HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.202202091
AGENDA
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
February 9, 2022
4:30 PM,
WEBEX MEETING INSTRUCTIONS
WEBEX MEETING INSTRUCTIONS
TO JOIN ONLINE:
Go to www.webex.com and click on "Join a Meeting"
Enter Meeting Number: 2553 501 6504
Enter Password: 81611
Click "Join Meeting"
-- OR --
JOIN BY PHONE
Call: 1-408-418-9388
Enter Meeting Number:2553 501 6504
Enter Password: 81611
I.SITE VISIT
II.ROLL CALL
III.MINUTES
III.A.Draft Minutes - 1/12/2022
minutes.hpc.20220112_DRAFT.docx
IV.PUBLIC COMMENTS
V.COMMISSIONER MEMBER COMMENTS
VI.DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
VII.PROJECT MONITORING
VIII.STAFF COMMENTS
IX.CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT ISSUED
X.CALL UP REPORTS
XI.SUBMIT PUBLIC NOTICE FOR AGENDA ITEMS
1
2
XII.OLD BUSINESS
XIII.NEW BUSINESS
XIII.A.925 King Street - Demolition Review, PUBLIC HEARING
HPC memo 925.pdf
HPC Resolution_925 King.pdf
Exhibit A_Demolition Review.pdf
Exhibit B_Application 925 King Demo.pdf
XIV.ADJOURN
XV.NEXT RESOLUTION NUMBER
TYPICAL PROCEEDING FORMAT FOR ALL PUBLIC HEARINGS
(1 Hour, 10 Minutes for each Major Agenda Item)
1. Declaration of Conflicts of Interest (at beginning of agenda)
2. Presentation of proof of legal notice (at beginning of agenda)
3. Applicant presentation (20 minutes)
4. Board questions and clarifications of applicant (5 minutes)
5. Staff presentation (5 minutes)
6. Board questions and clarifications of staff (5 minutes)
7. Public comments (5 minutes total, or 3 minutes/ person or as determined by the Chair)
8. Close public comment portion of hearing
9. Applicant rebuttal/clarification (5 minutes)
10. Staff rebuttal/clarification (5 minutes)
End of fact finding. Chairperson identifies the issues to be discussed.
11. Deliberation by the commission and findings based on criteria commences. No further
input from applicant or staff unless invited by the Chair. Staff may ask to be recognized if
there is a factual error to be corrected. If the item is to be continued, the Chair may
provide a summary of areas to be restudied at their discretion, but the applicant is not to
re-start discussion of the case or the board’s direction. (20 minutes)
12. Motion
Updated: November 15, 2021
2
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 12, 2022
Chairperson Thompson opened the meeting of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission at 4:30pm.
Commissioners in attendance: Jeffrey Halferty, Jodi Surfas, Kara Thompson, Sheri Sanzone, Peter Fornell
and Roger Moyer.
Staff present:
Amy Simon, Planning Director
Natalie Feinberg Lopez, Historic Preservation Officer
Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner
Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney
Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk
MINUTES: Mr. Fornell motioned to approve the minutes from December 8
th, 2021; Mr. Halferty
seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Sanzone, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Mr.
Halferty, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. Motion passed.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: None.
COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS: None.
DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: Mr. Halferty mentioned that he had leased a carriage house
at 233 W. Bleeker St. Ms. Johnson asked when Mr. Halferty had leased the carriage house. Mr. Halferty
said it was about a year and a half ago. Ms. Johnson then asked if he had any financial interest in the
outcome of this project. Mr. Halferty said no. Ms. Johnson said that it would not be a conflict of interest.
Ms. Sanzone said she had a conflict on the second agenda item (233 W. Bleeker) and that she would
jump off at that point. She said she would come back for Board elections.
PROJECT MONITORING: Ms. Yoon mentioned that she had been sending out a couple project
monitoring requests to commissioners.
Ms. Thompson asked about the Crystal Palace project monitoring that she and Mr. Halferty were on. She
said that they had given them some feedback and was wondering if there had been any response. Ms.
Feinberg Lopez stated that she was handling the west wall aspects of the project and the Ms. Simon was
handling the rest of the project. Ms. Simon said that she had passed the comments on to the applicant
but had not heard back since.
STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Feinberg Lopez asked that if anyone had interest in going to the virtual portion
of the CPI conference on February 9th should let her know.
CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: 205 South Mill St. had a door replaced.
CALL UP REPORTS: None.
SUBMIT PUBLIC NOTICE FOR AGENDA ITEMS: Ms. Johnson said that she reviewed public notice and that
notice was provided per the code.
3
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 12, 2022
OLD BUSINESS: None.
NEW BUSINESS: 410 E. Hyman - Minor Development, Commercial Design Review, PUBLIC HEARING
Applicant Presentation: Ryan Doremus – Thunderbowl Architects
Mr. Doremus said they are representing the owner of the building at 410 E. Hyman and that the building
is in desperate need of repair. The siding hasn’t been replaced in over 30 years and the windows are
failing. Their client is asking for a facelift of the front façade to include exterior finish materials and
replacement of all windows and doors. Based on staff comments no adjustments will be made to the
original proposal. They are looking to use an all-wood material from a company out of Austin TX which is
show in their application. The windows will be a clad exterior window in a black or dark bronze material.
They will be installing a steel awning over the west side of the building to match the east side. All the
existing windows and doors will be staying in their original locations and all the existing façade features
including columns and structural members will stay as is.
