prior to consideration of
this application by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The applicant hereby certifies that
the conditions shown on the survey are an accurate representation of current conditions on
the property, with the exception of certain insubstantial changes which have been made to
the property since the survey was last conducted.
The survey states that the subject property is approximately 18,458 square feet in size
(0.424 acres). The property is nearly rectangular in shape. It is improved with a two-story
commercial building which is located along the North Mill Street property frontage. There is
a paved driveway along the northern edge of the property, providing access to a paved
parking lot behind the building. The parking lot contains twenty (20) marked parking spaces.
There are a number of mature trees located around the building which will be added to the
survey as part of the survey update.
The property is surrounded by a wide range of land uses. Immediately to the north is the
mixed-use complex which includes Clark’s Market and other commercial uses, the Post
Office and several multi-family residential units. To the south is the new mixed-use building
at 201 North Mill Street, which includes offices and residential units. A new duplex was
recently completed to the south of the subject property, along Bleeker Street. Behind the
building, to the west, is a single-family residential neighborhood, located along Monarch
Street. Across Mill Street, to the east, is the construction site where the new City Hall offices
are being built.
Summary of Prior Land Use Approvals
The existing building was constructed in 1978 to house the Aspen Savings and Loan
Association. Because the property was then zoned Neighborhood Commercial with a
Specially Planned Area Overlay (NC/SPA), development of the site required SPA review
by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. SPA approval was granted in
2
35
225 NORTH MILL STREET, STE 100 ASPEN, COLORADO, 81611 WWW.STRYKERBROWN.COM 9 7 0 . 9 2 5 . 2 1 0 0
1977, but there is limited documentation available in the City’s files regarding that land use
review process. Apparently, the City did not require a SPA Plan or a SPA Development
Agreement to be recorded to document that approval, so it is not possible to determine
whether any conditions were applied to the approval the City granted at that time.
In 1989 the City approved two minor changes to the building, to allow a bank vault to be
installed and to allow a small ground floor addition (approximately 320 square feet) to the
building. Both of these improvements were subsequently constructed.
By 1992 the property had passed out of the bank’s hands into another ownership group.
The then-owner obtained approval from the City for a 324 square foot addition for an
elevator. Approval was also obtained to condominiumize the building. At about this time
the Moss family purchased the property and sought to move a radio station (KSPN) into the
building. The City required an amendment to the original SPA approval to be processed to
allow this use to occupy the building and to document the other minor land use actions which
had been authorized for the property between 1989 and 1992. That amendment was
granted by the Aspen City Council on September 14, 1992, pursuant to Ordinance 92-55
(attached hereto as Exhibit #4).
As a condition of the approval, a Specially Planned Area Development Agreement was
entered into between the owner and the City (Reception No. 351030, attached as Exhibit
#5)) and a Final SPA Development Plan was recorded in Plat Book 30 @ Page 10
(Reception No. 351031). The Development Agreement and Final SPA Development Plan
set forth the following approvals for this property:
1. Business/professional office uses and the radio station were expressly permitted.
2. The 324 square foot elevator addition was approved, subject to the elevator location
being depicted on the Final SPA Plan. However, the Final SPA Plan which was
signed and recorded did not show a location or configuration for the elevator.
3. The building was condominiumized, subject to filing of a condominium plat.
4. The City and Owner confirmed that the existing building contained 8,082 square
feet of floor area and 9,324 square feet of net leasable area. Section 8 of the SPA
Agreement reads as follows:
“The City and Moss hereby acknowledge that the Building contains 8,082 square
feet of existing floor area and 9,324 square feet of net leasable area. The
purpose of the foregoing recitations is to provide a baseline for review of any
applications for future expansion of the Building on the Property.”
The Final SPA Development Plan, which is recorded in Plat Book 30 @ Page 10, provides
further documentation for the area calculations stated in the SPA Agreement, by listing
the following floor-by-floor breakdowns of those square footage totals:
3
36
225 NORTH MILL STREET, STE 100 ASPEN, COLORADO, 81611 WWW.STRYKERBROWN.COM 9 7 0 . 9 2 5 . 2 1 0 0
SPA Plan Verified Floor Area and Net Leasable Area for 225 North Mill Street
Floor Area Net Leasable Area
Lower None 2,580
Main 5,235 4,211
Upper 2,847 2,532
Total 8,082 square feet 9,323 square feet
The 1992 SPA application is the most recent land use file kept in the City’s records for this
property. More recently, the City adopted a Code Amendment combining the SPA and PUD
Overlays into a new PD Overlay. PD is the overlay designation currently applied to this
property on the City’s Official Zone District Map.
Insubstantial Amendment to Approved PD
The applicant proposes two insubstantial changes to the approved PD for this property:
• The previously-approved elevator and the existing stairway will be moved from the
north side of the building to the front side, along Mill Street.
• The floor plan of each of the three levels will be modified to connect the new elevator
and stairway to the offices.
An insubstantial amendment to an approved Project Review may be authorized by the
Community Development Director. An insubstantial amendment shall meet the following
review criteria:
1. The request does not change the use or character of the development.
Response: The use of the building for offices will be unchanged. There will be an
insubstantial change to the overall character of the building by the addition of the glass
enclosure at the front entry. This change will be a noticeable improvement to the building’s
entry image and will also provide for better circulation into the building, allowing for ADA-
compliant access to the lower and upper floors.
2. The request is consistent with the conditions and representations in the project's
original approval, or otherwise represents an insubstantial change.
Response: An elevator was part of the property’s 1992 SPA approval, although at that time
the elevator was to be located along the northern building façade. Moving the elevator and
stairway from the northern side of the building to the front will be an improvement from the
original design because it represents a more direct way for pedestrians to enter the building.
Today most persons who come to the building on foot are not even aware that there is a
stairway entry along the northern side of the building (the door does not appear to be a
4
37
225 NORTH MILL STREET, STE 100 ASPEN, COLORADO, 81611 WWW.STRYKERBROWN.COM 9 7 0 . 9 2 5 . 2 1 0 0
public entry). As a result, they walk around to the parking lot at the rear where there is a
more obvious building entry and stair. Some even mistakenly walk into the existing front
entry, which only accesses the architect’s offices and not the rest of the building. Placing
the entry along the front will establish a more pedestrian-friendly, logical design for the
building.
The planned internal changes to the floor plan for each level within the building also
represent an insubstantial change to the approved PD. All three floors will continue to be
occupied by offices. The primary internal changes will be improved, ADA-compliant access
to each of the floors and upgraded ADA-compliant bathrooms.
1. The request does not require granting a variation from the project's allowed use(s)
and does not request an increase in the allowed height or floor area.
Response: The entry element will be 2’ 2” taller than the height of the existing building, but
will still be well below the maximum allowable 28’ height of the NC zone district, so no
variation in height is required.
The approved floor area of the building, as per the SPA Agreement and Final SPA Plan, is
8,082 square feet. The proposed floor area, as shown on Page A.1.21 of the architectural
drawings, will be just 7,738 square feet. Therefore, there will be no increase to the allowed
floor area from the total which was established in the 1992 SPA.
2. Any proposed changes to the approved dimensional requirements are limited to a
technical nature, respond to a design parameter that could not have been foreseen
during the Project Review approval, are within dimensional tolerances stated in the
Project Review, or otherwise represents an insubstantial change.
Response: The other key dimensional requirement established in the 1992 SPA was the
building’s net leasable area. The building’s approved net leasable area, as per the SPA
Agreement and Final SPA Plan, is 9,323 square feet. The proposed net leasable area of
the building, as shown on Page A.1.21 of the architectural drawings, will be just 8,985.7
square feet. Therefore, there will be no increase to the allowed net leasable area for the
building from the total which was established in the 1992 SPA.
The combination of no increase in floor area and no increase in net leasable area explains
why a Growth Management application is not required for this project.
1. An applicant may not apply for Detailed Review if an amendment is pending.
2. Response: Detailed review is not applicable to this project.
Commercial Design Review
Section 26.412.010 of the Land Use Code states that
5
38
225 NORTH MILL STREET, STE 100 ASPEN, COLORADO, 81611 WWW.STRYKERBROWN.COM 9 7 0 . 9 2 5 . 2 1 0 0
“The purpose of Commercial Design Review is to foster appropriate building design that
creates walkable neighborhoods and supports Aspen's unique heritage. The review
standards do not prescribe architectural style, but do require that certain building
elements contribute to the streetscape and neighborhood character.”
According to Section 26.412.020, Commercial Design Review applies to all commercial,
lodging and mixed-used development within the City which alters the exterior of a
building and which requires a building permit. Therefore, the proposed new entry
enclosure is subject to this review while the internal building remodel is not.
Section 26.412.060 of the Code sets forth the following guidelines and standards by which
the Commission may approve a Commercial Design Review:
1. The Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Standards and Guidelines are
met as determined by the appropriate Commission. The Standards and Guidelines
include design review criteria that are to be used to determine whether the application
is appropriate.
Response: Included in this application is the Commercial Design Review Context Study
which responds to each of the applicable Design Standards and Guidelines and
demonstrates that the proposed project will comply with those Standards and Guidelines.
2. All applicable standards in the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design
Standards and Guidelines shall be met unless granted a Variation pursuant to
Section 26.412.040(d), Variations.
Response: The applicant is not requesting any variations from the Design Standards and
Guidelines.
Not every guideline will apply to each project, and some balancing of the guidelines must
occur on a case-by-case basis. The applicable Commission must:
a. Determine that a sufficient number of the relevant guidelines are adequately
met in order to approve a project proposal; and
b. Weigh the applicable guidelines with the practicality of the measure.
Response: The applicant believes the relevant guidelines have been adequately met.
3. The proposed development shall meet the requirements of Section 26.412.070,
Pedestrian Amenity.
Response: The Commercial Design Review Context Study also demonstrates that the
proposed project will comply with the Pedestrian Amenity Standards.
6
39
40
CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
City of Aspen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5090 April 2020
LAND USE APPLICATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTIVATIVE:
Description: Existing and Proposed Conditions
Review: Administrative or Board Review
Required Land Use Review(s):
Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) required fields:
Net Leasable square footage Lodge Pillows Free Market dwelling units
Affordable Housing dwelling units Essential Public Facility square footage
Have you included the following? FEES DUE: $
Pre-Application Conference Summary
Signed Fee Agreement
HOA Compliance form
All items listed in checklist on PreApplication Conference Summary
Name:
Address:
Phone#: email:
Address:
Phone #: email:
Name:
Project Name and Address:
Parcel ID # (REQUIRED)
225 NORTH MILL STREET, ASPEN
273707317004
225 NORTH MILL STREET, LLC
1530 BROADWAY, 3RD FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10036
(212) 398-1180 sventor@svcservices.com
DAVID BROWN, STRYKER BROWN ARCHITECTS
225 NORTH MILL ST., SUITE 100, ASPEN
(970) 379-4100 david@strykerbrown.com
This remodel project proposes to add an elevator to the northeast corner of the existing building to provide access to all three
floors (lower level, main level and upper level). In conjunction with this work the owner will make ADA improvements to the
restrooms on all floors and reconfigure much of the net leasable space including remodeling the lower level office space to create
new office suites or a shared work space configuration.
X
3,250.00
X
X
X
41
Charles B. Moss III
Manager
42
CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
City of Aspen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5090 April 2020
DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM
Complete only if required by the PreApplication checklist
Project and Location
Applicant:
Zone District: Gross Lot Area: Net Lot Area:
**Please refer to section 26.575.020 for information on how to calculate Net Lot Area
Please fill out all relevant dimensions
Single Family and Duplex Residential
1) Floor Area (square feet)
2) Maximum Height
3) Front Setback
4) Rear Setback
5) Side Setbacks
6) Combined Side Setbacks
7) % Site Coverage
Existing Allowed Proposed Multi-family Residential
1)Number of Units
2)Parcel Density (see 26.710.090.C.10)
3)FAR (Floor Area Ratio)
4)Floor Area (square feet)
4)Maximum Height
5)Front Setback
6)Rear Setback
Existing Allowed Proposed
8) Minimum distance between buildings
Proposed % of demolition
7) Side Setbacks
Proposed % of demolition
Commercial
Proposed Use(s)
Existing Allowed Proposed
Existing non-conformities or encroachments:
Variations requested:
Lodge
Additional Use(s)
1)FAR (Floor Area Ratio)
2)Floor Area (square feet)
3)Maximum Height
4)Free Market Residential(square feet)
4)Front setback
5)Rear setback
6)Side setbacks
7)Off-Street Parking Spaces
8)Pedestrian Amenity (square feet)
Proposed % of demolition
Existing Allowed Proposed
225 NORTH MILL STREET, ASPEN
225 NORTH MILL STREET, LLC
NC 18,458 sf 16,978 sf
.42:1 1.5:1 .46:1
7,214 sf 25,467 sf 7,738 sf
28'24'-5"26'-7"
20 209
0 sf 0 sf
0 sf
1) FAR (Floor Area Ratio)
2) Floor Area (square feet)
3) Maximum Height
4) Off-Street Parking Spaces
5) Second Tier (square feet)
6) Pedestrian Amenity (square feet)
Proposed % of demolition 12.4%
n/a
n/a 164 sf
N/A
N/A
43
Charles B. Moss III
5/1/20
44
45
EXHIBIT 146
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PRE-20-040
DATE: April 21, 2020
PLANNER: Ben Anderson, 429-2765
PROJECT NAME AND ADDRESS: 225 N. Mill
REPRESENTATIVE: Alan Richman
DESCRIPTION: 225 N. Mill St. is a three-level commercial building that was originally built in 1977 to house a bank. In
1992, A Planned Development (PD, formerly a SPA) was approved by City Council Ordinance No. 55, Series of 1992 –
primarily to allow a use (a radio station) that was not specifically permitted in the zone district. A development
agreement was recorded (reception #35130) to provide further definition the to the PD approval. The PD documents
memorialized floor area and net leasable calculations for the three floors as configured at the time and included
approval to build a new elevator.
Today, the building houses offices on the 2nd and 3rd levels. On the 1st level, or the basement, which includes bathrooms,
the space is primarily used as storage for the tenants of the 2nd and 3rd levels. The approved elevator has not been
established.
The owner of the building is considering improvements that include improving ADA accessibility, installing a new
elevator and staircase in a glass enclosure on the east elevation, and reconfiguring the internal space in the basement,
and on the 2nd and 3rd levels to accommodate the new vertical circulation.
These improvements require two reviews that will be combined in a public hearing with the Planning and Zoning
Commission: 1) Insubstantial Amendment to the Planned Development and 2) Commercial Design Review.
Elevators are fully allowed by the land use code, but since this property has a PD, its inclusion would therefore be
included in the review and documentation within the PD Amendment and require adherence to the standards and
guidelines within Commercial Design Review. Commercial Design Review will consider any potential impacts to
Pedestrian Amenity requirements. The elevator would need to additionally comply with current height limitations in
Measurements and Calculations (26.575.020).
At this point, the applicant does not believe that the improvements will increase Net Leasable area – and therefore will
be exempt from review under GMQS. This will be verified during review – and if necessary, GMQS review could be
combined with the other reviews identified in this PreApp.
RELEVANT LAND USE CODE SECTIONS:
26.304 Common Development Review Procedures
26.445.110.A Planned Development, Insubstantial Amendment
26.412 Commercial Design Review
26.575.020 Measurements and Calculations
For your convenience – links to the Land Use Application and Land Use Code are below:
Land Use Application Land Use Code
61
REVIEW BY: Community Development Staff for complete application
Planning and Zoning Commission
PUBLIC HEARING: P&Z: Yes – the applicant will work with staff to provide required public notice
requirements.
PLANNING FEES: Planning and Zoning Review
$3,250 Deposit for 10 hours of staff time (additional or less hours will be billed or
refunded at a rate of $325 per hour)
REFERRAL FEES: None
TOTAL DEPOSIT: $3,250
APPLICATION CHECKLIST – These items should first be submitted in PDF format to ben.anderson@cityofaspen.com
Completed Land Use Application and signed Fee Agreement.
Pre-application Conference Summary (this document).
Applicant’s name, address and telephone number, contained within a letter signed by the applicant stating
the name, address, and telephone number of the representative authorized to action on behalf of the
applicant.
Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of
a current (no older than 6 months) certificate from a title insurance company, an ownership and
encumbrance report, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all
owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements
affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner’s right to apply for the Development Application.
HOA Compliance form (Attached).
A site improvement survey (no older than a year from submittal) showing the current status of the parcel
certified by a registered land surveyor by licensed in the State of Colorado.
Documentation of previous land use approvals – including but not limited to Ordinance No. 55, Series of
1992 and related approval documents.
Existing and Proposed floor plans – including calculations for floor area and net leasable area using current
calculation methods.
Elevations and/or sections that depict the location and design of the proposed elevator
Written responses to applicable review criteria - importantly focused on Commercial Design Review
If the copy is deemed complete by staff, the following items will then need to be submitted:
Total deposit for review of the application.
Depending on further review of the case, additional items may be requested of the application. Once the
application is deemed complete by staff, the applicant/applicant’s representative will receive an e-mail
62
requesting submission of an electronic copy of the complete application and the deposit. Once the deposit
is received, the case will be assigned to a planner and the land use review will begin.
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.
63
Issue Name Issue Date
RevID ISSUE NAME DATE
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:
COPYRIGHT
DATE PRINTED:
SHEET TITLE
A.0.00
.
N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N
COVER - INDEX &
PROJECT DATA
6/18/20
COMM. DESIGN REVIEW
INITIAL SET-UP .C.E.
PROGRESS SET
10/16/19
6/8/20
6/19/20
2 2 5 N M I L L S T R E E T S T E 1 0 0
A S P E N C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1
BOWTIE REMODEL225 NORTH MILL STREETASPEN, COLORADO1. General Conditions:
The AIA document A201 "General Conditions of the Contract for Construction", latest edition, is
hereby made a part of these contract documents, except as amended herein. Copies are
available for inspection at the Architect's office.