Ms. Thompson asked if the columns and beams will be painted a new color. Mr. Doremus said yes, the
color will be adjusted. In the original you can see it is a little lighter. The columns need to be refinished
due to some existing damage. Ms. Thompson asked what product they had in mind for the windows and
doors. Mr. Doremus said they are most likely looking at the Marvin Contemporary Series.
Staff Presentation:Natalie Feinberg Lopez, Historic Preservation Officer
Ms. Feinberg Lopez went over the land use approval requests that are up for review that are a Minor
Development and Commercial Design Review. She then showed a picture of the current conditions.
Then she showed the new rendering including the new siding, windows, doors, and awnings. She then
went over staff recommendations detailing that the new siding be real wood, the windows do not have
any colored glazing or films and that the awning match the awning on the east side of the south
elevation. She said that staff suggests approval with the conditions.
Mr. Fornell commented that the awnings on the new Boogies building are completely level and that
after any rain or snow event they drip for a long time. He asked on this project is there a plan to have a
sidewalk or some type of an entry with a small pitch to help things clear quicker. Mr. Doremus said that
these awnings are more of an open trellis design and will not have snow build up.
Ms. Thompson asked Mr. Doremus if the existing lap siding under the bay window bump outs will be
replaced with tongue and groove or stay as lap siding. Mr. Doremus said that they will go with a tongue
and groove in those areas while using a lap style in the other areas to match the original.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
BOARD DISCUSSION:Ms. Thompson said that she thought the design guidelines have been met and
would like to move this forward. The rest of the commissioners agreed.
MOTION: Ms. Thompson moved to approve the next resolution in the series with conditions. Mr. Moyer
seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Sanzone, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Mr.
Halferty, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. All in favor, motion passes.
4
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 12, 2022
233 W. Bleeker - Conceptual Major Development, Relocation, Setback Variations, and Floor Area
Bonus, PUBLIC HEARING
Ms. Sanzone left the meeting.
Applicant Presentation -Sara Adams – Bendon Adams
Ms. Adams introduced the new owners of the property and the team from Brandon Architects out of
California. She noted the location of the property in the West End and said that most people know it as
the DeWolf house. It is a 9,000 SF lot with two landmarks on it…a main house and a carriage house. She
went over their requests including conceptual HP review, relocation to dig a basement, demolition of
non-historic additions, complete restoration of the two landmarks, an FAR bonus, and a variance for a
historic condition of a bump out that sits within a side yard setback. The relocation is only to dig the
basement and fix some foundation issues and the building will be placed back in its original location. She
said the project is fully compliant with the land use code. The landmark was built about 1887. One of the
owners, Kat, said that she was honored to meet the Nicole and Ivan DeWolf. They have been coming to
Aspen for 30 years and love the West End. They want to continue with preserving the historic structures.
Ms. Adams showed a few pictures of other buildings on the block for context. She showed the original
footprint from the Sanborn maps, the existing footprint and the proposed one. They will be reducing the
site coverage from 40% to 38%. A lot of care was taken to restore all the indents of the historic
footprint. They wanted to focus on keeping the historic buildings in their original locations and focus on
the open space around the landmarks. She then showed the range of setbacks in the neighborhood and
the proposed setbacks for the project (landmark 15’ / connector 37’ 6” / addition 30’ 6”). She talked
about where they placed the connector, pointing out that it will be at the end of an existing wall.
Speaking to the open space, she noted that the landmark carriage house is set back ten feet from the
main house and they are proposing that it will be twenty feet from the one-story garage on the new
addition, which is much shorter in height than the carriage house. She said she focused on the design
guidelines that were in the staff memo (1.1, 1.7, and 10.10) She showed some renderings pointing out
the open space around the buildings and said the connector would be 12’ 10” high. She then went over
design guidelines 10.4 and 10.6 which talk to the relationship of the addition to the landmark. She next
showed a comparison of the square footage, noting the total of the historic to be 2,046 SF and the
addition to be 1.929 SF. She highlighted the gable roof and range of dormers on the landmark which
were used as inspiration for the addition. They are proposing dark metal panel siding on the flat roofed
bump out of the addition as well as wood siding for the primary material of the addition. The windows
will be similar, they are vertically oriented, but the placement is different than the landmark.
Ms. Adams moved into talking about the restoration noting that there is good documentation to guide
this. She showed a photo (circa 1900) that they are using to guide many of the restoration elements. She
showed historic and current pictures of the east elevation pointing out the large additions that are
proposed to be removed. They are removing over 50% of the existing building of non-historic additions.
She then showed pictures of the historic and current carriage house and talked to the restoration that
will occur on it. She then went over the four criteria for the FAR bonus which is the only Historic
Preservation benefit they are requesting. They are asking for the full 500 SF bonus to offset the
extensive restoration. She mentioned the one historic variance that they are asking for which is for a
bump out on the historic landmark that does not meet the setbacks.
5
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 12, 2022
Staff Presentation: Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner
Ms. Yoon started by showing a current picture of the project. She then went over the requests for
approval, including major redevelopment, relocation, setback variation, and Floor Area Bonus. She went
over the 1904 Sanborn map and highlighted the history of open space within the property. She said staff
is always excited when an applicant is excited about the restoration. She then touched on the highlights
of the staff memo. A lot of the project is related to restoration and staff wants the documents and
restoration details are accurate. She mentioned certain features that may need work and referenced the
revised staff responses (exhibit D) that were sent to the board on 1/11/22. She pointed out the
proposed staircase for the restoration of the side porch that needs to be restudied. She said a big bulk of
staff’s comments are related to the site planning of the new addition. Staff is very excited that the
applicant wants to keep the historic structures in their historic locations. She noted the applicants
attempt to set back the new addition from the landmark to help with design guideline 10.10. She then
showed the proposed rendering viewed from Bleeker St., noting the relationship between the two
structures and the ambiguity due to the massing of the addition. She said it was competitive with the
historic resource’s front façade. Design guideline 10.10 was really conceived to create a prominence
with the historic resource and showed other examples of this in the West End. The final result is to have
no competition of the front façade. Staff does not feel that 10.10 was met to its fullest extent and
recommend that the applicant restudy the site placement of the addition to create a strong prominence
with the historic resource. She said the new addition does have many components that distinguish it as
a new design and relate to the historic resource, but as you move to the rear the form changes and
becomes a bit more ambiguous. Staff thinks there is opportunity to create a stronger relationship,
especially because the full 500 SF FAR is being requested. The west side yard setback variation request
of a 2’ reduction is for the historic bay window and is required to keep the historic resource in its
original location. Staff is in support of this variation. The 500 SF FAR bonus is the maximum allowed on
this lot and staff finds the criteria are not met with the proposed design and would like to re-evaluate
the bonus request following restudy of the placement and design. They believe there is ample
opportunity for the applicant to earn the max. bonus. Ms. Yoon then stated that staff’s recommendation
is continuation with the conditions including:
1. A restudy of the site placement of the new addition to better comply with design guidelines 10.4
and 10.10.
2. A restudy of the proposed staircase leading to the screened side porch facing 2
nd street.
3. A restudy of the proposed fenestration of the screened side porch and secondary garage
structure.
4. Provide a more detailed stormwater and drainage plan thar is acceptable to all relevant City
departments.
Ms. Yoon said staff is on support of the relocation request, setback variation request, and that there is
the potential to earn the 500 SF FAR bonus.
Mr. Fornell asked about the difference between the original application and the amended application,
pertaining to the distance from the front lot line to both the historic resource and the new addition. Ms.
Yoon mentioned that there was no change related to the placement. Mr. Fornell asked what was the
difference between the distance from the front lot line to the historic asset and the same distance to the
new addition. He thought there was an amenable difference. Ms. Yoon said that page 60 of the packet
6
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 12, 2022
addressed the distances. She noted that the front of the new addition was setback 16 feet from the
front of the historic resource. She said there is no set distance that is required but is more of a visual
analysis of the historic resource as being the primary mass and façade without competition. Mr. Fornell
asked about the setbacks for the property in the R6 zone. Ms. Thompson said that the setbacks vary
dependent on the lot size. Mr. Fornell then said he noticed that the garage on the new addition was in
the 10ft rear yard setback. Ms. Thompson said the garage features are allowed to have a 5ft setback per
code.
Ms. Thompson asked Ms. Yoon if they needed to memorialize the setbacks for the carriage house. Ms.
Yoon said that since the carriage house is not being lifted or relocated it can maintain the existing
condition. Ms. Thompson said from the plans it looks like the East wall (of the carriage house) is going to
be new and in the setbacks and wondered if that required anything. Ms. Yoon said staff reviewed this
and it can remain is the location.
PUBLIC COMMENT: Ms. Thompson asked if the members had received the letter that Ms. Yoon had sent
out. Everyone said yes.
BOARD DISCUSSION:
Ms. Thompson first addressed the relocation and setback variations review. All members were good
with these.
Ms. Thompson then addressed the major development review and the items under that. First was form
and fenestration. Ms. Thompson sees a clear relationship to form between the two structures and felt
all those items are appropriate.
Mr. Fornell agreed with Ms. Thompson.
Ms. Thompson then referenced the rest of the items, including massing, site location and items Ms.
Yoon had brought up as a concern. She said she has no issues with the site layout, planning and location
of the addition. As far as the massing, she said she would like to see the plate height of the addition
match the historic resource. That would bring it to a point where she would approve the 500 SF bonus.
Ms. Surfas agreed that reducing the massing would help with the concerns with where the new addition
is located.
Mr. Halferty agreed as well.
Mr. Moyer said he was ok with the site plan. He did not support the FAR bonus yet, was concerned with
the loss of the garden and thought there was too much massing on the addition. He said he thought the
new addition was very close, but still too big. If that could be done, they might get the 500 SF FAR
bonus.
Mr. Fornell asked Mr. Moyer if when he said too big, did he mean footprint size or height. Mr. Moyer
said height not footprint.
Ms. Adams asked for clarification on whether they were getting continued. Ms. Thompson summarized
the members comments. She said that they would like to see a reduction of the mass of the primary
gable you see from Bleeker St. and have the volume of the addition not be taller than the volume of the
7
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 12, 2022
historic resource. Ms. Adams asked for clarity that the footprint and location of the addition were ok
and that it was the height of the addition versus the height of the landmark that they need to look at.
That the two heights needed to match. Ms. Thompson said that was correct. Ms. Adams asked if there
could be a condition of approval that the heights match instead of a continuation. Ms. Thompson asked
Ms. Yoon if that would be a possibility. Ms. Yoon said that mass and scale items are usually continued to
make sure they are honed in correctly, but that it would be up to HPC. She said the soonest they could
get this back if it is continued is February 23rd.
Ms. Johnson said that while it is up to the discretion of the board, but she wasn’t sure what implications
the suggested condition would have on the potential FAR bonus.
Ms. Feinberg Lopez said that the moratorium has put a lot of pressure on staff, and they would
appreciate the opportunity and time to work with the design team and clarify some of the items that
have come forward. She agreed that the February 23rd date would be best.
Mr. Fornell asked if they couldn’t just place a condition on the new addition that its plate height is at or
below the plate height of the historic resource. Mr. Halferty thought it was too loose because of how
different roof lines could affect things and that the FAR bonus was tied to this.