2. Initiation of Work:
Prior to initiating work the General Contractor ("Contractor") shall verify that all dimensions as
shown accommodate existing job conditions and shall verify that the contract documents
conform with the field conditions. By initiating any work based on these documents the
Contractor certifies that these documents are complete and appropriate for commencing and
completing the work of the project. If there are any questions or ambiguities regarding these or
other
coordination issues, the contractor is responsible for obtaining clarification by the architect
before proceeding with the work or related work in question.
3. Continuity of Documents:
The contract documents consist of the Agreement, the Drawings, the General Notes and the
Specifications, all of which are cooperative and continuous. Work indicated or reasonably implied
in any one of the documents shall be supplied as though fully covered in all. Any discrepancy
between the parts is to be reported to the Architect immediately.
4. Code Compliance:
All work shall comply with the 2015 IBC and all other current local codes and ordinances.
5. Intention of Documents:
These documents are intended to include all labor, materials, equipment and services required to
complete all work herein described. All sub-assemblies appropriate for construction are NOT
shown in these documents. It is the Contractor's responsibility to infer the sub-assemblies from
the assemblies and systems called for in the drawings and specifications. Any question regarding
the intent of the drawings or specifications is to be clarified with the Architect before ordering
materials or proceeding with the work or related work.
6. Accuracy of Drawings:
The Contractor is responsible for checking all contract documents for accuracy and compatibility
with field conditions. The Contractor is responsible for confirming that the work is buildable as
shown before proceeding with construction. If there are any questions regarding these or other
coordination discrepancies, the Contractor is responsible for obtaining a clarification from the
Architect before proceeding with the work in question or any related work. The Contractor assumes
all responsibility for proceeding without clarification.
7. Erection and Installation:
All work shall be performed to the highest standards of craftsmanship by journeymen appropriate
to each trade. All work shall be erected plumb and true-to-line in accordance with the best
practices of the trade and the manufacturer's recommendations for each particular item. The
Contractor is responsible for coordination of the various trades. The Contractor shall verify and
coordinate all openings through floors, ceilings, and walls with all architectural, structural,
mechanical, plumbing, and electrical drawings. The Contractor shall provide blocking in partitions
as required for all millwork and accessory items attached to walls. Each miscellaneous item of
cutting, patching or fitting is not necessarily described herein. However, no omitted specific
description of cutting, patching or fitting required to properly accommodate the scope of work shall
relieve the Contractor from responsibility to perform such work. Where work is installed and
existing finishes are disturbed refinish such areas to match original conditions UNO.
8. Safety and Care:
The Contractor shall be responsible for the safety and care of adjacent properties during
construction. The Contractor shall be responsible for compliance with federal and state OSHA
regulations. The Contractor shall be responsible for the protection of all work until it is completed
and delivered to the owner. The Contractor shall call specific items to the attention of the Architect
if he wishes to obtain Architect's review. The presence of the Architect on the job site does not
imply concurrence or approval of the work.
9. Drawing and Notation Conventions:
All dimensions noted take precedence over scaled drawings. "NTS" denotes dimensions that are
not-
to-scale. Architectural dimensions shown on drawings are typically to gridline, face-of-stud
and face-of-concrete. Interior elevations (and "I" drawings if included) are to face of finish surface,
typical.
Large-scale details govern over small-scale details. The Contractor has responsibility for items
requiring coordination and resolution during the bidding process. "Typical" means similar for all
conditions, unless otherwise noted. Details are usually keyed only once (on the plans or elevations
when they first occur) and are typical for similar conditions throughout unless otherwise noted.
All called for items are to be new unless otherwise noted. See Abbreviations list for notations used.
10. Submittals:
All pre-fabricated products are to be selected and installed to their manufacturer’s highest and
best recommendations. Provide submittals as identified in plans or otherwise requested by the
Architect. Provide submittals for Contractor proposed product substitutions. Submittals are to
be made available for the Architect’s review and acceptance prior to commencement of the
work. Submittals include product data, drawings and descriptions of fabrications and
installation procedures.
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 225 NORTH MILL STREET, ASPEN
COLORADO
JURISDICTION: CITY OF ASPEN, CO
LOT & BLOCK NUMBER: SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH,
RANGE 84 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M.
PARCEL NUMBER: 273707317004
ZONE DISTRICT: NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL
IBC OCCUPANCY CLASS: B
BUILDING TYPE: COMMERCIAL
CONSTRUCTION TYPE: TYPE IIIB
FIRE SPRINKLERED
CLIMATE ZONE: 7
STRUCTURAL LOADS: SEE STRUCTURAL PLANS
PRESCRIPTIVE COMMERCIAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY MINIMUMS:
WALLS above grade: R 13+7.5ci OR 20+3.8ci
WALLS below grade R10 ci
FLOORS: R 30
ROOF: R 49
FENESTRATION fixed: .29 MAXIMUM U-VALUE
FENESTRATION operable: .37 MAXIMUM U-VALUE
FENESTRATION entrance doors: .77 MAXIMUM U-VALUE
SOLAR HEAT GAIN COEFFICIENT: N/A
ENERGY SOURCE electric: CITY OF ASPEN
ENERGY SOURCE gas: BLACK HILLS
WATER SERVICE: CITY OF ASPEN
SANITARY SEWER: CITY OF ASPEN
CODES USED FOR THIS PROJECT:
ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE
2015 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE
2015 INTERNATIONAL ENERGY CONSERVATION CODE
2015 INTERNATIONAL MECHANICAL CODE
2015 INTERNATIONAL PLUMBING CODE
2017 NATIONAL ELECTRIC CODE
2009 ICC A117.1 ACCESSIBLE AND USABLE BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES
INDEX TO DRAWINGS
A.0.00
A.1.00
A.1.10
A.1.11
A.1.20
A.1.21
A.1.30
A.1.31
A.2.10
A.2.11
A.2.12
A.2.13
A.2.20
A.2.21
A.2.22
A.2.23
A.3.10
A.3.11
A.3.20
A.3.21
A.3.22
A.3.23
A.4.10
A.4.11
COVER, INDEX & PROJECT DATA
IMPROVEMENT SURVEY
EXISTING SITE PLAN
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
EXISTING FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS
PROPOSED FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS
WALL DEMOLITION AND CALCS
ROOF DEMOLITION PLAN AND CALCS
EXISTING BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN
EXISTING 1st FLOOR PLAN
EXISTING 2nd FLOOR PLAN
EXISTING ROOF PLAN
PROPOSED BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN
PROPOSED 1st FLOOR PLAN
PROPOSED 2nd FLOOR PLAN
PROPOSED ROOF PLAN
EXISTING BUILDING ELEVATIONS
EXISTING BUILDING ELEVATIONS
PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONS
PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONS
COLORED ELEVATION RENDERINGS
COLORED ELEVATION AND STREETSCAPE
BUILDING SECTIONS
BUILDING SECTIONS
CODE AND ZONING DATA
OWNER:
225 NORTH MILL, LLC
Steve Ventor
S. Ventor Consulting LLC
1530 Broadway, 3rd floor
New York, NY 10036
212-398-1180
sventor@svcservices.com
ARCHITECT:
STRYKER BROWN ARCHITECTS
David Brown
225 North Mill St., Suite 100
Aspen, CO 81611
(970) 379-4100
david@strykerbrown.com
CIVIL ENGINEER & SURVEYOR:
STRUCTURAL ENGINEER:
CTL THOMPSON
Justin Dolezal
234 Center Drive
Glenwood Springs, CO
(970)945-2809
MEP ENGINEER:
GENERAL CONTRACTOR:
BRIKOR FINE HOME BUILDERS
Briston Peterson
20 Sunset Drive, #1
Basalt, CO 81621
(970) 923-3088
briston@brikor.com
GEOTECHNICAL:
CTL THOMPSON
James Kellogg
234 Center Drive
Glenwood Springs, CO
(970)945-2809
CONTACT DIRECTORYGENERAL NOTES
64
E
E E E
E
I
H
G
E
D
ALLEY
-
B
L
O
C
K
7
8 MILL STREETVACA
T
E
D
H
A
L
L
A
M
S
T
R
E
E
T
E
D
D
C
CO N14°50'49"E 86.33'L
IN
E
4
-
5
O
F
TH
E
C
I
T
Y
O
F
A
S
P
EN
1
8
5
'
±
R.R. TIE
RETAINING WALL
R.R. TIE
RETAINING WALL
S
R
Q
P
O
(UND
E
V
E
L
O
P
E
D
P
O
R
T
I
O
N
O
F
A
L
L
E
Y
)
ASPHA
L
T
CONC
R
E
T
E
R
E
T
A
I
N
I
N
G
W
A
L
L
CONC
R
E
T
E
R
E
T
A
I
N
I
N
G
W
A
L
L
STORM
GRATE
7877.56
STORM
GRATE
7877.24
CO
N
C
R
E
T
E
PAVED PARKING
AREA
PARKING
STRIPE
(TYPICAL)
WINDOW WELL
FENCED IN
MECHANICAL
AC UNIT
ENTRY
AREAINTERIORSTAIRWELL SIGNMAI
L
B
O
X
E
S
CONC
R
E
T
E
STEP
CON
C
R
E
T
E
SID
E
W
A
L
K
CONCRETESIDEWALKCONCRETE CURB & GUTTERCOVER
E
D
ENTRY
COLUM
N
PAV
E
D
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
CONCRETE
BOLLARD
(TYPICAL)
CONC
R
E
T
E
SIDEW
A
L
K
55.4'
7879.5
6
FFE
7879.6
2
FFE
7879.5
3
FFE
FFE 78
7
9
.
6
0 27.3'8.9'8.9'9.2'37.3'73.2'73.3'BUILDING CORNER IS 0.28'
NORTH OF PROPERTY LINE
BUILDING CORNER IS 0.41'
NORTH OF PROPERTY LINE
ADJ
A
C
E
N
T
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
(73.70' WIDE PUBLIC R.O.W.)(20.6
9
'
W
I
D
E
)
BRIC
K
CO
CONC
R
E
T
E
C
U
R
B
ADJ
A
C
E
N
T
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
CONC
R
E
T
E
10'
W
I
D
E
T
R
A
I
L
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
REC
E
P
T
I
O
N
N
O
.
3
6
9
0
8
3
PER
P
E
T
U
A
L
N
O
N
-
E
X
C
L
U
S
I
V
E
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
& RI
G
H
T
-
O
F
-
W
A
Y
F
O
R
I
N
G
R
E
S
S
A
N
D
E
G
R
E
S
S
REC
E
P
T
I
O
N
N
O
.
3
6
9
0
8
3
2 - STORY COMMERCIAL
BUILDING WITH BASEMENT
225 N. MILL STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO
PROPERTY AREA
18,441± SQ.FT.
0.423± ACRES
N 788078837879 7
8
7
8
7879787978807890789578787882788178807878788078797
8
8
178857885 7879
ELECTRIC
TRANSFORMERS
G
15' WIDE NON-EXCLUSIVEEASEMENT FOR UNDERGROUNDELECTRIC CABLESBOOK 354 PAGE 710002
10005
10006
10007
10008
10009
10010
10011
10072
10073
10110
10112
10135
10136
10137
10138
10139
10140
10165
10166
10167
10168
10163
10164
FLAGSTONE
PATIO
BRONCO
STATUE
S74°1
2
'
3
2
"
E
189.4
3
'S15°38'02"W 99.89'N74°1
1
'
5
4
"
W
180.8
3
'S16°01'56"W 13.70'S21°16'19"W 86.62'(S75°1
9
'
1
1
"
E
1
8
9
.
1
2
')(N14°50'49"E 100.00')(N75°0
9
'
1
1
"
W
1
8
0
.
9
3
')(S14°50'49"W 13.67')(S20°16'00"W 86.72')8.19'
FOUND #5 REBAR WITH
1.25" YELLOW PLASTIC CAP
LS #38215
SITE BENCHMARK, ELV.=7881.94'
FOUND #5 REBAR WITH
1.25" YELLOW PLASTIC CAP
LS #38215
FOUND #5 REBAR WITH
1.25" YELLOW PLASTIC CAP
LS #38215
FOUND #4 REBAR WITH
1" RED PLASTIC CAP
LS #16129
FOUND #5 REBAR WITH
1.25" YELLOW PLASTIC CAP
LS #38215
FOUND #5 REBAR WITH
1.25" YELLOW PLASTIC CAP
LS #2376 REFERENCE BEARING19.
4
'26.3'SIGN
A
B
225 NORTH MILL STREET
SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M.
CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED RECORDED AS RECEPTION NO. 369083.
ALL OF LOTS D, E, F, G, H AND I IN BLOCK 78 OF THE CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN ACCORDING TO THE
OFFICIAL PLAT RECORDED AS RECEPTION NO. 109023 IN DRAWER 3. TOGETHER WITH AN ADJOINING
TRIANGULAR PARCEL OF LAND, BEING A PART OF TRACT A OF THE ASPEN TOWNSITE ADDITION IN SECTION
7; T. 10 S., R. 84 W. OF THE 6TH P.M. MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A POINT WHERE LINE 4-5 OF THE CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN INTERSECTS WITH THE
EASTERLY LINE OF BLOCK 78 AS IT RUNS ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF MILL STREET;
THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID LINE 4-5 OF ASPEN 185 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE
INTERSECTION OF LINE 4-5 WITH THE NORTHERLY LINE OF BLOCK 78 AS IT RUNS ALONG THE SOUTHERLY
LINE OF HALLAM STREET; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE PROJECTED SAID NORTHERLY LINE OF BLOCK 78,
155 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE PROJECTED NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF BLOCK 78; THENCE
SOUTHERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF BLOCK 78 AS IT IS PROJECTED ALONG THE WESTERLY SIDE OF
MILL STREET 100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
EXCEPT ANY PORTION OF SAID TRIANGULAR PARCEL LYING SOUTH OF THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE
OF LOTS A THROUGH I, BLOCK 78, EXTENDED EASTERLY TO MILL STREET.
AND
A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84 WEST OF THE
6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. SAID PARCEL IS MORE FULLY DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF THE MILL STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY WHENCE THE WEST
1/4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 7 BEARS N 26° 39' 14" W 1724.04 FEET; THENCE S 20° 16' 00" W 86.72 FEET;
THENCE N 14° 50' 49" E 86.33 FEET ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF BLOCK 78, CITY OF ASPEN; THENCE S 75°
09' 11" E 8.19 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
EXCEPT ANY PORTION THEREOF BEING A PART OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR MILL STREET.
AND
A PERPETUAL NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT AND RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR PURPOSES OF INGRESS AND EGRESS
OVER THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY:
A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84 WEST OF THE
6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. SAID PARCEL IS MORE FULLY DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF LINE 4-5 OF THE ASPEN TOWNSITE WITH THE NORTHERLY
LINE OF BLOCK 78, CITY OF ASPEN, WHENCE THE WEST 1/4 COMER OF SAID SECTION 7 BEARS N 22° 15' 02"
W 1618.85 FEET; THENCE S 75° 09' 11" E 157.76 FEET ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF BLOCK 78, CITY OF
ASPEN; THENCE N 69° 44' 00" W 157.05 FEET; THENCE S 20° 16' 00" W 14.90 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING.
AND
A TRAIL EASEMENT SITUATED IN THE SW1/4 SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84 WEST OF THE 6TH
PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, BEING 5 FEET ON EACH SIDE OF THE FOLLOWING
DESCRIBED CENTERLINE:
BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE LINE BETWEEN LOT 1 AND LOT 2 OF THE TRUEMAN NEIGHBORHOOD
COMMERCIAL PROJECT, WHENCE THE WEST 1/4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 7 BEARS N 24° 33' 28" W 1355.04
FEET; THENCE S 05° 00' 00" W 30.00 FEET; THENCE 82.61 FEET AROUND A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A
RADIUS OF 400.00 FEET; THENCE S 06° 50' 00" E 73.00 FEET; THENCE 54.02 FEET AROUND A CURVE TO THE
LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 49.00 FEET; THENCE S 70° 00' 00" E 25.00 FEET; THENCE 15.71 FEET AROUND A
CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 15.00 FEET; THENCE S 10° 00' 00" E 28.48 FEET TO A POINT ON
THE NORTH LINE OF BLOCK 78, CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO.
TOGETHER WITH ANY INTEREST THAT GRANTOR MAY HAVE IN ANY VACATED STREETS AND ALLEYS
ADJACENT TO THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY, AND TOGETHER WITH ALL EASEMENTS AND OTHER
APPURTENANCES THERETO, AND ALL ATTACHED FIXTURES THEREON.
COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO
IMPROVEMENT & TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
SANITARY CLEAN-OUT
WATER VALVE
TELEPHONE PEDESTAL
CATV PEDESTAL
D
LIGHT POLE
SIGN
FIRE HYDRANT
SANITARY MANHOLE
STORM SEWER MANHOLE
ELECTRIC MANHOLE
WELL
E
GAS METER
ELECTRICAL METER
G
/EGEN'
STORM GRATE
E BYNO.DATEBYPROJECT NO.OR 534 - 06700 IN METRO DENVERUNDERGROUND MEMBER UTILITIESEXCAVATE FOR THE MARKING OFBEFORE YOU DIG, GRADE, ORCALL 2-BUSINESS DAYS IN ADVANCE1-800-922-1987CENTER OF COLORADOCALL UTILITY NOTIFICATIONREVISIONHIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING, INC.PHONE (970) 945-8676 - FAX (970) 945-2555www.hceng.comdrawn by:checked by:date:file:1517 BLAKE AVENUE, STE 101, GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 816012201652
2161685
1 OF 1225 N. MILL STREET LLCASPEN - COLORADOIMPROVEMENT & TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY225 N. MILL STREET ASPEN - COLORADOLDVRPK06-02-161685.DWG106.10-16ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE ON THE ELECTRIC EASEMENTRPK27.27.20UPDATE SURVEY WITH TREES AND ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS.WJNORF
REVI E W
CO
WOOD FENCE
RECORD DATA(100.00')
E ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER
SURVEYOR
S CERTI)ICATION
I, BILL W.A. BAKER, A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR IN THE STATE OF
COLORADO (#23875) DO BY THESE PRESENTS CERTIFY THAT THE DRAWING SHOWN
HEREON, WITH NOTES ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF, REPRESENTS A
MONUMENTED LAND SURVEY MADE UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT TO THE
BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, INFORMATION AND BELIEF, AN ACCURATE DEPICTION OF
SAID SURVEY IS RENDERED BY THIS PLAT. THIS SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF PRACTICE, IS NOT A GUARANTY OR
WARRANTY, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED. THIS SURVEY PLAT COMPLIES WITH TITLE
38-51-102, COLORADO REVISED STATUTES.