MOTION:Ms. Thompson moved to continue this to February 23rd. Mr. Moyer seconded. Roll call vote:
Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. All in favor,
motion passes.
Ms. Thompson commended the applicant on an excellent application.
Mr. Moyer wondered if the board could look back 3 years at projects where a building was moved more
than five feet to then ask themselves if they had done a good job. He thought it would be helpful.
Mr. Fornell agreed with Mr. Moyer and thought it would go towards consistency, so that a higher level
of expectation can be made by the public about what they can or can’t expect for the board.
Ms. Sanzone rejoined the meeting.
Election of Chair and Vice-Chair:Ms. Thompson asked Ms. Johnson how to proceed with the election.
Ms. Johnson went over various options, including a secret ballot or after oral discussion a motion is
made to who they feel should be chair and vice-chair.
Mr. Fornell and Mr. Moyer were happy with the current set up.
Mr. Fornell motioned for Ms. Thompson to remain as chair and Mr. Halferty to remain as vice-chair. Mr.
Moyer seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Sanzone, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Mr.
Halferty, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. All in favor, motion passes.
The board then discussed the open seats for HPC and qualifications for board members.
MOTION: Mr. Fornell motioned to adjourn. Mr. Moyer seconded. All in favor; motion passed.
____________________
Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk
8
Page 1 of 2
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Natalie Feinberg Lopez, Historic Preservation Officer
MEETING DATE: February 9, 2022
RE: 925 King Street – Demolition Review, PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICANT /OWNER:
King Street Com LLC
REPRESENTATIVE:
Sara Adams, BendonAdams
LOCATION:
Street Address:
925 King Street
Legal Description:
Lot 2B of the King Street lot
split approved in 2021City and
Townsite of Aspen, Colorado
Parcel Identification Number:
PID# 2737-074-00-048
CURRENT ZONING & USE
Residential R-15A Zone District
PROPOSED LAND USE:
No change
SUMMARY:
Lot 2B at 925 King Street is Historically Designated and
contains two residential structures, the second is a log structure
proposed to be demolished with no additional development.
Records indicate that the log cabin was relocated to this property
in late 1950s from its original location near Highway #82. A
number of alterations have been made to the log cabin, including
additions to the front and rear of the structure, loss and alteration
of original materials, leading to the loss of character defining
features and historical integrity. Demolition of a structure on a
historically designated lot requires review and approval by the
Historic Preservation Commission.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of
demolition.
925 King Street
9
Page 2 of 2
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
REQUEST OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals:
• 26.415.080 Demolition of Designated Historic Properties or Properties within a Historic District
The HPC shall review the application, the staff report and hear evidence presented by the property
owners, parties of interest and members of the general public to determine if the standards for
demolition approval have been met. Demolition shall be approved if it is demonstrated that the
application meets any one of the following criteria:
a. The property has been determined by the City to be an imminent hazard to public safety and
the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely manner;
b. The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly
maintain the structure;
c. The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen; or
d. No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic, architectural,
archaeological, engineering or cultural significance; and
Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met:
a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or Historic District in which it
is located;
b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the
Historic District or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated
properties; and
c. Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the
area.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Staff has reviewed the project based on the criteria put forth by the Demolition of Designated
Historic Properties. The review criteria and staff recommendations in response to this proposal
are detailed in Exhibit A. Staff finds the current log structure to have significant loss of original
materials, form, and character defining features, such that demolition is a viable option.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC approve demolition.
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution #2, Series of 2022
Exhibit A- Minor Development/Staff Findings
Exhibit B- Application
10
HPC Resolution #11, Series of 2021
Page 1 of 2
RESOLUTION #2
SERIES OF 2022
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
GRANTING MINOR DEVELOPMENT AND COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW
APPROVAL FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 925 KING STREET , LOT 2B OF THE
KING STREET LOT SPLIT APPROVED IN 2021 , CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN,
COLORADO
PARCEL ID:
WHEREAS, the applicant, King Street Com, LLC, represented by Sara Adams of
BendonAdams, has requested Demolition Review for the property located at 925 King Street Lot
2B, King Street lot Split approved in 2021, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and
WHEREAS, the review is subject to the Municipal Code in place at the time of application
completeness on December 8, 2021; and
WHEREAS, HPC held a public hearing on the project on February 9, 2022. HPC considered the
application, the staff memo, and public comments, and found the proposal consistent with the
review standards and granted approval by a vote of 6 to 0.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
Section 1: Demolition Review
HPC hereby approves Demolition as follows:
1. Approval is granted regarding the proposed demolition of the log cabin .
No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary
to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be
published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the
City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific
development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice
shall be substantially in the following form:
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development
plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years,
pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado
Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 316 E. Hopkins Avenue.
Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews
and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances
or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with
this approval.
11
HPC Resolution #11, Series of 2021
Page 2 of 2
The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial
review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin
to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required
under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the
Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter.
Section 2: Material Representations
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the
development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation
presented before the Community Development Department, the Historic Preservation
Commission, or the Aspen City Council are hereby incorporated in such plan development
approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by
other specific conditions or an authorized authority.
Section 3: Existing Litigation
This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of
any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended
as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 4: Severability
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be
deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions thereof.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 28th day of July 2021.
Approved as to Form: Approved as to Content:
_________________________________ ________________________________
Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Kara Thompson, Chair
ATTEST:
_______________________
Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk
12
Page 1 of 2
Exhibit A
Demolition Review
Staff Findings
• 26.415.080 Demolition of Designated Historic Properties or Properties within a Historic District
The HPC shall review the application, the staff report and hear evidence presented by the property
owners, parties of interest and members of the general public to determine if the standards for
demolition approval have been met. Demolition shall be approved if it is demonstrated that the
application meets any one of the following criteria:
a. The property has been determined by the City to be an imminent hazard to public safety and
the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely manner;
b. The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly
maintain the structure;
c. The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen; or
d. No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic, architectural,
archaeological, engineering or cultural significance; and
Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met:
a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or Historic District in which it
is located;
b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the
Historic District or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated
properties; and
c. Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the area.
Staff Finding: The proposed demolition of the log cabin complies with the following criteria:
“d. No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic, architectural,
archaeological, engineering or cultural significance”
All aspects of the historic significance have been lost due to alterations in the form, function,
location, and material degradation.
“a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or Historic District in which it is
located;”
Due to the changes in the form and function, the structure no longer contributes to the historic
parcel where it is located.
“b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the Historic
District or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated properties”
13
Page 2 of 2
The structure does not now nor previously contribute to the historic designation to the
adjacent properties or structures, as when it was moved from its original location its historic
significance was lost.
“c .Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the area”
The structure does not contribute to the historic preservation needs of the area, as all the materials
found were significantly altered and/or deteriorated.
14
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
October 25, 2021
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: 925 King Street - Demolition Application
Dear Community Development and Historic Preservation Commission,
Please accept this application to demolish the cabin located on the recently created historic parcel,
Lot 2B of the King Street Lot Split approved in 2021. The property is located outside the Aspen infill
area and within the R-15A Zone District. The 925 King Street property was added to the Aspen
Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures in 1995 during a large survey and designation
initiative in the City.
There are two primary buildings on the 925
King property – a 19th century miner’s cabin
and a log cabin. City inventory forms from
1980, 1991, and 2000 describe the 19th
century miner’s cabin as the reason for historic
designation (Exhibit D). There is no mention of
the log cabin on any of the inventory forms.
The first mention of the log cabin is in a
notarized letter about the history of the
property from Hans Graminger, dated October
1995 (Exhibit C). Graminger provides a
detailed account of the location of the cabin:
first on Highway 82 “Stillwater East of Aspen”,
then moved to 911 Waters Avenue in 1957,
and finally moved again in 1965/66 to 925 King
Street. These clues were used to piece
together the history of the cabin.
Old newspapers and the Aspen Historical Society archives support the hypothesis that the cabin
was likely part of the Sparovic Ranch (aka Sparky’s Cabins and Trailer Court) near Stillwater.
Sparky’s Cabins and Trailer Court were tourist accommodations run by Frank and Christine Sparovic
from 1946 - 1957. An advertisement in the local paper lists cabins for sale. The age of the cabins
in unknown - the logs do not show signs of being hand felled, but rather look uniform and
manufactured.
Figure 1: Front of log cabin at King Street.
15
Page 2 of 7
A 1945 photograph in the Aspen Historical Society archives potentially shows the appearance of
the log cabin on the riverbank behind some curlers. The cabin at 925 King is likely the cabin on the
left in the middle of the photograph based on general door and window locations.
Figure 3: Aspen Historical Society photograph of Sparky’s Cabins, dated 1945.
Figure 2: May 16, 1957 Aspen Times Classified Ads listing cabins to be moved from
Sparky’s Trailer Court.
16
Page 3 of 7
Graminger also outlines the
improvements he made when the
cabin was located on Waters
Avenue, including restoring the floor
of the cabin which had “fallen out
during the moving operation”,
installing new electric and plumbing,
and “installing new roofing ”. This
implies that the cabin was likely
moved in one piece from Sparky’s to
Waters Avenue, which accounts for
the floor falling out.
According to a 1958 deed (reception
#107275), George Vagneur
purchased 911 Waters Avenue in
1958 from Hans Graminger.
Graminger notes that Vagneur “sold”
the cabin in 1959 to Louis and
Minnie Lee Sparovic, who moved it
to King Street.
The City’s designation files contain a notarized letter from Minnie and Louis Sparovic, who moved
the cabin from Waters Avenue to King Street before selling the property to Ernst Kappelli. The
Sparovic letter reiterates that the cabin was moved to the King Street property but in 1965 or 1966.
Based on these important letters it is clear that
the cabin is not in its original location. The
condition of the cabin shows damage from two
relocations before the City had any oversight
on relocating building without permanently
altering building material. The physical
damage to the logs, haphazard reconstruction
techniques, rebuilding the roof system, and
the logistics of moving the cabin from Waters
Avenue across the Roaring Fork River and up
Neale Street in the 1950s or 1960s leads to the
conclusion that the cabin was likely dismantled
when it was moved to King Street and then
rebuilt onsite.
The exterior T1-11 siding and interior dry wall
has been removed in an attempt to reveal any
indication of original openings or appearance (unfortunately this was unsuccessful). The assumed
“rear” gable of the cabin (facing south) is completely missing. Existing windows and doors are cut
into the logs, making it impossible to understand original openings. Numerous vertical seams are
Figure 4: Detail of AHS photograph in Figure 3.
Figure 5: East elevation showing corner condition.
17
Page 4 of 7
cut through the character-defining horizontal logs. An enclosed front porch is located on the
assumed front of the cabin (facing north toward King Street). If the historic photograph is in fact
the subject cabin, the cabin was at one point in time located on a slope with an open front porch
typical to tourist accommodations at the time. The building now sits on a flat site below the street
with no ability to restore the open front porch detail shown in the historic photograph.