BILL W.A. BAKER, COLORADO PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR #23875
CERTIFIED FEDERAL SURVEYOR #1699
NOTES
1.DATE OF FIELD SURVEY: MAY 26, 2016 & JULY 21, 2020.
2.ALL BEARINGS ARE GRID BEARINGS OF THE COLORADO STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM, CENTRAL ZONE,
NORTH AMERICAN DATUM 1983. THE REFERENCE BEARING BETWEEN "A" (A FOUND #5 REBAR WITH YELLOW
PLASTIC CAP) AND "B" (A FOUND #5 REBAR WITH YELLOW PLASTIC CAP) IS S21°16'19"W. ALL DISTANCES ARE
GROUND DISTANCES BASED ON A COMBINED SCALE FACTOR.
3.THIS SURVEY DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A TITLE SEARCH BY THIS SURVEYOR OF THE BOUNDARY SHOWN AND
DESCRIBED HEREON TO DETERMINE:
A) OWNERSHIP OF THE TRACT OF LAND
B) COMPATIBILITY OF THIS DESCRIPTION WITH THOSE OF ADJOINERS
C) RIGHTS-OF-WAY, EASEMENTS AND ENCUMBRANCES OF RECORD AFFECTING THIS PARCEL.
4.THIS SURVEY WAS PREPARED WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF A CURRENT TITLE INSURANCE COMMITMENT. TITLE
INFORMATION REFERENCED HEREON IS THE RESULT OF RESEARCH BY THIS SURVEYOR AND IS NOT
NECESSARILY COMPLETE OR CONCLUSIVE.
5.THE CLIENT DID NOT REQUEST ANY ADDITIONAL EASEMENTS, RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND/OR IMPROVEMENTS BE
RESEARCHED OR SHOWN ON THIS PLAT.
6.ALL DIMENSIONS AND COURSES ARE AS MEASURED IN THE FIELD UNLESS DENOTED IN PARENTHESES, WHICH
DENOTE THE BOUNDARIES OF RECORD CONTAINED IN RECEPTION #369083 IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PITKIN
COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO.
7.ELEVATIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED ON GPS OBSERVATIONS UTILIZING THE CONTINUOUS OPERATING
REFERENCE STATIONS (CORS) THROUGH THE MESA COUNTY RTVRN NETWORK BROAD CASTING NORTH
AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM (NAVD88).
8.CONTOUR INTERVAL EQUALS 1 FOOT.
9.BUILDING MEASUREMENTS ARE AT LOWEST PRACTICABLE POINT ON VENEER.
10.ANY PERSON WHO KNOWINGLY REMOVES, ALTERS OR DEFACES ANY PUBLIC LAND SURVEY MONUMENT OR
LAND BOUNDARY MONUMENT OR ACCESSORY COMMITS A CLASS TWO (2) MISDEMEANOR PURSUANT TO
SECTION 18-4-508 OF THE COLORADO REVISED STATUTES.
11.NOTICE: ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGAL ACTION BASED ON ANY DEFECT IN
THIS SURVEY WITHIN THREE YEARS AFTER YOU FIRST DISCOVER SUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVENT, MAY ANY ACTION
BASED ON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY BE COMMENCED MORE THAN TEN YEARS FROM THE DATE OF
CERTIFICATION SHOWN HEREON.
12.NOTICE: THIS PLAT AND THE INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON MAY NOT BE USED FOR ANY ADDITIONAL OR
EXTENDED PURPOSE BEYOND THAT FOR WHICH IT WAS INTENDED AND MAY NOT BE USED BY ANY PARTIES
OTHER THAN THOSE TO WHICH IT IS CERTIFIED. THIS DOCUMENT AND THE WORK IT REPRESENTS IS THE
PROPERTY OF HIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING, INC. NO PART OF THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE STORED,
REPRODUCED, DISTRIBUTED OR USED TO PREPARE DERIVATIVE PRODUCTS WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN
PERMISSION. AN ORIGINAL SEAL AND ORIGINAL SIGNATURE IS REQUIRED TO VALIDATE THIS DOCUMENT AND IS
EXCLUSIVE TO HIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING, INC. AND THE OWNER(S) OF RECORD AS OF THIS DATE, OF THE
BOUNDARY DELINEATED HEREON AND THE SUBJECT OF THE SURVEY. THIS PLAT IS RESTRICTED TO THE INTENT
OF TITLE 38, ARTICLE 50, §101, 5 (a) AND (b) C.R.S.
10002 Conifer Tree Diameter 1'Drip 12'
10005 Conifer Tree Diameter 1.8'Drip 10'
10006 Conifer Tree Diameter 1.3'Drip 14'
10007 Conifer Tree Diameter 1.3'Drip 9'
10008 Conifer Tree Diameter 1.3'Drip 9'
10009 Conifer Tree Diameter 1'Drip 10'
10010 Conifer Tree Diameter 1'Drip 9'
10011 Conifer Tree Diameter 1.8'Drip 16'
10072 Broadleaf Tree Diameter 0.7'Drip 10'
10073 Broadleaf Tree Diameter 1.8'Drip 16'
10110 Conifer Tree Diameter 1.3'Drip 10'
10112 Broadleaf Tree Diameter 0.6'Drip 4'
10135 Broadleaf Tree Diameter 0.5'Drip 4'
10136 Broadleaf Tree Diameter 0.5'Drip 4'
10137 Broadleaf Tree Diameter 0.9'Drip 8'
10138 Broadleaf Tree Diameter 0.8'Drip 10'
10139 Broadleaf Tree Diameter 0.8'Drip 10'
10140 Broadleaf Tree Diameter 0.8'Drip 10'
10163 Broadleaf Tree Diameter 0.8'Drip 14'
10164 Broadleaf Tree Diameter 0.5'Drip 14'
10165 Broadleaf Tree Diameter 0.3'Drip 8'
10166 Broadleaf Tree Diameter 0.4'Drip 13'
10167 Broadleaf Tree Diameter 1.7'Drip 14'
10168 Broadleaf Tree Diameter 1.5'Drip 15'
TREE CHART
65
Issue Name Issue Date
RevID ISSUE NAME DATE
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:
COPYRIGHT
DATE PRINTED:
SHEET TITLE
A.1.10
.
N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N
EXISTING SITE
PLAN
6/18/20
COMM. DESIGN REVIEW
INITIAL SET-UP .C.E.
PROGRESS SET
10/16/19
6/8/20
6/19/20
2 2 5 N M I L L S T R E E T S T E 1 0 0
A S P E N C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1
BOWTIE REMODEL225 NORTH MILL STREETASPEN, COLORADON
3
3
2
2
1
1
EXISTING
WALK TO BE
REMOVED EXISTING
PLANTER
EE
4
4
DD
AA
CC
5
5
BB
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 EXISTING SITE PLAN
66
Issue Name Issue Date
RevID ISSUE NAME DATE
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:
COPYRIGHT
DATE PRINTED:
SHEET TITLE
A.1.11
.
N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N
PROPOSED SITE
PLAN
6/18/20
COMM. DESIGN REVIEW
INITIAL SET-UP .C.E.
PROGRESS SET
10/16/19
6/8/20
6/19/20
2 2 5 N M I L L S T R E E T S T E 1 0 0
A S P E N C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1
BOWTIE REMODEL225 NORTH MILL STREETASPEN, COLORADON
NEW WOOD
BENCHES OVER
EXISTING PLANTER
EXISTING
WALK TO BE
REMOVED
NEW SIGN
WITH HIDDEN
LIGHT
EXISTING
PLANTER
NEW PERVIOUS
PAVER ENTRY
WALK
NEW ENTRY
ENCLOSURE WITH
ELEVATOR
NEW
OVERHANG
RIVER ROCK
XEROSCAPE
RIVER ROCK
XEROSCAPE
NEW EVERGREEN
SHRUBS TO
MATCH EXISTING
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED SITE PLAN
67
Issue Name Issue Date
RevID ISSUE NAME DATE
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:
COPYRIGHT
DATE PRINTED:
SHEET TITLE
A.1.20
.
N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N
EXISTING PLAN
FARS
6/18/20
COMM. DESIGN REVIEW
INITIAL SET-UP .C.E.
PROGRESS SET
10/16/19
6/8/20
6/19/20
2 2 5 N M I L L S T R E E T S T E 1 0 0
A S P E N C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1
BOWTIE REMODEL225 NORTH MILL STREETASPEN, COLORADOTOTAL AREA
(to outside of stud/cmu wall)
2,590.4 sq ft
STAIR
#3
STAIR #1
DN
ROOF
WOMEN MEN
OFFICE 8
OFFICE 6
OFFICE 5
OFFICE 4 OFFICE 3 OFFICE 1
OFFICE 7
OFFICE 2
ROOF
TOTAL AREA
(to outside of foundation wall)
4,729.8 sq ft
UNISEX 2
UNISEX 1
STAIR #1SUMP PUMP RM PASSAGE WAY
STAIR
#2
EXISTING OFFICE
UP
EXISTING
SAFE
MECHANICAL
ROOM
BOILER
ROOM
1
2
3
4
5
6
EXISTING OFFICE
STORAGE
STAIR NOT TO BE DEMO'D UNTIL
NEW ENTRY STAIR COMPLETE
647.8 sq ft
329.8 sq ft 318.0 sq ft
647.8 sq ft
488.8 sq ft
159.0 sq ft
1
2 3 4
5
6
EXISTING FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS 225 NORTH MILL STREET
CITY OF ASPEN ZONING SUBMISSION
LOT AREA: 18,458 - 1,480 ACCESS EASEMENT 16,978 SQ FT
ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA (1.5:1)25,467 SQ FT
SUBGRADE LEVEL WALL LABEL TOTAL WALL
AREA (SQ. FT.)
EXPOSED WALL
AREA (SQ. FT.)
1 647.8 0.0
2 329.8 0.0
3 159.0 0.0
4 318.0 0.0
5 488.8 0.0
6 647.8 0.0
OVERALL TOTAL WALL AREA (SQ. FT.)2,591.2
EXPOSED WALL AREA (SQ. FT.)0.0
% OF EXPOSED WALL (EXPOSED/TOTAL)0.0%
SUBGRADE GROSS FLOOR AREA (SQ. FT.)4,729.8
SUBGRADE COUNTABLE FLOOR AREA (SQ. FT.)0.0
TOTAL EXISTING AREA CALCULATIONS GROSS AREA FLOOR AREA NET LEASABLE PER SPA
BASEMENT LEVEL TOTAL FLOOR AREA 4,729.8 0.0 0.0
BASEMENT NET LEASABLE AREA (NLA)2,580.0
BASEMENT COMMON AREA (TOTAL - NLA)
1ST FLOOR TOTAL AREA 4,623.5 4,623.5 5,235.0
1ST FLOOR NET LEASABLE AREA (NLA)4,211.0
1ST FLOOR COMMON AREA (TOTAL - NLA)
2ND FLOOR TOTAL AREA 2,590.5 2,590.5 2,847.0
2ND FLOOR NET LEASABLE AREA (NLA)2,532.0
2ND FLOOR COMMON AREA (TOTAL - NLA)
TOTAL NET LEASABLE AREA 9,323.0
TOTAL EXISTING FLOOR AREA (SQ. FT.)11,943.8 7,214.0 8,082.0
EXISTING SUBGRADE LEVEL EXPOSED WALL CALCULATIONS
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"3 EXISTING 2ND FLOOR FAR
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 EXISTING LOWER LEVEL FAR
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"4 SUBGRADE WALL AREAS 5 EXISTING FLOOR AREA CALCS
WALL LEGEND
EXISTING WALL
WALL TO BE REMOVED
NEW WALL
AREA LEGEND
TOTAL AREA TO OUTSIDE OF STRUCTURE PER FAR
NET LEASABLE AREA
SUBGRADE WALL AREA
4,622.7 sq ftTOTAL AREA
(to outside of stud/CMU wall)
4,623.5 sq ft
OFFICE 4
OFFICE 5
STAIR #1
EXISTING
HALLWAY
STAIR
#2
STAIR
#3
RESTRM #2
RESTROOM #1
OFFICE 3
DN
OFFICE 2
OFFICE 1
EXISTING
PUBLIC
RESTROOM
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"2 EXISTING 1ST FLOOR FAR
68
Issue Name Issue Date
RevID ISSUE NAME DATE
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:
COPYRIGHT
DATE PRINTED:
SHEET TITLE
A.1.21
.
N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N
PROPOSED PLAN
FARs
6/18/20
COMM. DESIGN REVIEW
INITIAL SET-UP .C.E.
PROGRESS SET
10/16/19
6/8/20
6/19/20
2 2 5 N M I L L S T R E E T S T E 1 0 0
A S P E N C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1
BOWTIE REMODEL225 NORTH MILL STREETASPEN, COLORADOTOTAL AREA
(to outside of stud/CMU wall)
4,856.8 sq ft
OFFICE 4
OFFICE 5
STAIR
#2
STAIR
#3
ELEVATOR
RESTRM #2
RESTROOM #1
OFFICE 3
NEW
ENTRY
UPDN
DN
TOTAL NET LEASABLE AREA
3,750.6 sq ft
OFFICE 2
OFFICE 1
OFFICE 6
UNISEX
RESTROOM 1
UNISEX
RESTROOM 2
1,479.3 sq ft
2,271.3 sq ft
FUTURE CORRIDOR
TOTAL AREA
(to outside of foundation wall)
5,058.1 sq ftCORRIDORUNISEX 2
UNISEX 1
SUMP PUMP RM
STAIR
#2
CORRIDOR
VESTIBULE
ELEVATOR
UP
UP
EXISTING
SAFE
MECHANICAL
ROOM
BOILER
ROOM
OFFICE 3
OFFICE 2 ELEV.
EQUIP
TOTAL NET LEASABLE AREA
3,077.5 sq ft
1
2
3
4
5
6
OFFICE 1
STORAGE
2,271.8 sq ft
805.7 sq ft
647.8 sq ft
490.3 sq ft 157.5 sq ft
647.8 sq ft
488.8 sq ft
160.5 sq ft 8'-10"8'-10"8'-10"8'-10"1
2 3 4
5
6
PROPOSED FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS 225 NORTH MILL STREET
CITY OF ASPEN ZONING SUBMISSION
LOT AREA: 18,458 - 1,480 ACCESS EASEMENT 16,978 SQ FT
ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA (1.5:1)25,467 SQ FT
SUBGRADE LEVEL WALL LABEL TOTAL WALL
AREA (SQ. FT.)
EXPOSED WALL
AREA (SQ. FT.)
1 647.8 0.0
2 490.2 0.0
3 160.5 0.0
4 157.5 0.0
5 488.8 0.0
6 648.8 0.0
OVERALL TOTAL WALL AREA (SQ. FT.)2,593.6
EXPOSED WALL AREA (SQ. FT.)0.0
% OF EXPOSED WALL (EXPOSED/TOTAL)0.0%
SUBGRADE GROSS FLOOR AREA (SQ. FT.)5,058.1
SUBGRADE COUNTABLE FLOOR AREA (SQ. FT.)0.0
TOTAL PROPOSED AREA CALCULATIONS GROSS AREA FLOOR AREA NET LEASABLE PER SPA
BASEMENT LEVEL TOTAL FLOOR AREA 5,058.1 0.0 0.0
BASEMENT NET LEASABLE AREA (NLA)3,077.5 2,580.0
BASEMENT COMMON AREA (TOTAL - NLA)1,980.6
1ST FLOOR TOTAL AREA 4,856.8 4,856.8 5,235.0
1ST FLOOR NET LEASABLE AREA (NLA)3,750.6 4,211.0
1ST FLOOR COMMON AREA (TOTAL - NLA)1,106.2
2ND FLOOR TOTAL AREA 2,881.5 2,881.5 2,847.0
2ND FLOOR NET LEASABLE AREA (NLA)2,157.6 2,532.0
2ND FLOOR COMMON AREA (TOTAL - NLA)723.9
TOTAL NET LEASABLE AREA 8,985.7 9,323.0
TOTAL PROPOSED FLOOR AREA (SQ. FT.)12,796.4 7,738.3 8,082.0
PROPOSED SUBGRADE LEVEL EXPOSED WALL CALCULATIONS
TOTAL AREA
(to outside of stud/cmu wall)
2,881.5 sq ft
STAIR
#3
VESTIBULE
ELEVATOR
NEW CORRIDOR
DNDN
ROOF
UNISEX #2UNISEX #1
TOTAL NET LEASABLE AREA
2,157.6 sq ft
OFFICE 8
OFFICE 6
OFFICE 5
OFFICE 4 OFFICE 3 OFFICE 1
OFFICE 7
OFFICE 2
ROOF
JAN.
CLO.
954.0 sq ft
1,203.6 sq ft
EXISTING FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS 225 NORTH MILL STREET
CITY OF ASPEN ZONING SUBMISSION
LOT AREA: 18,458 - 1,480 ACCESS EASEMENT 16,978 SQ FT
ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA (1.5:1)25,467 SQ FT
SUBGRADE LEVEL WALL LABEL TOTAL WALL
AREA (SQ. FT.)
EXPOSED WALL
AREA (SQ. FT.)