Logs have been cut vertically on the
exterior and horizontally planed on the
interior – these alterations likely
occurred when the cabin was rebuilt
onto the King Street site. Based on the
seams, crude window openings, and
new framing in the roof structure, we
hypothesize that the cabin was
dismantled and then rebuilt at King
Street rather than relocated whole.
Many of the alterations are irreversible
and permanently damage character-
defining features.
As a landmark property, all structures on
the property are under the purview of
HPC. The log cabin was originally
requested to be demolished as part of
the lot split application in 2020/2021. Planning Staff recommended and we agreed to pull the log
cabin out of the demolition discussion to allow more time for exploratory interior demolition and
background research. Unfortunately, we have found limited documentation on the cabin and close
inspection of the cabin (with T1-11 siding removed) shows less integrity than originally expected.
The context of the cabin is severely compromised in its location on King Street and the relationship
between the 19th century miner’s cabin and the circa 1940s tourist cabin (based on the photo in
Figure 3) confuses two completely different periods of significance.
There are questions about whether this cabin qualifies as AspenModern or AspenVictorian, so we
have scored the cabin under both programs. Both scores – 26 points under AspenVictorian (50
points are required for designation) and 16 points under AspenModern (75 points are required for
designation) – are well below the threshold for designation.
Figure 6: West elevation after removal of vertical T1-11 siding.
18
Page 5 of 7
The cabin does not contain notched corners, hewn logs, rough milled, or round logs indicative of
pioneer log cabins in Colorado; rather the logs seem uniform and manufactured - but this is not a
pan abode cabin. Rustic style cabins were built in Aspen starting in the 1930s for use as tourist
accommodations and residences – the log cabin at 925 King seems to fit within this time period
more so than 19th century log cabins. According to History Colorado, “Rustic style architecture is
characterized by its natural setting and its use of log and stone for building materials…Rustic cabins
generally have stone chimneys… [and] have more commercially manufactured hardware and
materials.”
The style of cabin at King Street is
similar to the Waterman Cabins (circa
1946 AHS photograph at right) located
at the corner of Seventh and West
Hallam; however the lack of integrity
and limited documentation of the
original appearance of the King Street
cabin means that any preservation
approach would have to be mainly a
reconstruction, with some aspects of
restoration. According to the definitions
in the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties:
Preservation focuses on the maintenance and repair of existing historic materials and
retention of a property's form as it has evolved over time.
Rehabilitation acknowledges the need to alter or add to a historic property to meet
continuing or changing uses while retaining the property's historic character.
Restoration depicts a property at a particular period of time in its history, while removing
evidence of other periods.
Reconstruction re-creates vanished or non-surviving portions of a property for interpretive
purposes.
Reconstruction is the last resort for a historic preservation project – recreating history can
compromise an entire historic preservation program and needs to be sensitively and carefully
addressed. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards provides guidance for a project considering
reconstruction:
1) When a contemporary depiction is required to understand and interpret a property's
historic value (including the re-creation of missing components in a historic district or site);
2) When no other property with the same associative value has survived;
3) When sufficient historical documentation exists to ensure an accurate reproduction,
Reconstruction may be considered as a treatment.
Figure 7: Aspen Historical Society photograph of Castle Creek Cabins (aka
Waterman Cabins), dated 1946.
19
Page 6 of 7
There are other mining era cabins accurately restored at Holden Marolt and throughout town that
convey the importance of this building type to Aspen’s history. Rustic style cabins under the
AspenModern program are accurately preserved throughout town - 300 West Main Street and 308
Park Avenue are two examples. Reconstruction of the King Street cabin does not align with the
adopted purpose and intent of the historic preservation program (below and emphasized in bold)
and could negatively impact the historic preservation program.
(a) Recognize, protect and promote the retention and continued utility of the historic
buildings and districts in the City;
(b) Promote awareness and appreciation of Aspen's unique heritage;
(c) Ensure the preservation of Aspen's character as an historic mining town, early ski
resort and cultural center;
(d) Retain the historic, architectural and cultural resource attractions that support
tourism and the economic welfare of the community; and
(e) Encourage sustainable reuse of historic structures.
(f) Encourage voluntary efforts to increase public information, interaction or access to
historic building interiors.
The City does not intend by the historic preservation program to preserve every old
building, but instead to draw a reasonable balance between private property rights and
the public interest in preserving the City's cultural, historic, and architectural heritage.
This should be accomplished by ensuring that demolition of buildings and structures
important to that heritage are carefully weighed with other alternatives.
The purpose and intent of the historic preservation program seeks to protect the City’s important
buildings that convey Aspen’s history for everyone to experience. As stated above (in bold)
demolition should be weighed against all other alternatives – the only option for the King Street
cabin is reconstruction and replacement of most, if not all, exterior materials based on a 1945
photograph and similar buildings from the Rustic style. Guessing at history when there are other
excellent examples of log cabins conflicts with Aspen’s historic preservation purpose and intent as
well as the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Historic Properties. All of these reasons have
led us to request demolition approval for the cabin.
It is never easy to decide when a building is compromised enough to approve demolition; however,
demolition needs to be weighed against the appropriateness of reconstruction. The log cabin does
not provide many answers as to its original appearance – we know it had a rectangular footprint
with a gable roof. Windows were wood and likely small. We do not know original opening locations,
there are major irreparable seams that could be filled but will always be visible, and characteristic
crossed log cabin corners are completely cut off. The reconstruction of this building could be based
on similar buildings of the time period or the AHS photograph we found; however, it would be an
20
Page 7 of 7
educated guess and could negatively impact the integrity of the historic preservation program by
recreating history.