1 647.8 0.0
2 329.8 0.0
3 159.0 0.0
4 318.0 0.0
5 488.8 0.0
6 647.8 0.0
OVERALL TOTAL WALL AREA (SQ. FT.)2,591.2
EXPOSED WALL AREA (SQ. FT.)0.0
% OF EXPOSED WALL (EXPOSED/TOTAL)0.0%
SUBGRADE GROSS FLOOR AREA (SQ. FT.)4,729.8
SUBGRADE COUNTABLE FLOOR AREA (SQ. FT.)0.0
TOTAL EXISTING AREA CALCULATIONS GROSS AREA FLOOR AREA NET LEASABLE PER SPA
BASEMENT LEVEL TOTAL FLOOR AREA 4,729.8 0.0 0.0
BASEMENT NET LEASABLE AREA (NLA)2,580.0
BASEMENT COMMON AREA (TOTAL - NLA)
1ST FLOOR TOTAL AREA 4,623.5 4,623.5 5,235.0
1ST FLOOR NET LEASABLE AREA (NLA)4,211.0
1ST FLOOR COMMON AREA (TOTAL - NLA)
2ND FLOOR TOTAL AREA 2,590.5 2,590.5 2,847.0
2ND FLOOR NET LEASABLE AREA (NLA)2,532.0
2ND FLOOR COMMON AREA (TOTAL - NLA)
TOTAL NET LEASABLE AREA 9,323.0
TOTAL EXISTING FLOOR AREA (SQ. FT.)11,943.8 7,214.0 8,082.0
EXISTING SUBGRADE LEVEL EXPOSED WALL CALCULATIONS
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"2 PROPOSED 1ST FLOOR FAR
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL FAR
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"4 SUBGRADE WALL AREAS 6 PROPOSED FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"3 PROPOSED 2ND FLOOR FAR
5 EXISTING FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS
WALL LEGEND
EXISTING WALL
WALL TO BE REMOVED
NEW WALL
AREA LEGEND
TOTAL AREA TO OUTSIDE OF STRUCTURE PER FAR
NET LEASABLE AREA
SUBGRADE WALL AREA
69
Issue Name Issue Date
RevID ISSUE NAME DATE
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:
COPYRIGHT
DATE PRINTED:
SHEET TITLE
A.1.30
.
N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N
WALL DEMOLITION
CALCULATIONS
6/18/20
COMM. DESIGN REVIEW
INITIAL SET-UP .C.E.
PROGRESS SET
10/16/19
6/8/20
6/19/20
2 2 5 N M I L L S T R E E T S T E 1 0 0
A S P E N C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1
BOWTIE REMODEL225 NORTH MILL STREETASPEN, COLORADO1,602.5 sq ft
22.9 sq ft 64.5 sq ft
20.5 sq ft 20.5 sq ft
20.5 sq ft
23.5 sq ft
1,615.0 sq ft
70.0 sq ft
120.1 sq ft
28.2 sq ft
119.6 sq ft
28.1 sq ft
25.1 sq ft 25.1 sq ft
424.1 sq ft
25.8 sq ft 25.3 sq ft
25.3 sq ft
1,627.6 sq ft
60.2 sq ft 60.0 sq ft
120.1 sq ft
28.2 sq ft
120.1 sq ft
28.2 sq ft 28.2 sq ft
120.1 sq ft 120.1 sq ft
28.2 sq ft
+100'-0"
1 1ST FLOOR
+112'-0"
2 2ND FLOOR
+124'-0"
3 T.O. BRICK
1,633.7 sq ft
106.8 sq ft
22.9 sq ft
22.9 sq ft
56.7 sq ft 75.5 sq ft
75.5 sq ft75.5 sq ft37.9 sq ft
+100'-0"
1 1ST FLOOR
+112'-0"
2 2ND FLOOR
+124'-0"
3 T.O. BRICK
283.5 sq ft
WALL LABEL INDIVIDUAL WALL
AREA (SQ. FT.)
AREA REDUCED FOR
FENESTRATION (SQ. FT.)
AREA OF WALL TO
BE REMOVED (SQ.
FT.)
1 - EAST 1,615.0 416.0 500.5
2 - NORTH 1,633.7 435.8 321.4
3 - WEST 1,602.5 110.9 61.5
4 - SOUTH 1,627.6 713.6 0.0
WALL SURFACE TOTAL (SQ. FT.)6,478.8
AREA REDUCED FOR FENESTRATION (SQ. FT.)1,676.3
AREA USED FOR DEMO CALCULATIONS 4,802.5
WALL SURFACE AREA TO BE REMOVED (SQ. FT.)883.4
WALL + ROOF AREA USED FOR DEMO
CALCULATION (SQ. FT.)4802.5+5,028.7 9,831.2
SURFACE AREA TO BE REMOVED (SQ. FT.)883.4+335 1,218.4
TOTAL (AREA TO BE REMOVED/TOTAL)12.4%
DEMOLITION TOTALS
WALL DEMOLITION
WALL DEMOLITION CALCULATIONS 225 NORTH MILL
CITY OF ASPEN ZONING SUBMISSION
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"3 WEST ELEVATION DEMOLITION
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"1 EAST ELEVATION DEMOLITION
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"4 SOUTH ELEVATION DEMOLITION
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"2 NORTH ELEVATION DEMOLITION
SCALE: 1' = 1'-0"5 225 N MILL WALL DEMO CALCS
WALL LEGEND
INDIVIDUAL WALL AREA (SQ FT)
AREA REDUCED FOR FENESTRATION (SQ FT)
AREA OF WALL TO BE REMOVED (SQ FT)
TOTAL DEMOLITION: 12.4%
ROOF AND WALL
70
Issue Name Issue Date
RevID ISSUE NAME DATE
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:
COPYRIGHT
DATE PRINTED:
SHEET TITLE
A.1.31
.
N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N
ROOF DEMOLITION
CALCULATION
6/18/20
COMM. DESIGN REVIEW
INITIAL SET-UP .C.E.
PROGRESS SET
10/16/19
6/8/20
6/19/20
2 2 5 N M I L L S T R E E T S T E 1 0 0
A S P E N C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1
BOWTIE REMODEL225 NORTH MILL STREETASPEN, COLORADO335.0 sq ft1
2
3
3,042.5 sq ft
1,651.2 sq ft
ROOF LABEL
INDIVIDUAL ROOF
AREA (SQ. FT.) AS
FLAT PLANE
AREA OF ROOF TO BE
REMOVED (SQ. FT.)
1 3,042.5 0.0
2 1,651.2 0.0
3 335.0 335.0
ROOF SURFACE TOTAL (SQ. FT.)5,028.7
ROOF SURFACE AREA TO BE REMOVED (SQ. FT.)335.0
ROOF + WALL AREA USED FOR DEMO
CALCULATION (SQ. FT.)5,028.7+4,802.5 =9,831.2
SURFACE AREA TO BE REMOVED (SQ. FT.)335 + 883.4 1,218.4
TOTAL (AREA TO BE REMOVED/TOTAL)12.4%
DEMOLITION TOTALS
ROOF DEMOLITION
ROOF DEMOLITION CALCULATIONS FLAT PLANE METHOD
CITY OF ASPEN ZONING SUBMISSION
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"1 ROOF DEMOLITION
SCALE: 1:1.092225 N MILL ROOF DEMO CALCS
ROOF LEGEND
EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN (SQ FT)
AREA OF ROOF TO BE REMOVED (SQ FT)
TOTAL DEMOLITION: 12.4%
ROOF AND WALL
71
Issue Name Issue Date
RevID ISSUE NAME DATE
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:
COPYRIGHT
DATE PRINTED:
SHEET TITLE
A.2.10
.
N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N
EXISTING AND
DEMOLITION
LOWER LEVEL
PLAN
6/18/20
COMM. DESIGN REVIEW
INITIAL SET-UP .C.E.
PROGRESS SET
10/16/19
6/8/20
6/19/20
2 2 5 N M I L L S T R E E T S T E 1 0 0
A S P E N C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1
BOWTIE REMODEL225 NORTH MILL STREETASPEN, COLORADO3
3
2
2
1
1
18'-0"18'-0"18'-0"72'-0"54'-0"18'-0"72'-0"54'-0"
89'-4"
4
A.1.30
UNISEX 2
UNISEX 1
STAIR #1
SUMP PUMP RM PASSAGE WAY
STAIR
#2
EXISTING OFFICE
UP
UP
EXISTING
SAFE
MECHANICAL
ROOM
BOILER
ROOM
ELECT.
ELECT.
EXISTING OFFICE
WALL LEGEND
EXISTING WALL
WALL TO BE REMOVED
NEW WALL
AREA AFFECTING EXISTING TENANT
STORAGE
STAIR NOT TO BE DEMO'D UNTIL
NEW ENTRY STAIR COMPLETE
2
A .1.30
EE
4
4
DD
AA
CC
1
A.1.30
3
A.1.30
5
5
BB
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 EXISTING LOWER LEVEL PLAN
72
Issue Name Issue Date
RevID ISSUE NAME DATE
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:
COPYRIGHT
DATE PRINTED:
SHEET TITLE
A.2.11
.
N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N
EXISTING AND
DEMOLITION 1ST
FLOOR PLAN
6/18/20
COMM. DESIGN REVIEW
INITIAL SET-UP .C.E.
PROGRESS SET
10/16/19
6/8/20
6/19/20
2 2 5 N M I L L S T R E E T S T E 1 0 0
A S P E N C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1
BOWTIE REMODEL225 NORTH MILL STREETASPEN, COLORADO3
3
2
2
1
1
4
A.1.3072'-0"18'-0"18'-0"18'-0"18'-0"
2
A .1.30
FIRE HYDRANT STANDPIPE
REMOVE WINDOWS AND
FUR-IN OPENINGS TO
MATCH ADJOINING
WALLS
UP
OFFICE 4
OFFICE 5
STAIR #1
EXISTING
HALLWAY
STAIR
#2
STAIR
#3
RESTRM #2
RESTROOM #1
OFFICE 3
DN
UP
DN
SKYLIGHTABOVEEXISTING FOYER
TO BE REMOVED
OFFICE 2
OFFICE 1
EXISTING
PUBLIC
RESTROOM
WALL LEGEND
EXISTING WALL
WALL TO BE REMOVED
NEW WALL
AREA AFFECTING EXISTING TENANT
STAIR NOT TO BE DEMO'D UNTIL
NEW ENTRY STAIR COMPLETE
EE
4
4
DD
AA
CC
1
A.1.30
3
A.1.30
5
5
BB
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 EXISTING 1ST FLOOR PLAN
73
Issue Name Issue Date
RevID ISSUE NAME DATE
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:
COPYRIGHT
DATE PRINTED:
SHEET TITLE
A.2.12
.
N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N
EXISTING AND
DEMOLITION 2ND
FLOOR PLAN
6/18/20
COMM. DESIGN REVIEW
INITIAL SET-UP .C.E.
PROGRESS SET
10/16/19
6/8/20
6/19/20
2 2 5 N M I L L S T R E E T S T E 1 0 0
A S P E N C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1
BOWTIE REMODEL225 NORTH MILL STREETASPEN, COLORADO3
3
2
2
1
1
4
A.1.30
2
A .1.30
72'-0"18'-0"54'-0"18'-0"72'-0"18'-0"18'-0"18'-0"
STAIR
#3
DN
STAIR #1
F.E.
SKYLIGHT
BELOW
DN
ROOF
ELECT.
WOMEN MEN
OFFICE 8
OFFICE 6
OFFICE 5
OFFICE 4 OFFICE 3 OFFICE 1
OFFICE 7
OFFICE 2
ROOF
EXIST.
CHASE
V.I.F.
WALL LEGEND
EXISTING WALL
WALL TO BE REMOVED
NEW WALL
AREA AFFECTING EXISTING TENANT
EE
4
4
DD
AA
CC
1
A.1.30
3
A.1.30
5
5
BB
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 EXISTING 2ND FLOOR PLAN
74
Issue Name Issue Date
RevID ISSUE NAME DATE
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:
COPYRIGHT
DATE PRINTED:
SHEET TITLE
A.2.13
.
N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N
EXISTING AND
DEMOLITION ROOF
PLAN
6/18/20
COMM. DESIGN REVIEW
INITIAL SET-UP .C.E.
PROGRESS SET
10/16/19
6/8/20
6/19/20
2 2 5 N M I L L S T R E E T S T E 1 0 0
A S P E N C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1
BOWTIE REMODEL225 NORTH MILL STREETASPEN, COLORADO3
3
2
2
1
1
4
A.1.30
2
A.1.30
18'-0"72'-0"54'-0"18'-0"72'-0"AREA OF NEW ENTRY
EE
4
4
DD
AA
CC
1
A.1.30
3
A.1.30
5
5
BB
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"01 EXISTING ROOF PLAN
75
Issue Name Issue Date
RevID ISSUE NAME DATE
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:
COPYRIGHT
DATE PRINTED:
SHEET TITLE
A.2.20
.
N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N
PROPOSED LOWER
LEVEL PLAN
6/18/20
COMM. DESIGN REVIEW
INITIAL SET-UP .C.E.
PROGRESS SET
10/16/19
6/8/20
6/19/20
2 2 5 N M I L L S T R E E T S T E 1 0 0
A S P E N C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1
BOWTIE REMODEL225 NORTH MILL STREETASPEN, COLORADO3
3
2
2
1
1
18'-0"18'-0"18'-0"72'-0"54'-0"18'-0"72'-0"54'-0"10"6'-9 29/32"5'-10"5'-6 3/32"89'-4"
91'-8 7/16"
89'-4"
97'-7 7/16"
4
A.1.30CORRIDORUNISEX 2
UNISEX 1
SUMP PUMP RM
STAIR
#2
AUTO DOSING SINK
RELOCATE PHONE
SWITCHES, CABLE,
ELEC. FROM OFFICE 3
CORRIDOR
VESTIBULE
ELEVATOR
install new flooring
UP
UP
EXISTING
SAFE
MECHANICAL
ROOM
BOILER
ROOM
OFFICE 3
OFFICE 2
ADA COMPLIANT
ELEV.
EQUIP
NEW BOTTLE-
FILL STATION
ADA COMPLIANT
OFFICE 1
AIR-LOCK
1
A.2.24
EXISTING MOP SINK
RELOCATE
ELECT. PANELS
WALL LEGEND
EXISTING WALL
WALL TO BE REMOVED
NEW WALL
AREA AFFECTING EXISTING TENANT
STORAGE
1
A.4.11
1
A.4.11
1
A.4.10
1
A.4.10
2
A.4.10
2
A.4.10
2
A.4.11
2
A.4.11
1
A.4.12
1
A.4.12
2
A.1.30
8"3'-11 29/32"4"8'-4 3/32"4"5'-2"
EE
4
4
DD
AA
CC
1
A.1.30
3
A.1.30
5
5
BB
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL
76
Issue Name Issue Date
RevID ISSUE NAME DATE
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:
COPYRIGHT
DATE PRINTED:
SHEET TITLE
A.2.21
.
N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N
PROPOSED 1ST
FLOOR PLAN
6/18/20
COMM. DESIGN REVIEW
INITIAL SET-UP .C.E.
PROGRESS SET
10/16/19
6/8/20
6/19/20
2 2 5 N M I L L S T R E E T S T E 1 0 0
A S P E N C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1
BOWTIE REMODEL225 NORTH MILL STREETASPEN, COLORADOW02 W03 W04 W09 W10W08W06W07W05
W01
W14
W11
W15
W16
W12
W13
W17
3
3
2
2
1
1
4
A.1.30 36'-0"36'-0"18'-0"18'-0"18'-0"18'-0"18'-0"1 1/2"35'-10 1/2"72'-0"18'-0"18'-0"18'-0"18'-0"5'-1"7'-0"5'-10"4'-4 9/32"9'-3/32"4'-2 1/2"
1'-6"
100'-0"
103'108'-11 13/16"
97'-7 7/16" 1
A.4.11
1
A .4.11
1
A .4.10
1
A.4.10
2
A.4.10
2
A.4.10
2
A.4.11
2
A.4.11
1
A.4.12
1
A.4.12
2
A.1.30
TILE AT ELEVATOR
SHAFT AND EAST
AND NORTH WALL
CANOPY
ABOVE
FIRE HYDRANT STANDPIPE
OFFICE 4
OFFICE 5
AIR-LOCK
STAIR
#2
STAIR
#3
ELEVATOR
RESTRM #2
RESTROOM #1
OFFICE 3
NEW
ENTRY
UP
DN
EXIST. 3 5/8" CMU
WALL (VERIFY)
Remove Brick veneer on
exterior. Replace with Tile
HSS4X2
handrails +36"
TENANT
SIGNAGE
4X4 TS OR W8X8HSS6X6 COLUMNw/ C6X13 CHANNELSaboveabove
below
UP
DN
SKYLIGHTABOVEpivot door
HSS4X2HSS4X2HSS4X2HSS4X2
OFFICE 2
OFFICE 1
2
A.2.24
HSS4X2
OFFICE 6
WALL LEGEND
EXISTING WALL
WALL TO BE REMOVED
NEW WALL
AREA AFFECTING EXISTING TENANT
NEW BOTTLE-
FILL STATION
UNISEX
RESTROOM 1
ADA compliant
UNISEX
RESTROOM 2
ADA compliant
EE
4
4
DD
AA
CC
W01
1
A.1.30
3
A.1.30
NEW WALLS &
ENTRY DOOR
FUTURE CORRIDOR
5
5
BB
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED 1ST FLOOR PLAN
77
Issue Name Issue Date
RevID ISSUE NAME DATE
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:
COPYRIGHT
DATE PRINTED:
SHEET TITLE
A.2.22
.
N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N
PROPOSED 2ND
FLOOR PLAN
6/18/20
COMM. DESIGN REVIEW
INITIAL SET-UP .C.E.
PROGRESS SET
10/16/19
6/8/20
6/19/20
2 2 5 N M I L L S T R E E T S T E 1 0 0
A S P E N C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1
BOWTIE REMODEL225 NORTH MILL STREETASPEN, COLORADOW34
W37
W38
W39
W35
W36
W31
W32
W33
W40W42W44W45W43W41
W20
W21
W30W29W28W27W26W25W24W23W22
3
3
2
2
1
1
4
A.1.30
1
A.4.11
1
A.4.11
1
A.4.10
1
A .4.10
2
A.4.10
2
A.4.10
2
A.4.11
2
A.4.11
1
A.4.12
1
A.4.12
2
A .1.30
72'-0"18'-0"54'-0"18'-0"72'-0"18'-0"18'-0"18'-0"4'-2"4"5'-10"4"+/- 6'-8"1'-6"
108'-11 13/16"
112'-0"
103'
AREA OF REFUGE
STAIR
#3
VESTIBULE
ELEVATOR
NEW CORRIDOR
DN C12X20.7steel panslope to drainCANOPY
BELOW
open to
below
SKYLIGHT
BELOW
DN
ROOF
F.E.