Kind Regards,
Sara Adams, AICP
BendonAdams, LLC
Attachments:
A – Demolition review criteria
B – Integrity Score Sheets
B.1 19th Century Miner’s Cottage (AspenVictorian)
B.2 Rustic Style Log Cabin (AspenModern)
C - 1995 Letters
D – City of Aspen Historic Inventory Forms (1980, 1991, 2000)
E – Existing conditions
F - Land Use Application
G – Pre-application Summary
H – Proof of ownership
I - Authorization to represent
J – HOA Form
K – Agreement to Pay
L – Vicinity Map
M – Mailing List
N - Survey
21
Exhibit A
Demolition Review Criteria
Exhibit A – Demolition
Sec. 26.415.080. - Demolition of designated historic properties or properties within a historic district.
It is the intent of this Chapter to preserve the historic and architectural resources that have demonstrated
significance to the community. Consequently no demolition of properties designated on the Aspen
Inventory of Historic Landmark Site and Structures or properties within a Historic District will be allowed
unless approved by the HPC in accordance with the standards set forth in this Section.
(4) The HPC shall review the application, the staff report and hear evidence presented by the
property owners, parties of interest and members of the general public to determine if the
standards for demolition approval have been met. Demolition shall be approved if it is
demonstrated that the application meets any one of the following criteria:
a. The property has been determined by the City to be an imminent hazard to public safety
and the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely manner;
b. The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly
maintain the structure;
c. The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen; or
d. No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic,
architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance; and
Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met:
a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or Historic District in which
it is located;
b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the
Historic District or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated
properties; and
c. Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the
area.
Response: Criteria 4.d is met - existing documentation does not demonstrate the historic importance of this
structure. There is one 1945 historic photograph from its location on Highway 82, but it is not certain that
this was the original location. Physical inspection of the logs does not reveal original opening sizes or
locations. The logs have been cut multiple times and the entire roof has been reframed. The original age
of the cabin is unknown, so City staff requested responses to both the 19th century miner’s cottage integrity
score sheet and the Rustic style integrity score sheet (Exhibits B.1 and B.2). The cabin scores extremely low
on both styles- 26 points (out of 120) for the 19th century cabin and 16 points (out of 100) for the Rustic style
cabin.
This log cabin has been relocated at least twice. The current context and setting are inappropriate in
comparison to the 1945 photograph and compromises the context of the adjacent 19th century miner’s cabin
on the property. The cabin does not contribute to the 925 King Street parcel, which contains a 19th century
miner’s cabin with clapboard siding and open front porch. The close proximity of the two buildings creates
a faux context that is not original to the miner’s cabin or the cabin with an unknown date (likely 1920s or
1930s) based on construction technique. The loss of the log cabin does not adversely impact the integrity
of the miner’s cabin. Removal of the cabin preserves the site context around the 19th century miner’s cabin.
22
Exhibit A
Demolition Review Criteria
An accurate reconstruction that depicts the log cabin as it originally appeared, or even close to its original
appearance, would recreate history. Faking history erodes the integrity of the historic preservation program
and is in direct conflict with the purpose and intent of the historic preservation program. It is better to “lose”
an old building, than to create a faux impression of history that confuses the public. Demolition of the log
cabin is inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the neighborhood - the cabin is not original to
this neighborhood and creates a false sense of place.
Figure 1: West Elevation
Figure 2: North Elevation
23
Exhibit A
Demolition Review Criteria
Figure 3: East Elevation
Figure 4: South Elevation
24
1
INTEGRITY ASSESSMENT- 19TH CENTURY MINER’S COTTAGE
Integrity is the ability of a property to convey its significance.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
LOCATION Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or
the place where the historic event occurred.
5- The structure is in its original location.
4- The structure has been moved within the original site but still maintains the
original alignment and proximity to the street.
3- The structure has been moved to another site, still within the historic Aspen
townsite.
0- The structure has been moved to a location which is dissimilar to the original
site.
TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 5) =
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
DESIGN Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space,
structure, and style of a property.
BUILDING FORM
10- The original plan form, based on Sanborne maps or other authenticating
documentation, is unaltered and there are no recent additions.
8- The structure has been expanded but the original plan form is intact and the
addition(s) would meet the design guidelines.
6- The plan form has been more altered, but the addition would meet the design
guidelines.
4- The structure has been expanded in a less desirable manner, but if the
addition were removed, at least 50% of the building’s original walls would
remain.
2- The structure has been expanded and the addition overwhelms the original
structure , destroying more than 50% of the building’s original walls.
0- Two historic structures have been linked together and the original
character of the individual structures is significantly affected.
ROOF FORM
10- The original roof form and the original porch roof, if one existed, are unaltered.
8- The original main roof is intact but the porch roof, if one existed, has been
altered.
6- Dormers have been added to the structure or additions have been made that
alter the roof form, but the changes would meet the design guidelines.
25
2
2- Alterations to the roof have been made in a less sensitive manner, not in
conformance with the design guidelines.
0- Less than 50% of the original roof form remains.
SCALE
5- The original one story scale of the building, and its character as a small cottage
is intact.
4- The building has been expanded, but the ability to perceive the original size of
the 3 or 4 room home, is preserved.
3- The building has been expanded and the scale of the original portion is
discernable.
0- The scale of the building has been negatively affected by a large addition,
whose features do not reflect the scale or proportions of the historic structure.
FRONT PORCH
10- The front porch is not enclosed and original decorative woodwork remains, or if
there was no porch historically, none has been added.
8- The front porch is enclosed but maintains an open character and some original
materials.