UNISEX #2UNISEX #1
3
A.2.24
HSS4X2
HSS4X2
HSS4X2HSS4X2HSS4X2HSS4X2HSS4X2HSS4X2HSS6X6 COLUMNw/ C6X13 CHANNELSAIR-LOCK
OFFICE 8
OFFICE 6
OFFICE 5
OFFICE 4 OFFICE 3 OFFICE 1
OFFICE 7
OFFICE 2
ROOF
ADA compliantADA compliant JAN.
CLO.
WALL LEGEND
EXISTING WALL
WALL TO BE REMOVED
NEW WALL
AREA AFFECTING EXISTING TENANT
NEW BOTTLE-
FILL STATION
EE
4
4
DD
AA
CC
1
A.1.30
3
A.1.30
5
5
42" GLASS
GUARDRAIL
BB
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED 2ND FLOOR PLAN
78
Issue Name Issue Date
RevID ISSUE NAME DATE
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:
COPYRIGHT
DATE PRINTED:
SHEET TITLE
A.2.23
.
N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N
PROPOSED ROOF
PLAN
6/18/20
COMM. DESIGN REVIEW
INITIAL SET-UP .C.E.
PROGRESS SET
10/16/19
6/8/20
6/19/20
2 2 5 N M I L L S T R E E T S T E 1 0 0
A S P E N C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1
BOWTIE REMODEL225 NORTH MILL STREETASPEN, COLORADO3
3
2
2
1
1
4
A.1.30
1
A.4.11
1
A.4.11
1
A.4.10
1
A.4.10
2
A.4.10
2
A.4.10
2
A.4.11
2
A.4.11
1
A .4.12
1
A .4.12
2
A.1.30
NEW LOW WALL
CLAD IN SHEET
METAL
14" C CHANNEL CORNICE
ROOF BELOW
NEW ENTRY
TOWER ROOF
CANOPY ROOF
BELOW
DRAIN
EE
4
4
DD
AA
CC
1
A.1.30
3
A.1.30
5
5
BB
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED ROOF PLAN
79
Issue Name Issue Date
RevID ISSUE NAME DATE
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:
COPYRIGHT
DATE PRINTED:
SHEET TITLE
A.3.10
.
N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N
EXISTING BUILDING
ELEVATIONS
6/18/20
COMM. DESIGN REVIEW
INITIAL SET-UP .C.E.
PROGRESS SET
10/16/19
6/8/20
6/19/20
2 2 5 N M I L L S T R E E T S T E 1 0 0
A S P E N C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1
BOWTIE REMODEL225 NORTH MILL STREETASPEN, COLORADOE D AB
+89'-4"
-1 LOWER LEVEL
+100'-0"
1 1ST FLOOR
+112'-0"
2 2ND FLOOR
+124'-0"
3 T.O. BRICK
REMOVE LT. FIXT
AND RELOCATE
J-BOX NEW LIGHT FIXTURE
4 3 2 15
+89'-4"
-1 LOWER LEVEL
+100'-0"
1 1ST FLOOR
+112'-0"
2 2ND FLOOR
+124'-0"
3 T.O. BRICK
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 EXISTING EAST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION
80
Issue Name Issue Date
RevID ISSUE NAME DATE
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:
COPYRIGHT
DATE PRINTED:
SHEET TITLE
A.3.11
.
N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N
EXISTING BUILDING
ELEVATIONS
6/18/20
COMM. DESIGN REVIEW
INITIAL SET-UP .C.E.
PROGRESS SET
10/16/19
6/8/20
6/19/20
2 2 5 N M I L L S T R E E T S T E 1 0 0
A S P E N C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1
BOWTIE REMODEL225 NORTH MILL STREETASPEN, COLORADOA D EB
+89'-4"
-1 LOWER LEVEL
+89'-4"
-1 LOWER LEVEL
+100'-0"
1 1ST FLOOR
+100'-0"
1 1ST FLOOR
+112'-0"
2 2ND FLOOR
+112'-0"
2 2ND FLOOR
+124'-0"
3 T.O. BRICK
+124'-0"
3 T.O. BRICK
REMOVE LT.
FIXTURE
1 2 3 4 5
+89'-4"
-1 LOWER LEVEL
+89'-4"
-1 LOWER LEVEL
+100'-0"
1 1ST FLOOR
+100'-0"
1 1ST FLOOR
+112'-0"
2 2ND FLOOR
+112'-0"
2 2ND FLOOR
+124'-0"
3 T.O. BRICK
+124'-0"
3 T.O. BRICK
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 EXISTING WEST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION
81
Issue Name Issue Date
RevID ISSUE NAME DATE
01 - WIP
Change
Change
Work in Progress
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:
COPYRIGHT
DATE PRINTED:
SHEET TITLE
A.3.20
.
N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N
PROPOSED
BUILDING
ELEVATIONS
6/18/20
COMM. DESIGN REVIEW
INITIAL SET-UP .C.E.
PROGRESS SET
10/16/19
6/8/20
6/19/20
2 2 5 N M I L L S T R E E T S T E 1 0 0
A S P E N C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1
BOWTIE REMODEL225 NORTH MILL STREETASPEN, COLORADOE D AB
+89'-4"
-1 LOWER LEVEL
+89'-4"
-1 LOWER LEVEL
+100'-0"
1 1ST FLOOR
+100'-0"
1 1ST FLOOR
+112'-0"
2 2ND FLOOR
+112'-0"
2 2ND FLOOR
+124'-0"
3 T.O. BRICK
+124'-0"
3 T.O. BRICK
12" C CHANNEL
CANOPY
14" STEEL CHANNEL
CORNICE
HSS2X4 COLUMN
AND BEAM FRAME
NEW LIGHT FIXTURE
PIVOT ENTRY
DOOR
NEW
WINDOW
NEW
WINDOW
NEW
WINDOW
EXISTING
WINDOW
2"X2 1/4" KAWNEER
THERMAL WINDOWS,
TYP.
AREA OF NEW WORK
4 3 2 15
+89'-4"
-1 LOWER LEVEL
+89'-4"
-1 LOWER LEVEL
+100'-0"
1 1ST FLOOR
+100'-0"
1 1ST FLOOR
+112'-0"
2 2ND FLOOR
+112'-0"
2 2ND FLOOR
+124'-0"
3 T.O. BRICK
+124'-0"
3 T.O. BRICK
26'-7"2'-2"4' ENTRY CANOPY
WITH 12" C CHANNEL
6" TUBE STEEL WITH
C CHANNEL CORNER
COLUMNS, TYP.
14" STEEL
CHANNEL CORNICE
HSS2X4 COLUMN
AND BEAM FRAME
NEW LIGHT FIXTURES
2"X2 1/4" KAWNEER
THERMAL WINDOWS,
TYP.NEW WINDOWS
AREA OF NEW WORK
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION
82
Issue Name Issue Date
RevID ISSUE NAME DATE
01 - WIP
Change
Change
Work in Progress
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:
COPYRIGHT
DATE PRINTED:
SHEET TITLE
A.3.21
.
N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N
PROPOSED
BUILDING
ELEVATIONS
6/18/20
COMM. DESIGN REVIEW
INITIAL SET-UP .C.E.
PROGRESS SET
10/16/19
6/8/20
6/19/20
2 2 5 N M I L L S T R E E T S T E 1 0 0
A S P E N C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1
BOWTIE REMODEL225 NORTH MILL STREETASPEN, COLORADOA D EB
+89'-4"
-1 LOWER LEVEL
+89'-4"
-1 LOWER LEVEL
+100'-0"
1 1ST FLOOR
+100'-0"
1 1ST FLOOR
+112'-0"
2 2ND FLOOR
+112'-0"
2 2ND FLOOR
+124'-0"
3 T.O. BRICK
+124'-0"
3 T.O. BRICK
14" STEEL CORNICE
SHEET METAL CRIB WALL
6" TUBE STEEL WITH
C CHANNEL CORNER
COLUMNS, TYP.
NEW LIGHT FIXTURE
NEW WINDOW
NEW WINDOW
AREA OF NEW WORK
1 2 3 4 5
+89'-4"
-1 LOWER LEVEL
+89'-4"
-1 LOWER LEVEL
+100'-0"
1 1ST FLOOR
+100'-0"
1 1ST FLOOR
+112'-0"
2 2ND FLOOR
+112'-0"
2 2ND FLOOR
+124'-0"
3 T.O. BRICK
+124'-0"
3 T.O. BRICK
2"X2 1/4" KAWNEER
THERMAL WINDOWS,
TYP.
AREA OF NEW WORK
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION
83
Issue Name Issue Date
RevID ISSUE NAME DATE
01 - WIP Change Work in Progress
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:
COPYRIGHT
DATE PRINTED:
SHEET TITLE
A.3.22
.
N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N
PROPOSED
COLORED
ELEVATIONS
6/18/20
COMM. DESIGN REVIEW
INITIAL SET-UP .C.E.
PROGRESS SET
10/16/19
6/8/20
6/19/20
2 2 5 N M I L L S T R E E T S T E 1 0 0
A S P E N C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1
BOWTIE REMODEL225 NORTH MILL STREETASPEN, COLORADO1 NORTH ELEVATION RENDERING
2 EAST ELEVATION RENDERING
84
Issue Name Issue Date
RevID ISSUE NAME DATE
01 - WIP Change Work in Progress
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:
COPYRIGHT
DATE PRINTED:
SHEET TITLE
A.3.23
.
N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N
PROPOSED
COLORED
ELEVATION AND
STREETSCAPE
6/18/20
COMM. DESIGN REVIEW
INITIAL SET-UP .C.E.
PROGRESS SET
10/16/19
6/8/20
6/19/20
2 2 5 N M I L L S T R E E T S T E 1 0 0
A S P E N C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1
BOWTIE REMODEL225 NORTH MILL STREETASPEN, COLORADO1 WEST ELEVATION RENDERING
2 STREETSCAPE FROM NORTH MILL
85
Issue Name Issue Date
RevID ISSUE NAME DATE
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:
COPYRIGHT
DATE PRINTED:
SHEET TITLE
A.4.10
.
N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N
PROPOSED
BUILDING
SECTIONS
6/18/20
COMM. DESIGN REVIEW
INITIAL SET-UP .C.E.
PROGRESS SET
10/16/19
6/8/20
6/19/20
2 2 5 N M I L L S T R E E T S T E 1 0 0
A S P E N C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1
BOWTIE REMODEL225 NORTH MILL STREETASPEN, COLORADO1 2 3 5
+89'-4"
-1 LOWER LEVEL
+100'-0"
1 1ST FLOOR
+112'-0"
2 2ND FLOOR
+124'-0"
3 T.O. BRICK
STAIR
#3
VESTIBULENEW HALLWAYOFFICEOFFICE
STAIR
#2 NEW HALLWAY NEW
ENTRY
CORRIDOR VESTIBULEMECHANICAL
ROOM
OFFICE
E D C B A
+89'-4"
-1 LOWER LEVEL
+100'-0"
1 1ST FLOOR
+112'-0"
2 2ND FLOOR
+124'-0"
3 T.O. BRICK
VESTIBULE
NEW
ENTRYOFFICE
VESTIBULEOFFICE
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 E/W BUILDING SECTION
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 N/S BUILDING SECTION
86
Issue Name Issue Date
RevID ISSUE NAME DATE
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:
COPYRIGHT
DATE PRINTED:
SHEET TITLE
A.4.11
.
N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N
PROPOSED
BUILDING
SECTIONS
6/18/20
COMM. DESIGN REVIEW
INITIAL SET-UP .C.E.
PROGRESS SET
10/16/19
6/8/20
6/19/20
2 2 5 N M I L L S T R E E T S T E 1 0 0
A S P E N C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1
BOWTIE REMODEL225 NORTH MILL STREETASPEN, COLORADOB C D E
+89'-4"
-1 LOWER LEVEL
+100'-0"
1 1ST FLOOR
+112'-0"
2 2ND FLOOR
+124'-0"
3 T.O. BRICK
ELEV.
EQUIP CORRIDORVESTIBULE OFFICE
NEW
ENTRY
OFFICE OFFICE
VESTIBULE
5 3 2 1
+89'-4"
-1 LOWER LEVEL
+100'-0"
1 1ST FLOOR
+112'-0"
2 2ND FLOOR
+124'-0"
3 T.O. BRICK
WOMENCORRIDORMECHANICAL
ROOM OFFICEELEV.
EQUIP
UNISEX
BATHRMOFFICECHASEBATHROOM
NEW HALLWAY UNISEX #2 UNISEX #1OFFICEOFFICE
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 N/S BUILDING SECTION
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 E/W BUILDING SECTION
87
225 NORTH MILL STREET, STE 100 ASPEN, COLORADO, 81611 WWW.STRYKERBROWN.COM 9 7 0 . 9 2 5 . 2 1 0 0
CONTEXT STUDY
for
Commercial Design Review
(River Approach Zone)
REMODEL OF
225 NORTH MILL STREET
June 15, 2020
88
225 NORTH MILL STREET, STE 100 ASPEN, COLORADO, 81611 WWW.STRYKERBROWN.COM 9 7 0 . 9 2 5 . 2 1 0 0
Mandatory Measures for River Approach Zone
Site Planning and Streetscape
1.1 All projects shall provide a context study
1.2 All projects shall respond to the traditional street grid
~ The existing building and proposed addition is situated essentially parallel
to North Mill Street.
1.3 Landscape elements (both hardscape and softscape) should complement
the surrounding context, support the street scene, and enhance the
architecture of the building.
~ All but one of the 14 existing, mature trees will remain in place. The
existing triangular planter adjacent to the N Mill street will also remain and be
augmented with a wood bench. Additional shrubs will be planted to soften the
base of the addition. Much of the street facing sod will be replace with river rock
xeriscaping.
1.4 Where there is open space on a site, reinforce the traditional transition
from public space, to semi-public space to private space.
~ This is achieved by the natural transition from N Mill Street's sidewalk onto
the permeable pavers connecting to the Entry door and alley to the rear parking.
1.5 Maintain alignment of building facades where appropriate.
~ The existing building is closely aligned to Clarks Market to the north and
the new 201 North Mill building to the south.
89
225 NORTH MILL STREET, STE 100 ASPEN, COLORADO, 81611 WWW.STRYKERBROWN.COM 9 7 0 . 9 2 5 . 2 1 0 0
1.6 When a building facade is set back, define the property line. Review the
context of the block when selecting an appropriate technique.
~ The eastern property line is 8'-6" west and parallel to the edge of sidewalk
on North Mill Street. The existing planter links the public streetscape and entry to
the property. New benches on top of the planter are proposed as a pedestrian
amenity.
Alleyways
1.7 Develop alley facades to create visual interest.
~ N/A. Technically the driveway on the north side is not an alley but a
parking access driveway and it is beyond scope of the remodel project. The
driveway on the south side is considered an alley but on the adjacent property.
225 N Mill has windows all along that side creating visual interest.
1.8 Consider small alley commercial spaces, especially on corner lots or lots
with midblock access from the street
~ N/A. Small alley commercial spaces are beyond scope of this project.
Parking
1.9 Minimize the visual impacts of parking
~ Parking for 20 cars at the rear of the lot will remain as is, out of sight from
the public street.
Building Mass, Height, and Scale
1.10 A new building should appear similar in scale and proportion with
buildings on the block.
90
225 NORTH MILL STREET, STE 100 ASPEN, COLORADO, 81611 WWW.STRYKERBROWN.COM 9 7 0 . 9 2 5 . 2 1 0 0
~ The existing building and proposed Entry addition are similar in scale and
proportion to the adjacent
1.11 A minimum building height difference of 2 feet from immediately adjacent
buildings is required
~ The new entry enclosure is in the "middle" of the street facing facade, so
the existing building shall remain the transitional element to adjacent structures.
The Entry addition will be 2'-2" higher than the existing building and
noticeably different from the two adjacent buildings.
1.12 On lots larger than 6,000 square feet, break up building mass into smaller
modules
~ The proposed Entry addition is in itself a unique and smaller module
nestled into the corner, yet standing apart from the existing building.
1.13 Development adjacent to a historic landmark should respond to the historic
resource
~ N/A. Neither of the adjacent buildings are historic.
Street Level Design
1.14 Commercial entrances shall be at the sidewalk level and oriented to the
street
~ The proposed Entry addition is approached at the sidewalk level and is
oriented to North Mill Street. One of the principal design goals of this remodel is
to establish a single, street-oriented entrance to all the businesses in the
building. Currently the majority of the businesses are approached from the rear.
1.15 Incorporate an internal airlock or air curtain into first floor commercial
91
225 NORTH MILL STREET, STE 100 ASPEN, COLORADO, 81611 WWW.STRYKERBROWN.COM 9 7 0 . 9 2 5 . 2 1 0 0
space
~ The entire Entry addition is designed as a 3-level airlock with automatic
closing doors at each level.
1.16 Entries that are significantly taller or shorter than those seen historically or
that conflict with the established scale are highly discouraged
~ The proposed entry enclosure is a "single story" element and is very much
aligned to the adjacent 201 North Mill building.
1.17 ATMs and vending machines visible from the street are prohibited
~ N/A
Roofscape
1.18 The roofscape should be designed with the same attention as the
elevations of the building
~ N/A. No changes to the roofscape are planned as part of this internal
remodel/access upgrade project.
1.19 Use materials that complement the design of the building facade
~ The modern design of the glass and steel Entry addition contains, and
pleasingly displays the internal function of the elevator shaft and stairway that
wraps it. The chosen use of steel in the entry relates to other steel elements in
the neighborhood such as the Ron Krajian Bridge, Obermeyer Place, 201 North
Mill Building and others.
1.20 Incorporate green roofs and low landscape elements into rooftop design
where feasible
92
225 NORTH MILL STREET, STE 100 ASPEN, COLORADO, 81611 WWW.STRYKERBROWN.COM 9 7 0 . 9 2 5 . 2 1 0 0
~ The new roof membrane will match the existing, a white TPO which has a
high reflectance to help reduce localized heat island effects which is a strategy of
green roofs.
1.21 Minimize visibility of rooftops railings
~ No railings are proposed on roof.
Materials and Details
1.22 Complete and accurate identification of materials is required
~ See Exhibit A at end of Study for material identification.
1.23 Building materials shall have these features:
• Convey the quality and range of materials found in the current block
context or seen historically in the Character Area.
~ The two primary materials of the Entry addition, black structural steel and
glass are used extensively and complement the adjacent building to the south,
201 North Mill, as well as the brick facade of the existing building which remains
the dominant element.
• Convey pedestrian scale.
~ All existing and proposed elements of this proposal are with regard to the
pedestrian scale fond on North Mill Street.
• Enhance visual interest through texture, application, and/or dimension.
~ Visual interest is enhanced by the use of glass walls allowing by-passers
to see the elevator shaft and winding wood stair treads within.
• Be non-reflective. Shiny or glossy materials are not appropriate as a
primary material.
~ The glass used will be non-reflective and the steel will be matte.
• Have proven durability and weathering characteristics within Aspen’s
climate.
~ Painted steel and tempered glass have a longstanding reputation for the
durability that is required in the cold climate zone that we have.
• A material with an integral color shall be a neutral color. Some variation is
allowed for secondary materials.
~ The black of the steel frame and the natural color palette of the interior
materials will blend harmoniously with the brick facades of the existing buildings.
1.24 Introducing a new material, material application, or material finish to the
existing streetscape may be approved by HPC or P&Z if the following criteria are
met:
93
225 NORTH MILL STREET, STE 100 ASPEN, COLORADO, 81611 WWW.STRYKERBROWN.COM 9 7 0 . 9 2 5 . 2 1 0 0
~ N/A. No new materials are added to the context of the River Access zone.
1.25 Architecture that reflects corporate branding of the tenant is not permitted
~ N/A.
Lighting, Service and Mechanical Areas
1.26 The design of light fixtures should be appropriate to the form, materials,
scale, and style of the building
~ See Exhibit B for specifications of the exterior lighting. Lighting selection
was done with respect to maintaining night sky requirements and a minimalist
design aesthetic that reflects upon the modern Entry addition.
1.27 Trash and recycle service areas shall be co-located along an alleyway
where one exists and screened from view with a fence or door
~ The existing trash and recycle service area will remain in the far back
corner of the parking lot, completely out of sight from Mill Street.
1.28 Design trash and recycle areas thoughtfully and within the style of the
building, with the goal of enhancing pedestrian and commercial uses along alleys
~ N/A. The existing trash/recycle area is outside the scope of this project.
This property is not served by an alley.
1.29 Delivery areas shall be located along an alleyway where one exists
~ N/A. There is not an alley from which deliveries can be made (although
the existing driveway and pullouts function in a similar manner).
1.30 Mechanical equipment, ducts, and vents shall be accommodated internally
within the building and/or co-located on the roof
~ All rooftop mechanical equipment will be located out of sight from Mill
Street.
1.31 Minimize the visual impacts of utility connections and service boxes
~ Existing street side cable service boxes will be minimized and screened
with new evergreen shrubs.
1.32 Transformer location and size are dictated by City and utility company
standards and codes
~ N/A. The existing electric transformer is located at rear of property.
94
225 NORTH MILL STREET, STE 100 ASPEN, COLORADO, 81611 WWW.STRYKERBROWN.COM 9 7 0 . 9 2 5 . 2 1 0 0
Remodel
1.33 All remodel projects shall meet Standards 1.22 and 1.23
~ It does. See Standards 1.22 and 1.23.
1.34 Consider updating windows, doors, and/ or primary entrances to better
relate to the Character Area and pedestrian experience
~ The proposed Entry addition with its industrial steel frame uses new, high
performance windows and entry door that relate closely to the adjacent 201
North Mill building and the character of the River Approach zone.
1.35 Design alterations to relate to the existing building style and form that may
remain.
~ The black of the steel frame and the natural color palette of the interior
materials will blend harmoniously with the brick facades of the existing building
which remain the dominant element.
1.36 Incorporate elements that define the property line in accordance with
Guideline 1.6.
~ The edge of sidewalk on North Mill Street is 8'-6" and parallel to the
eastern property line while the existing planter bridges the public streetscape and
entry to the property. A new bench on top of the planter is proposed as a
pedestrian amenity.
1.37 Creative solutions that incorporate ADA compliance into the architecture
are encouraged
~ The full scope of this remodel involves making all three floors with their
bathroom facilities ADA compliant with the introduction of the new street
accessible elevator.
Street Level Pedestrian Amenity - PA1
PA1.1 Maximize solar access to Pedestrian Amenity space on the subject
property
~ The proposed pedestrian amenity is the addition of south and north facing
benches mounted onto the existing triangular concrete planter that sees plenty of
morning sunshine.
PA1.2 Consider all four corners of an intersection when designing street level
amenity space on a corner lot
~ N/A. Not on a corner lot
95
225 NORTH MILL STREET, STE 100 ASPEN, COLORADO, 81611 WWW.STRYKERBROWN.COM 9 7 0 . 9 2 5 . 2 1 0 0
PA1.3 Street level Pedestrian Amenity spaces should be equal to a minimum of
1/3 of the total Pedestrian Amenity requirement
~ N/A. Remodel and renovation activities that do not trigger demolition,
and which maintain one hundred percent (100%) of the existing pedestrian
amenity present on the site are exempt from this Section. (Section 26.412.070)
PA1.4 Street level Pedestrian Amenity shall be within 18 inches above or below
the existing grade of the street or sidewalk which abuts the space.
~ The wood benches will be mounted on top of the existing concrete
planter wall.
PA1.5 Street level Pedestrian Amenity areas shall be open to the sky
~ The proposed pedestrian amenity benches are open to the sky 360
degrees and are directly accessed from the sidewalk of North Mill Street.
PA1.6 Design meaningful street level space that is useful, versatile, and
accessible
~ The proposed benches are useful, functional and are conveniently located
amenities providing sunshine and views to the mountain and surrounding
neighborhood.
PA1.7 Design amenity space that enhances the pedestrian experience and faces
the street
~ The proposed bench amenity ties directly into the sidewalk of North Mill
Street.
96
225 NORTH MILL STREET, STE 100 ASPEN, COLORADO, 81611 WWW.STRYKERBROWN.COM 9 7 0 . 9 2 5 . 2 1 0 0
PA1.8 Street level Pedestrian Amenity space should reinforce the property line.
Consider the context of the block when selecting an appropriate technique
~ The streetside edge of the existing triangular planter with new benches is
parallel to the street and property line connecting the public walkway to the
new Entry and driveway.
PA1.9 Street level Pedestrian Amenity may be appropriate on a case-by-case
basis within the Commercial Core Historic District
~ N/A. Not in Commercial Core Historic District.
PA1.10 Street level Pedestrian Amenity may include providing public access to
the mountain or river in the Mountain Base and River Approach Character
Areas through a trail easement, subject to Parks and Engineering approval
~ N/A. No accesses to the mountain or river are available.
PA1.11 Within the Main Street Historic District, required building setbacks may be
used toward a Pedestrian Amenity requirement.
~ N/A. Not in Main Street Historic District.
Second Floor Pedestrian Amenity - PA2
PA2.1 A second floor Pedestrian Amenity shall be in the form of a deck that is
visible from, and adjacent to the street
~ N/A. No second floor Pedestrian Amenity is proposed.
PA2.2 Pedestrian Amenity is highly discouraged on the roof of the second floor
~ N/A. No second floor Pedestrian Amenity is proposed.
PA2.3 Second floor amenity shall be accessed directly from the street
~ N/A. No second floor Pedestrian Amenity is proposed.
PA2.4 Second floor Pedestrian Amenity should be equal to a minimum of 50% of
the total Pedestrian Amenity requirement
~ N/A. No second floor Pedestrian Amenity is proposed.
PA2.5 All second floor Pedestrian Amenity shall be open to the sky
~ N/A. No second floor Pedestrian Amenity is proposed.
PA2.6 Design meaningful space that is useful, versatile and accessible
~ N/A. No second floor Pedestrian Amenity is proposed.
97
225 NORTH MILL STREET, STE 100 ASPEN, COLORADO, 81611 WWW.STRYKERBROWN.COM 9 7 0 . 9 2 5 . 2 1 0 0
PA2.7 The Pedestrian Amenity shall be directly connected to a publicly accessible
area
~ N/A. No second floor Pedestrian Amenity is proposed.
PA2.8 Design wayfinding to the second floor amenity into the architecture
~ N/A. No second floor Pedestrian Amenity is proposed.
Midblock Pedestrian Amenity - PA4
PA4.1 New midblock Pedestrian Amenity walkways shall not be located in a block
face that already has a midblock walkway
~ N/A. No midblock Pedestrian Amenity is proposed.
PA4.2 Midblock Pedestrian Amenity shall provide access to additional commercial
space
~ N/A. No midblock Pedestrian Amenity is proposed.
PA4.3 Midblock Pedestrian Amenity walkways shall be open to the sky
~ N/A. No midblock Pedestrian Amenity is proposed.
PA4.4 Design the space to be surrounded with high quality materials and
architectural details
~ N/A. No midblock Pedestrian Amenity is proposed.
PA4.5 A midblock Pedestrian Amenity should include lighting and landscape
elements
~ N/A. No midblock Pedestrian Amenity is proposed.
PA4.6 Design wayfinding to the midblock walkway into the architecture
~ N/A. No midblock Pedestrian Amenity is proposed.
Subgrade Courtyard Pedestrian Amenity - PA5
PA5.1 A subgrade courtyard shall be visible from, and adjacent to the street
~ N/A. No subgrade courtyard Pedestrian Amenity is proposed.
PA5.2 New subgrade courtyards are not permitted on corner lots, unless located
along the side lot line, towards the rear of the lot
~ N/A. No subgrade courtyard Pedestrian Amenity is proposed.
98
225 NORTH MILL STREET, STE 100 ASPEN, COLORADO, 81611 WWW.STRYKERBROWN.COM 9 7 0 . 9 2 5 . 2 1 0 0
PA5.3 Subgrade courtyard Pedestrian Amenity should be equal to a minimum of
30% of the total Pedestrian Amenity requirement
~ N/A. No subgrade courtyard Pedestrian Amenity is proposed.
PA5.4 A subgrade courtyard shall be no more than 10 feet below the existing grade
of the street or sidewalk which abuts the space.
~ N/A. No subgrade courtyard Pedestrian Amenity is proposed.
PA5.5 Design of the subgrade courtyard at grade should reinforce the property line
~ N/A. No subgrade courtyard Pedestrian Amenity is proposed.
PA5.6 Design meaningful space that is useful, versatile, and accessible
~ N/A. No subgrade courtyard Pedestrian Amenity is proposed.
PA5.7 All subgrade courtyard spaces shall be open to the sky
~ N/A. No subgrade courtyard Pedestrian Amenity is proposed.
PA5.8 A subgrade courtyard shall be accessible from the interior of commercial
use(s) abutting the Pedestrian Amenity space
~ N/A. No subgrade courtyard Pedestrian Amenity is proposed.
PA5.9 Design wayfinding to the subgrade courtyard space into the architecture
~ N/A. No subgrade courtyard Pedestrian Amenity is proposed.
Off-site Pedestrian Amenity - PA6
PA6.1 Off-site improvements shall be located within the block of the subject
property
~ N/A. No off-site Pedestrian Amenity is proposed.
PA6.2 Covered walkways are prohibited in blocks that already have a similar
feature
~ N/A. No off-site Pedestrian Amenity is proposed.
PA6.3 At least 50% of the block shall meet standard City of Aspen right-of-way
design
~ N/A. No off-site Pedestrian Amenity is proposed.
PA6.4 Additions to the streetscape should enhance the pedestrian experience
~ N/A. No off-site Pedestrian Amenity is proposed.
99
225 NORTH MILL STREET, STE 100 ASPEN, COLORADO, 81611 WWW.STRYKERBROWN.COM 9 7 0 . 9 2 5 . 2 1 0 0
River Approach Zone
7.1 Place a building to respond to the natural environment.
~ N/A. This is a remodel and addition to an existing building.
7.2 Minimize retaining walls where possible by siting building into the topography
~ N/A. No retaining walls are used in this project.
7.3 Incorporate open space into the building placement and site design
~ N/A. This is a remodel and addition to an existing building.
Architecture
7.4 Preserve the diverse and industrial character of the neighborhood and
encourage connection to the river and natural environment
~ The proposed Entry addition uses exposed, black structural steel to define
the mass of the element within the larger existing brick building. This helps tie
the 225 North Mill project to the historical and neighborhood vernacular of the River
Approach zone.
7.5 Use eclectic and creative approaches to break up building mass and scale
~ By the nature of the project's scale the massing of the new Entry addition
helps break up the monotony of the existing and homogenous brick walls.
100
225 NORTH MILL STREET, STE 100 ASPEN, COLORADO, 81611 WWW.STRYKERBROWN.COM 9 7 0 . 9 2 5 . 2 1 0 0
BEFORE AFTER
7.6 Unique roof forms and overall building shape are encouraged in this
neighborhood
~ The roof form seeks to relate to the adjacent building to the south, 201 North
Mill with a flat roof.
7.7 Enhance the natural environment and funky character through materials and
details
~ If one looks closely through the glass wall of the Entry addition, they will
notice the chunky, 3 1/2" thick wood stair treads resembling railroad ties supported
by tapered and paired steel angles warmly lit by concealed LED strip lighting.
7.8 Larger, more industrial sized fenestration is appropriate here
~ Large, industrial sized fenestration is inherent in the Entry addition of 225
North Mill Street.
101
225 NORTH MILL STREET, STE 100 ASPEN, COLORADO, 81611 WWW.STRYKERBROWN.COM 9 7 0 . 9 2 5 . 2 1 0 0
EXHIBIT A
MATERIAL BOARD
for
REMODEL OF
225 NORTH MILL STREET
STEEL FRAME
Matte black, 6", 12" and 14" steel C channel
102
225 NORTH MILL STREET, STE 100 ASPEN, COLORADO, 81611 WWW.STRYKERBROWN.COM 9 7 0 . 9 2 5 . 2 1 0 0
WINDOWS
Kawneer 8225TL Thermal windows or equal, dark bronze, non-reflective glazing
PAVERS
OR
Belgard Eco Dublin permeable pavers
103
225 NORTH MILL STREET, STE 100 ASPEN, COLORADO, 81611 WWW.STRYKERBROWN.COM 9 7 0 . 9 2 5 . 2 1 0 0
EXHIBIT B
EXTERIOR LIGHTING
for
REMODEL OF
225 NORTH MILL STREET
EXTERIOR WALL SCONCE
104
225 NORTH MILL STREET, STE 100 ASPEN, COLORADO, 81611 WWW.STRYKERBROWN.COM 9 7 0 . 9 2 5 . 2 1 0 0
105
Page 1 of 4
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning & Zoning Commission
FROM: Michelle Bonfils Thibeault, Planner
THRU: Garrett Larimer, Planner II
RE: 214 Cottonwood Lane- RDS Variations for Build-to Requirement, One-Story
Element, Garage Placement and Entry Connection.
MEETING DATE: October 6, 2020
APPLICANT:
Jacquelyn Sankowski, Owner
214 Cottonwood Lane, Aspen, CO
REPRESENTATIVE:
Katie Hmielowski, Z-Group Architects
LOCATION:
214 Cottonwood Ln Aspen, CO 81611
ZONING:
High Density Residential, (R-3), Planned
Development (PD) Overlay
SUMMARY:
The Applicant is requesting variations
from the Build-to Requirement, One-
Story Element, Garage Placement and
Entry Connection Residential Design
Standards (RDS) in order to redevelop
the lot with a single-family residence.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning and
Zoning Commission approve the request
for variations from the Build-to
Requirement, One-Story Element, and
Garage Placement Residential Design
Standards. Staff recommends denial of
the Entry Connection variation request
which does not meet the entry porch
requirement.
Figure 1: Vicinity Map
Figure 2: Subject Property
106
Page 2 of 4
REQUEST OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
The Applicant requests the Planning and Zoning Commission consider four Residential Design
Standards Variations (Section 26.410.020.C Variations), including:
1. the Garage Placement standard (Section 26.410.030.B.3) to construct a street-facing garage
along Cottonwood Lane;
2. the Entry Connection standard (Section 26.410.030.D.1) to not provide a porch and to locate
the front entry 42’ from the front facade;
3. the One-Story Element standard (26.410.030.B.4) utilizing the forward-facing garage as the
front most element;
4. and lastly, to grant a variation to the Build-To Requirement Standard (Section 26.410.030.B.3)
to allow for the structure to be developed more than 5’ from the front setback.
Applications that do not comply with the standards contained in the Residential Design section of the
code must apply for alternative compliance review for an RDS Variation. Each standard is identified
in the code as either “flexible” or “non-flexible.” The code allows for alternative compliance for flexible
standards to be reviewed administratively, but non -flexible standards must be reviewed by the
Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z). Two of the requested variations are to non -flexible
standards, but for efficiency, all four requested variations have been consolidated into one review to
be considered by the P&Z. The P&Z can approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application
after considering a recommendation by the Community Development D irector based on the standards
outlined in section 26.410.020.C, Variation Review Standards. The Planning and Zoning Commission
is the final review authority.
BACKGROUND:
214 Cottonwood Lane is a vacant lot located within the R-3 Zone District outside of the Infill Area. The
lot is approximately 2,851-square feet and has street frontage on Cottonwood Lane in the Smuggler
Park subdivision and Planned Development (PD).
Three of the variations requested are a result of design features of the proposed structure that do not
meet the City of Aspen Residential Design Standards. These three variations requested are Build-To
Requirement (Flexible), One-Story Element (Flexible), and Garage Placement (Non-flexible)
Residential Design Standards. The fourth requested variation is to the Entry Connection (Non-flexible)
standard and the proposed design does not meet the Residential Design Standards.
DISCUSSION:
Staff Comment:
An application requesting a variation from the Residential Design Standards shall demonstrate and
the Planning and Zoning Commission shall find that the variation, if granted would:
1. Provide an alternative design approach that meets the overall intent of t he standard as
indicated in the intent statement for that standard as well as the general intent statements
in Section 26.410.010.A1-3; or
2. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints.
Build-to Requirement (Flexible):
The applicant is requesting variation from 26.410.030.B.3 Build-to Requirement (Flexible).
The intent of the Build-to Requirement standard seeks to establish a consistent physical pattern of
front façades close to and parallel to streets in order to frame the street.
The standard for the Build-to Requirement states at least sixty percent (60%) of the front façade of a
principal building shall be within five (5) feet of the minimum front yard setback line. The front yard
107
Page 3 of 4
setback for the subject property is five feet per zoning code, however zero feet per the Smuggler Park
PD approvals.
Compliance with the Build-to Requirement is difficult due to the Smuggler Mountain Park PD which
requires each property to provide three (3) on-site parking spaces and requires a 0’ front yard setback.
To accommodate three parking spaces on-site, a one-car garage and two surface spaces are
proposed within the zero-foot front yard setback and the Limited Common Area between the property
line and the curb and gutter of Cottonwood Lane.
Staff finds the intent of the Build-To requirement met at approximately 60% of the residential
façade addresses the street within 8-16’ of the front property line, as close as is practical to
provide the required on-site parking.
One-Story Element (Flexible):
The applicant is requesting variation from 26.410.030.B.4 One-Story Element (Flexible). The
intent of the One-Story Element standard seeks to establish human scale building features as
perceived from the street and express lower and upper floors on front façades to reduce perceived
mass. Front porches or portions of the front-most wall of the front façade should clearly express a
one-story scale as perceived from the street.
The one-story projecting element for this project is the garage, which projects 18’9” forward of the
principal building and is about 40% of the of the building’s overall width. The applicant has designed
a shed roof which slopes from the highest point at 15’ to the lowest point at 10’ similar to what would
occur on half of a gabled roof. The Residential Design Standards do not have a cle ar or precise
measurement procedure for shed or gabled rooflines.
Staff finds that the intent of the One-Story Element is met through the design of a shed roof
that relates to the street as a single-story.
Garage Placement (Non-Flexible):
The applicant is requesting variation from 26.410.030.C.2 Garage Placement (Non-Flexible).
The Garage Placement Residential Design Standard requires the front-most element of a garage with
doors that face a street to be set back at least ten feet further from the street than the front façade of
the principal building. As an alternative, a garage or carport located forward of a street-facing façade
shall be side-loaded, perpendicular to the street.
The subject property is located in the Smuggler Mountain Park where lots are generally narrow. The
R-3 Zone allows 40’ minimum width standard. It is not practical to meet either of the two Garage
Placement options on the lot – 1.) a side-loaded garage or 2.) to have a setback garage 10’ from the
front-most wall of the principal building.
Staff finds that the requested variation from the Garage Placement Standard is clearly
necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints.
Entry Connection (Non-flexible):
The applicant is requesting variation from 26.410.030.D.1 Entry Connection (Non-flexible). The
intent of the Entry Connection standard seeks to promote visual and physical connections between
buildings and the street. The Standard for lots located in the Smuggler Park is the front porch is not
required on the front façade, but the front-most element of the porch shall be within twenty-five (25)
feet of the front-most wall of the building. The porch shall meet all other requirements of this standard.
108
Page 4 of 4
The applicant has created a visual and physical connection to the front entry by providing a de signated
walkway from the street to the front entry. The designated walkway ends with a landscaped fence to
the backyard near the entry way creating a visual demarcation of the entry way area. The entry is
approximately forty-two (42) feet from the front wall (i.e. garage door). A porch is not provided.
Staff finds that the requested variation does not meet the Entry Connection (non-flexible)
standard as a porch is not provided as a part of the design.
RECOMMENDATION:
Community Development Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the
requests for a variation from the Build-To Requirement, One-Story Element, and Garage Placement
Residential Design Standards. Approving these variations allows for a design that complies with the
Smuggler Park PD requirements and provides for a design that meets the intent of the Residential
Design Standards.
Community Development staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the
request for a variation from the Entry Connection which requires a porch to be part of the design. A
porch is not provided and therefor the design does not comply with the non -flexible standard, nor does
it meet the intent of that standard.
PROPOSED MOTION:
The draft resolution is written in the affirmative, approving all four requests.
If the Commission supports Staff’s recommendation, Section 1.D of the draft Resolution should be
eliminated, and the amended Resolution should be approved using the following motion:
“I move to amend Resolution No. __, Series of 2020 by deleting Section 1.D and move to approve
amended Resolution No. __, Series of 2020 approving the request for Variations from the Build-To
Requirement, One-Story Element, and Garage Placement Residential Design Standard.”
Alternatively, the P&Z could approve all four requested variations, none of the requested variations or
any combination of variations in which the Planning and Zoning Commission has found to meet the
review criteria for a RDS Variation in the code.
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution #__, Series of 2020
Exhibit A- Residential Design Standards Review Criteria
Exhibit B- Application
109
1
Exhibit A
Residential Design Standards Review Criteria
Section 26.410.020.D, Residential Design Standard Variation Review Standards. An
application requesting a variation from the Residential Design Standards shall
demonstrate and the deciding board shall find that the variation, if granted would:
1. Provide an alternative design approach that meets the overall intent of the
standard as indicated in the intent statement for that standard, as well as the
general intent statements in Section 26.410.010.A.1 -3; or
Staff Response: The subject property is located in the Smuggler Park PD, zoned R-3.
Lots in the R-3 zone are a minimum of 40’ in width. This generally narrow width of lots in
the Smuggler Park PD, and other site conditions unique to this subdivision, contribute to
some of the requested residential design standard variations for th is land use application.
The applicant is requesting variation from 26.410.030.B.3 Build-to Requirement
(Flexible). The intent of the Build-to Requirement standard seeks to establish a consistent
physical pattern of front façades close to and parallel to streets in order to frame the
street. The placement of buildings should respond to the street by framing street edges
physically. Designs should maximize the amount of the f ront façade that is close to the
street while still providing articulation and expressing a human scale. Porches, front
façade walls, rooflines and other elements can all contribute to framing the street.
The standard for the Build-to Requirement states at least sixty percent (60%) of
the front façade of a principal building shall be within five (5) feet of the minimum front
yard setback line. The front yard setback for the subject property is five feet per zoning
code, however zero feet per the Smuggler Park PD approvals.
Compliance with the Build-to Requirement is difficult due to the Smuggler Mountain
Park PD which requires each property to provide three (3) on-site parking spaces, and
requires a 0’ front yard setback. To accommodate three parking spaces on -site, a one-
car garage and two surface spaces are proposed within the zero -foot front yard setback
and the Limited Common Area between the property line and the curb and gutter of
Cottonwood Lane.
Following the parallelogram front yard property line, approximately 60% of the front
façade of the building is 8’-13’ from the zero-foot front yard setback to accommodate the
required on-site parking consistent with the Smuggler Park PD approvals.
Staff finds that this variation criterion is met.
110
2
The applicant is requesting variation from 26.410.030.B.4 One-Story Element (Flexible).
The intent of the One-Story Element standard seeks to establish human scale building
features as perceived from the street and express lower and upper floors on front f açades
to reduce perceived mass. Front porches or portions of the front -most wall of the front
façade should clearly express a one-story scale as perceived from the street. Changes in
material or color can also be incorporated into these elements to help t o strengthen the
establishment of a one-story scale.
The subject property is located in the R-3 zone, where the maximum building
height is 15.’ An option to meet the Standard intent is a design featuring a one-story street-
facing element that projects at least six (6) feet from the front façade of the principal
building and has a width equivalent to at least twenty percent (20%) of the building's (or
unit's) overall width.
The one-story projecting element for this project is the garage, which projects 18’9”
forward of the principal building and is about 40% of the of the building’s overall width.
The applicant has designed a shed roof which slopes from the highest point at 15’ to the
lowest point at 10’ similar to what would occur on half of a gabled roof. The Residential
Design Standards do not have a precise measurement procedure for shed or gabled
rooflines.
Staff finds that this variation criterion is met.
2. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site -specific
constraints.
Staff Response:
The applicant is requesting variation from 26.410.030.C.2 Garage Placement (Non-
Flexible). The intent of the Garage Placement standard is to ensure that garages are
subordinate to the principal building for properties featuring driveway and garage access
directly from the street. Consistent with the Residential Design Standard general intent,
the Garage Placement standard intent aims to establish “a visual and/or physical
connection between residences and streets and other public areas.
It is not practical to include a garage and meet either of the two Garage Placement
options on the lot – 1.) a side-loaded garage or 2.) to have a setback garage 10’ from the
front-most wall of the principal building. Staff finds that the requested variation from the
Garage Placement Standard is clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to
unusual site-specific constraints.
Staff finds this variation criterion is met.
111
3
The applicant is requesting variation from 26.410.030.D.1 Entry Connection (Non-
flexible). The intent of the Entry Connection standard seeks to promote visual and
physical connections between buildings and the street. Buildings and site planning
features should establish a sense that one can directly enter a building from the street
through the use of pathways, front porches, front doors that face the street and other
similar methods. This standard is critical in all areas of the city.
The Standard for lots located in the Smuggler Park is the front porch is not required on
the front façade, but the front-most element of the porch shall be within twenty-five (25)
feet of the front-most wall of the building. The porch shall meet all other requirements of
this standard.
The applicant has created a visual and physical connection to the front entry by
providing a designated walkway from the street to the front entry. The designated
walkway ends with a landscaped fence to the backyard near the entry way creating a
visual demarcation of the entry way area. The entry is approximately forty-two (42) feet
from the front wall (i.e. garage door). A porch is not provided.
Staff finds this variation criterion is not met.
112
Z-Group Architects, P.C. • 411 East Main Street, Aspen, CO. 81611 • Telephone: 970-925-1832 • Fax: 970-925-1371
August 24, 2020
Amy Simon
City of Aspen Community Development – Review for Residential Design Alternative Compliance
Re: 214 Cottonwood Lane– Sankowski Residence
Parcel ID 2737-074-90-214
On behalf of Jacquelyn Sankowski, Z-Group Architects is submitting this packet for RDS- Alternative Compliance
review.
The Project intent is to create a design that abides by the Residential Design Standards of the City of Aspen while
working with the regulations put forth by the Smuggler Mountain Park committees and applying these to our site. We
want to maintain the character of the neighborhood while creating a more inviting experience than the general
standard of the park.
Working with our parking and site restrictions does create some issues with the Residential Design Guidelines. We
are therefore requesting the following variances:
1. Build-to Requirement – The intent of this standard is to create a consistent physical pattern of front
facades. We are required to have 3 parking spaces using the combination of lot and the adjacent part of
the roadway easement according to “Rules, Regulations and Procedures for the Smuggler Mountain
Park Architectural Committee”. The only location for us to meet the parking requirement is at the front
yard, Due to this parking requirement it is not feasibly possible to get 60% of the façade in addition to
these required spots within 5’ of our front yard setback line.
2. One-Story Element – The maximum height in the Smuggler Mountain Park is 15’ to the ridge therefore
creating an entire neighborhood of one-story houses. The majority of the designs within the
neighborhood consist of a 15’ high gable roof along the street side of the site without a “one-story”
element. Our proposed one-story element exceeds the 10’ height maximum by the shed roof extension
and not with the mass of the structure.
3. Garage Placement – Our site is narrow at 39’-3” to allow for our 3 required parking spaces and still be
able to create a sense of entry from the street. We do not have enough space for a turning radius to
locate our garage door on the non-street facing façade. All of these lots are too narrow to pull into a side
accessed garage. These sites are significantly smaller than a typical Aspen home site where the RDS
standards were intended. These home sites do not have alley access to the rear, therefore all
parking/garage placement takes place in front of the house.
4. Entry Connection – Per the RDS for Smuggler park we are allowed to locate the entry on the side of the
building. The intent of the RDS code is to have visual connection to the street. We accomplished this by
using landscaping, pathways and a modest roof element over the entry door. A fence is located just
beyond the front door further demarcating where the entry is. The parking is pulled off to one side
allowing for a straight unencumbered view towards the entryway.
Thank you for your time and effort.
Sincerely, Z-GROUP ARCHITECTS
Katie Hmielowski
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
City of Aspen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5090 April 2020
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
GENERAL LAND USE PACKET
Attached is an Application for review of Development that requires Land Use Review pursuant to
The City of Aspen Land Use Code: Included in this package are the following attachments:
1. Development Application Fee Policy, Fee Schedule and Agreement
to Pay Application Fees Form
2. Land Use Application Form
3. Dimensional Requirements Form (if required)
4. HOA Compliance Form
5. Development Review Procedure
All Application are reviewed based on the criteria established in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code. Title 26 of
the Aspen Municipal Code is available at the City Clerk’s Office on the second floor of City Hall and on the internet
at www.cityofaspen.com, City Departments, City Clerk, Municipal Code, and search Title 26.
We require all applicants to hold a Pre-Application Conference with a Planner in the Community Development
Department so that the requirements for submitting a complete application can be fully described. This
meeting can happen in person or by phone or e-mail. Also, depending upon the complexity of the
development proposed, submitting one copy of the development application to the Case Planner to determine
accuracy, inefficiencies, or redundancies can reduce the overall cost of materials and Staff time.
Please recognize that review of these materials does not substitute for a complete review of the Aspen Land Use
Regulations. While this application package attempts to summarize the key provisions of the Code as they apply
to your type of development, it cannot possibly replicate the detail or the scope of the Code. If you have
questions which are not answered by the materials in this package, we suggest that you contact the staff
member assigned to your case, contact Planner of the Day, or consult the applicable sections of the Aspen Land
Use Code.
121
CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
City of Aspen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5090 April 2020
Land Use Review Fee Policy
The City of Aspen has established a review fee policy for the processing of land use applications. A flat fee or deposit is
collected for land use applications based on the type of application submitted.
A flat fee is collected by Community Development for applications which normally take a minimal and predictable amount of
staff time to process. Review fees for other City Departments reviewing the application (referral departments) will also be
collected when necessary. Flat fees are cumulative – meaning an application with multiple flat fees must be pay the sum of
those flat fee. Flat fees are not refundable.
A review fee deposit is collected by Community Development when more extensive staff time is required.
Actual staff time spent will be charged against the deposit. Various City staff may also charge their time spent on the case in
addition to the case planner. Deposit amount may be reduces if, in the opinion of the Community Development Director, the
project is expected to take significantly less time to process than the deposit indicates.
A determination on the deposit amount shall be made during the pre-application conference by the case planner. Hourly
billing shall still apply.
All applications must include an Agreement to Pay Application Fees. One payment including the deposit for Planning and
referral agency fees must be submitted with each land use application, made payable to the City of Aspen. Applications will
not be accepted for processing without the required fee.
The Community Development Department shall keep an accurate record of the actual time required for the processing of a
land use application requiring a deposit. The City can provide a summary report of fees due at the applicant’s request. The
applicant will be billed for the additional costs incurred by the City when the processing of an application by the Community
Development Department takes more time or expense than is covered by the deposit. Any direct costs attributable to a
project review shall be billed to the applicant with no additional administrative charge. In the event the processing of an
application takes less time than provided for by the deposit, the department shall refund the unused portion of the deposited
fee to the applicant. Fees shall be due regardless of whether an applicant receives approval.
Unless otherwise combined by the Director for simplicity of billing, all applications for conceptual, final and recordation of
approval documents shall be handled as individual cases for the purpose of billing. Upon conceptual approval all billing shall be
reconciled and past due invoices shall be paid prior to the Director accepting an application for final review. Final review shall
require a new deposit at the rate in effect at the time of final submission. Upon final approval all billing shall be again reconciled
prior to the Director accepting an application for review of technical documents for recordation.
The Community Development Director may cease processing of a land use application for which an unpaid invoice is 30 or more
days past due. Unpaid invoices of 90 days or more past due may be assessed a late fee of 1.7% per month. An unpaid invoice of
120 days or more may be subject to additional actions as may be assigned by the Municipal Court Judge. All payment information
is public domain.
All invoices shall be paid prior to issuance of a Development Order or recordation of development agreements and plats. The City
will not accept a building permit for a property until all invoices are paid in full. For permits already accepted, and unpaid invoice
of 90 days or more days may result in cessation of building permit processing or issuance of a stop work order until full payment is
made.
The property owner of record is the party responsible for payment of all costs associated with a land use application
for the property. Any secondary agreement between a property owner and an applicant representing the owner (e.g.
a contract purchaser) regarding payment of fees is solely between those private parties.
122
CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
City of Aspen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5090 April 2020
Agreement to Pay Application Fees
An agreement between the City of Aspen (“City”) and
Address of Property:
Please type or print in all caps
Property Owner Name: Representative Name (if different from Property Owner)
Billing Name and Address - Send Bills to:
Contact info for billing: e-mail: Phone:
I understand that the City has adopted, via Ordinance No. 30, Series of 2017, review fees for Land Use applications and
payment of these fees is a condition precedent to determining application completeness. I understand that as the property
owner that I am responsible for paying all fees for this development application.
For flat fees and referral fees: I agree to pay the following fees for the services indicated. I understand that these flat fees are
non-refundable.
$. flat fee for . $. flat fee for
$. flat fee for . $. flat fee for
For Deposit cases only: The City and I understand that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not
possible at this time to know the full extent or total costs involved in processing the application. I understand that additional
costs over and above the deposit may accrue. I understand and agree that it is impracticable for City staff to complete
processing, review and presentation of sufficient information to enable legally required findings to be made for project
consideration, unless invoices are paid in full.
The City and I understand and agree that invoices mailed by the City to the above listed billing address and not returned to
the City shall be considered by the City as being received by me. I agree to remit payment within 30 days of presentation of
an invoice by the City for such services.
I have read, understood, and agree to the Land Use Review Fee Policy including consequences for no-payment. I agree to pay
the following initial deposit amounts for the specified hours of staff time. I understand that payment of a deposit does not
render and application complete or compliant with approval criteria. If actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, I
agree to pay additional monthly billings to the City to reimburse the City for the processing of my application at the hourly
rates hereinafter stated.
$ deposit for hours of Community Development Department staff time. Additional time
above the deposit amount will be billed at $325.00 per hour.
$ deposit for hours of Engineering Department staff time. Additional time above the
deposit amount will be billed at $325.00 per hour.
City of Aspen:
Phillip Supino, AICP
Community Development Director
City Use:
Fees Due: $ Received $
Case #
Signature:
PRINT Name:
Title:
843.384.2943
214 COTTONWOOD LANE
KATIE HMIELOWSKI
JACQUELYN SANKOWSKI 3 BURKES BEACH RD. HILTON HEAD ISLAND, SC 22928
JFSANKOWSKI@GMAIL.COM
3,250 10 HOURS OF STAFF REVIEW
JACQUELYN SANKOWSKI
JACQUELYN SANKOWSKI
OWNER
123
CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
City of Aspen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5090 April 2020
LAND USE APPLICATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTIVATIVE:
Description: Existing and Proposed Conditions
Review: Administrative or Board Review
Required Land Use Review(s):
Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) required fields:
Net Leasable square footage Lodge Pillows Free Market dwelling units
Affordable Housing dwelling units Essential Public Facility square footage
Have you included the following? FEES DUE: $
Pre-Application Conference Summary
Signed Fee Agreement
HOA Compliance form
All items listed in checklist on PreApplication Conference Summary
Name:
Address:
Phone#: email:
Address:
Phone #: email:
Name:
Project Name and Address:
Parcel ID # (REQUIRED)
214 Cottonwood Lane
2737-074-90-214
Jacquelyn Sankowski
3 Burkes Beach Road Hilton Head Island, SC 29928
843.384.2943 JFSankowski@gmail.com
Katie Hmielowski
411 E. Main Street Suite 205 Aspen, CO
617.697.4779 Katie@zgrouparchitects.com
The existing condition is an undeveloped lot in Smuggler Mountain Park. The proposed condition is a new single family home.
$3,250
124
CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
April 2020 City of Aspen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5090
Homeowner Association Compliance Policy
All land use applications within the City of Aspen are required to include a Homeowner Association
Compliance Form (this form) certifying the scope of work included in the land use application complies
with all applicable covenants and homeowner association policies. The certification must be signed by
the property owner or Attorney representing the property owner.
Property
Owner (“I”):
Name:
Email: Phone No.:
Address of
Property:
(subject of
application)
I certify as follows: (pick one)
□ This property is not subject to a homeowners association or other form of private covenant.
□ This property is subject to a homeowners association or private covenant and the improvements proposed in this land use application do not require approval by the homeowners association or covenant beneficiary.
□ This property is subject to a homeowners association or private covenant and the improvements proposed in this land use application have been approved by the homeowners association or
covenant beneficiary.
I understand this policy and I understand the City of Aspen does not interpret, enforce, or manage the
applicability, meaning or effect of private covenants or homeowner association rules or bylaws. I
understand that this document is a public document.
Owner signature: date:
Owner printed name:
or,
Attorney signature: date:
Attorney printed name:
214 Cottonwood Lane Aspen, CO
Jacquelyn Sankowski
August 19, 2020
Jacquelyn Sankowski
jfsankowski@gmail.com 843-384-2943
125
CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
April 2020 City of Aspen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5090
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURE
1. Attend pre-application conference. During this one-on-one meeting, staff will determine the review process
which applies to your development proposal and will identify the materials necessary to review your application.
2. Submit Development Application. Based on your pre-application meeting, you should respond to the
application package and submit the requested number of copies of the complete application and the application
and the appropriate processing fee to the Community Development Department.
3. Determination of Completeness. Within five working days of the date of your submission, staff will review the
application, and will notify you in writing whether the application is complete or if additional materials are
required. Please be aware that the purpose of the completeness review is to determine whether or not the
information you have submitted is adequate to review the request, and not whether the information is sufficient
to obtain approval.
4. Staff Review of Development Application. Once your application is determined to be complete, it will be
reviews by the staff for compliance with the applicable standards of the Code. During the staff review stage, the
application will be referred to other agencies for comments. The Planner assigned to your case or the agency may
contact you if additional information is needed or if problems are identified. A memo will be written by the staff
member for signature by the Community Development Director. The memo will explain whether your application
complies with the Code and will list any conditions which should apply if the application is to be approved.
Final approval of any Development Application which amends a recorded document, such as a plat, agreement or
deed restriction, will require the applicant to prepare an amended version of that document for review and
approval by staff. Staff will provide the applicant with the applicable contents for the revised plat, while the City
Attorney is normally in charge of the form for recorded agreements and deed restrictions. We suggest that you
not go to the trouble or expense of preparing these documents until the staff has determined that your
application is eligible for the requested amendment or exemption.
5. Board Review of Application. If a public hearing is required for the land use action that you are requesting,
then the Planning Staff will schedule a hearing date for the application upon determination that the Application is
complete. The hearing(s) will be scheduled before the appropriate reviewing board(s). The applicant will be
required to nail notice (one copy provided by the Community Development Department) to property owners
within 30 feet of the subject property and post notice (sign available at the Community Development Department)
of the public hearing on the site at least fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing date (please see Attachment 6 for
instructions). The Planning Staff will publish notice of the hearing in the paper for land use requests that require
publication.
The Planning Staff will then formulate a recommendation on the land use request and draft a memo to the
reviewing board(s). Staff will supply the Applicant with a copy of the Planning Staff’s memo approximately 5 days
prior to the hearing. The public hearing(s) will take place before the appropriate review boards. Public Hearings
include a presentation by the Planning Staff, a presentation by the Applicant (optional), consideration of public
comment, and the reviewing board’s questions and decision.
(Continued on next page)
126
CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
April 2020 City of Aspen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5090
6. Issuance of Development Order. If the land use review is approved, then the Planning Staff will issue a
Development Order which allows the Applicant to proceed into Building Permit Application.
7. Receipt of Building Permit. Once you have received a copy of the signed staff approval, you may proceed to
building permit review. During this time, your project will be examined for its compliance with the Uniform
Building Code. It will also be checked for compliance with applicable provisions of the Land Use Regulations which
were not reviewed in detail during the one step review (this might include a check of floor area ratios, setbacks,
parking, open space and the like). Fees for water, sewer, parks and employee housing will be collected if due. Any
document required to be recorded, such as a plat, deed restriction or agreement, will be reviewed and recorded
before a Building Permit is submitted.
127
PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
DATE: August 12, 2020
PLANNER: Garrett Larimer, 319-6950
PROJECT NAME AND ADDRESS: 214 W Cottonwood Ln.- RDS Alternative Compliance
REPRESENTATIVE: Katie Hmielowski, katie@zgrouparchitects.com, Z-Group Architects
DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting a Residential Design Standard variation for a new single family residence
at 214 W Cottonwood Ln. The proposed design requires a variation to four standards, two flexible and two non-
flexible:
- Build-to Requirement (Section 26.410.030.B.3, - Flexible)
- One-Story Element (Section 26.410.030.B.4, - Flexible)
- Garage Placement (Section 26.410.030.C.2 – Non-flexible)
- Entry Connection (Section 26.410.030.D.1 – Non-flexible)
The Residential Design Standards code section provides direction for reviewing variations to the standards
when the proposed design does not meet the standard. Alternative compliance review for standards
identified as non-flexible standards must reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission. All four
standards included in the alternative compliance request will be reviewed and considered by the Planning
and Zoning Commission with a recommendation from Community Development Staff.
This property is located outside the Aspen Infill Area and is zoned R-3 with a Planned Development (PD) overlay.
Per Code Section 26.410.020, there are Flexible Standards and Non-Flexible Standards. If an application is found to
be inconsistent with any of the Flexible Standards, those standards can be reviewed for Alternative Compliance
by the Community Development Director. If an application is found to be inconsistent with any of the Non-Flexible
Standards, those standards must be reviewed for Alternative Compliance by the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
Each of the standards that have been found to not be met will be combined and reviewed by the Planning and
Zoning commission to determine if the design meets the overall intent of the standard as well as the general
intent statements in Section 26.410.010.A.1-3. If the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that a design
alternative is provided that meets the intent statements of that standard and the intent statement for the
residential design standards chapter in general, Alternative Compliance may be granted. The Planning and
Zoning Commission shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny Alternative Compliance.
The Alternative Compliance request will be reviewed considering the following Review Criteria:
Variation Review Standards. An application requesting a variation from the Residential Design Standards shall demonstrate
and the deciding board shall find that the variation, if granted would:
(1) Provide an alternative design approach that meets the overall intent of the standard as indicated in the intent
statement for that standard, as well as the general intent statements in Section 26.410.010(a)(1)—(3); or
(2) Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints.
An initial administrative review of the proposed design has been completed for the other RDS standards. The design
appears to comply with the remaining RDS requirements.
128
Once the application is ready to be submitted, please email the completed application packet to Garrett Larimer at
garrett.larimer@cityofaspen.com. Once the application is deemed complete, we will contact you to provide payment
for the land use application fee.
RELEVANT LAND USE CODE SECTIONS:
26.304 Common Development Review Procedures
26.410 Residential Design Standards
26.410.010.A RDS General Intent Statements
26.410.020 RDS Procedures for Review
26.410.020.D RDS Variation Review Standards
26.410.030.B.3 Build-to Requirement (Flexible)
26.410.030.B.4 One-Story Element (Flexible)
26.410.030.C.2 Garage Placement (Non-Flexible)
26.410.030.D.1 Entry Connection (Non-Flexible)
For your convenience – links to the Land Use Application and Land Use Code are below:
Land Use Application Land Use Code
REVIEW BY: Community Development Staff for complete application and recommendation
Planning and Zoning Commission for decision
PUBLIC HEARING: Yes, with the Planning and Zoning Commission.
PLANNING FEES: $3,250 deposit for 10 hours of staff review time (Additional hours may be billed at
$325/hr.)
REFERRAL FEES: None.
TOTAL DEPOSIT: $3,250
APPLICATION CHECKLIST – These items should be emailed to Garrett.Larimer@cityofaspen.com:
Completed Land Use Application, HOA Compliance Policy, and signed Fee Agreement.
Pre-application Conference Summary (this document).
Applicant’s name, address and telephone number, contained within a letter signed by the applicant stating
the name, address, and telephone number of the representative authorized to action on behalf of the
applicant.
Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting
of a current (no older than 6 months) certificate from a title insurance company, an ownership and
encumbrance report, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all
owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements
affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner’s right to apply for the Development Application.
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 intent statement and review standards associated with the
request.
Completed copy of the Residential Design Standard Checklist:
https://www.cityofaspen.com/DocumentCenter/View/1697
129
Written responses to all applicable review criteria.
If the copy is deemed complete by staff, the following items will then need to be submitted:
Total fee for review of the application.
Depending on further review of the case, additional items may be requested of the application. Once
the application is deemed complete by staff, the applicant/applicant’s representative will receive an e-
mail requesting submission of an electronic copy of the complete application and the deposit. Once
the deposit is received, the case will be assigned to a planner and the land use review will begin.
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.
130
Z-Group Architects, P.C. • 411 East Main Street, Aspen, CO. 81611 • Telephone: 970-925-1832 • Fax: 970-925-1371
August 21, 2020
Amy Simon
City of Aspen Community Development – RDS Alternative Compliance
Re: 214 Cottonwood Lane – Sankowski Residence
Parcel ID 2737-074-90-214
This letter serves as a notice to allow Z-Group Architects to be the representative in all matters dealing
with RDS, Land Use, Building Permits, Applications, Submittals and Approvals with the City of Aspen for
the design located at 214 Cottonwood Lane.
Representatives: Katie Hmielowski and Seth Hmielowski
Address: Z-Group Architects
411 East Main Street
Suite 205
Aspen, CO
81611
Phone: (617) 697.4779
Owner: Jacquelyn Sankowski
Address: 3 Burkes Beach Road
Hilton Head Island, SC
29928
Phone: (843) 384.2943
Sincerely,
Jacquelyn Sankowski
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
Residential Design Standards
Administrative Compliance Review Staff Checklist - Single Family and Duplex
Standard Complies Alternative
Compliance
Does Not
Comply N/A Sheet #(s)/Notes
B.1.Articulation of Building Mass
(Non-flexible)
B.2.Building Orientation
(Flexible)
B.3.Build-to Requirement
(Flexible)
B.4.One Story Element
(Flexible)
C.1.Garage Access
(Non-flexible)
C.2.Garage Placement
(Non-flexible)
C.3.Garage Dimensions
(Flexible)
Disclaimer: This application is only valid for the attached design. If any element of the design subject to Residential Design Standards changes prior to or during building permit review, the
applicant shall be required to apply for a new Administrative Compliance Review.
Address:
Parcel ID:
Zone District/PD:
Representative:
Email:
Phone:
Page 1 of 2
Approved:
(Approved plans/elevations attached)
147
Standard Complies Alternative
Compliance
Doesn’t
Comply N/A Sheet #(s)/Notes
C.4.Garage Door Design
(Flexible)
D.1.Entry Connection
(Non-flexible)
D.2.Door Height
(Flexible)
D.3.Entry Porch
(Flexible)
E.1.Principle Window
(Flexible)
E.2.Window Placement
(Flexible)
E.3.Nonorthogonal Window Limit
(Flexible)
E.4.Lightwell/Stairwell Location
(Flexible)
E.5.Materials
(Flexible)
Residential Design Standards
Administrative Compliance Review Staff Checklist
Disclaimer: This application is only valid for the attached design. If any element of the design subject to Residential Design Standards changes prior to or during building permit review, the
applicant shall be required to apply for a new Administrative Compliance Review.
Page 2 of 2
Approved:
148
Page 1 of 6
RESOLUTION NO. __
(SERIES OF 2020)
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
APPROVING A RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD VARIATION FOR A PROPERTY
LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 214, SMUGGLER PARK SUBDIVISION,
ACCORDING TO THE MAP RECORDED MAY 14, 1987 IN BOOK 19 AT PAGE 61 AND
AS AMENDED JANUARY 7, 1993 IN BOOK 30 AT PAGE 20 AND JANUARY 2, 2001 IN
BOOK 55 AT PAGE 54 . COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO.
Parcel No. 2737-074-90-214
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from
Jacquelyn Sankowski, owner of 214 Cottonwood Lane, Aspen, CO 81611 requesting approval for
a Residential Design Standard Variation for the property at 214 Cottonwood Lane; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department Staff reviewed the application for
compliance with the applicable review standards; and,
WHEREAS, upon review of the application and the applicable Land Use Code standards,
the Community Development Director recommended approval of three of the requested of
Residential Design Standard Variations, and denial of the fourth requested Residential Design
Standard Variation; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and considered
the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein,
reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and took
and considered public comment at a duly noticed public hearing on October 6, 2020; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development
proposal meets the applicable review criteria and that the approval of the request is consistent with
the goals and objectives of the Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution
furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission approves Resolution #__, Series of
2020, by a X to X (X-X) vote, granting approval of the Residential Design Standard Variation as
identified herein.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission:
Section 1: Residential Design Standard Variation
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the
Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves the following requests for variations (Chapter
26.410.020.C, Variations)”
149
Page 2 of 6
A. Build-To Requirement (Section 26.410.030.B.3): for the front most façade of the structure
to be built within thirteen (13) feet of the front yard setback as illustrated in Exhibit A;
B. Garage Placement (Section 26.410.030.C.2):Residential Design Standard variation to
install street-facing garage door between the primary building façade and Cottonwood
Lane.
C. One Story Element (Section 26.410.030.B.4): the proposed garage is used to satisfy the
projecting one-story element requirement. A mono pitched roof over the garage is the
design and the height of the one-story element. The roof is granted a variation to the
maximum height of this feature to allow for the highest point of the roof to measure no
more than 15’, as illustrated in Exhibit A & B.
D. Entry Connection (Section 26.410.030.D.1): and a variation to the Entry Connection
providing a non-street facing front entry with no porch that is up to 43’ from the front most
facade, as shown in Exhibits A & B.
Issuance of this variation does not alter the applicability or intent of the Residential Design
Standards as applied to development activities within the City of Aspen. All other dimensional
standards including height and setbacks shall be met.
Section 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 Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in such site development approvals
and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized
entity.
Section 3:
This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any
action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein
provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 4:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held
invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a
separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions
thereof.
APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on October 6, 2020.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION:
______________________________ ___________________________
James True, City Attorney Spencer McKnight, Chair
150
Page 3 of 6
ATTEST:
____________________________
Cindy Klob, Records Manager
Exhibits:
Exhibit A: Approved Site Plan
Exhibit B: Approved Elevations
151
Page 4 of 6
Exhibit A: Approved Site Plan
152
Page 5 of 6
Exhibit B: Approved Elevations
153
Page 6 of 6
154
Site- VICINITY MAP -Not to Scale2-10"8"10"16"6"5"6"4"4"6"5"5"5"SLOPE TABLEMIN. SLOPEMAX. SLOPECOLORJob No.Drawn by:Date:OfFile:Revision#DateByApproved:Notice:Graphic ScaleIn Feet: 1" = 10'051020ImprovementSurveyPlat2017-209.002JLW08/22/2019SEH214Cottonwood_ISP11214 Cottonwood LaneAspen, CO 816111Change to reflect COA compliant survey 8/08/19118 West Sixth Street, Suite 200Glenwood Springs, CO 81601970.945.1004 www.sgm-inc.com City of Aspen Compliant SurveyLot 2143rd Amended Plat of Smuggler Park SubdivisionSection 7, T. 10 S., R. 84 W. of the 6th P.M.City of Aspen, Pitkin County, ColoradoSCOTT A. HEMMENCOLORADO PLS # 38182FOR, AND ON BEHALF OF SGM2Add note to reflect setack details from SmugglerParkSub web site 12/05/19 sah3Add elevations to all corner monuments 6/26/20 hsJune 30, 3030155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163