6- The front porch is not original, but has been built in an accurate manner, per
the design guidelines.
2- The front porch has been enclosed and most original materials are gone.
0- The front porch is completely gone or replaced with a porch which would not
meet the design guidelines.
DOORS AND WINDOWS
10- The typical door and window pattern on the original house is intact- two doors
off the front porch, large double hung windows in gable ends, and tall, narrow
double hung windows placed “sparsely” on building walls.
8- Less than 50% of the door and window openings on the original building are
new and the original door and window openings are intact.
2- More than 50% of the door and window openings on the original building are
new and/or some of the original opening sizes have been altered.
0- Most or all of the original door and window openings have been altered.
SIMPLICITY OF DESIGN
5- The overall sense of “modesty” in design and detailing on the original structure
is intact.
0- New, non-historic trim and other decoration have been added to the building
and have altered its character.
26
3
TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 50) =
SETTING Setting is the physical environment of a historic property.
PROXIMITY TO SIMILAR STRUCTURES
5- The structure is one of a set (at least three) of buildings from the same period
in the immediate area.
3- The building is part of a neighborhood that has numerous remaining buildings
from the same period.
0- The building is an isolated example from the period.
HISTORIC LANDSCAPE FEATURES
5- A number of elements of the original landscape are in place, including historic
fences, walkways, plant materials and trees, and ditches.
3- Few or no elements of the original landscape are present, but the current
landscape supports the historic character of the home.
0- The current landscape significantly obscures views of the structure.
TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 10) =
MATERIALS Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited
during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to
form a historic property.
EXTERIOR WOODWORK
10- Most of the original woodwork, including clapboard siding, decorative shingles
in gable ends, trim, fascia boards, etc. remain.
6- Original siding has been replaced, but trim and other elements remain.
6- Original siding is intact but trim or other elements have been replaced.
0- All exterior materials have been removed and replaced.
DOORS AND WINDOWS
10- All or most of the original door and window units are intact.
8- Some window and door units have been replaced, but with generally accurate
reconstructions of the originals.
6- Most of the original windows have been replaced, but with generally accurate
reconstructions of the originals.
27
4
0- Windows and/or doors units have been replaced with inappropriate patterns
or styles.
TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 20) =
WORKMANSHIP Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a
particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory.
DETAILING AND ORNAMENTATION
5- The original detailing is intact.
3- Detailing is discernible such that it contributes to an understanding of its
stylistic category.
0- New detailing has been added that confuses the character of the original
structure.
0- The detailing is gone.
FINISHES
5- All exterior woodwork is painted and masonry unpainted.
4- All exterior woodwork is painted and masonry is painted.
3- Wood surfaces are stained or modern in appearance but masonry is
unpainted.
2- Wood surfaces are stained or modern in appearance and the masonry is
painted.
TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 10) =
ASSOCIATION Association is the direct link between an important historic event
or person and a historic property.
5- The property would be generally recognizable to a person who lived in Aspen
in the 19th century.
TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 5) =
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
28
5
BONUS POINTS
UNIQUE EXAMPLE
5- The design of the building is unique or one of a small group among the miner’s
cottages. (i.e.It has Italianate or Second Empire detailing.)
OUTBUILDINGS
5- There are outbuildings on the property that were built during the same period
as the house.
MASONRY
5- Original brick chimneys and/or a stone foundation remains.
PATINA/CHARACTER
5- The materials have been allowed to acquire the character of age and are
obviously weathered.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF POINTS= 100 (and up to 20 bonus points)
MINIMUM THRESHOLD FOR DESIGNATION= 50 POINTS
Note: Each area of the integrity analysis includes a description of the
circumstances that might be found and a point assignment. However the reviewer
may choose another number within the point range to more accurately reflect the
specific property.
29
INTEGRITY ASSESSMENT- RUSTIC
Integrity is the ability of a property to convey its significance.
________________________________________________________________________
• LOCATION Location is the place where the historic property was constructed
or the place where the historic event occurred.
5 - The structure is in its original location.
3 - The structure has been moved within the original site but still maintains
the original alignment and proximity to the street.
0 -The structure has been moved to a location that is dissimilar to its original
site.
TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 5) 0 points
The structure has been moved twice and the current location on King Street is
dissimilar to its original site. A 1945 photograph shows the cabin on Highway
82 near Stillwater, located on a slope above the Roaring Fork River. The
current flat lot within a residential neighborhood does not reflect the 1945
photograph which may or may not be its original location.
_______________________________________________________________
• DESIGN Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan,
space, structure, and style of a property.
BUILDING FORM
10 -The original plan form, based on authenticating documentation, is still
intact.
6 - The plan form has been altered, but the addition would meet the design
guidelines.
0 - Alterations and/or additions to the building are such that the original form
of the structure is obscured.
3 - The rectangular form is evident; however the additions at the front, sides
and rear do not meet the design guidelines.
ROOF FORM
10 -The original roof form is unaltered.
6 - Additions have been made that alter roof form that would meet the
current design guidelines.
0 -Alterations to the roof have been made that obscure its original form.
3 – The roof has been reconstructed based on framing but the gable roof form
is intact.
30
SCALE
5 - The original scale and proportions of the building are intact.
3 - The building has been expanded but the scale of the original portion is
intact and the addition would meet the design guidelines.
0 - The scale of the building has been negatively affected by additions or
alterations.
2 – The cabin has been expanded at both gable ends and along side
elevations. The one story scale of the cabin is intact, but the alterations do
not meet the design guidelines.
DOORS AND WINDOWS
10- The original door and window pattern are intact.
8- Some of the doors and windows are new but the original openings are
intact.
4- More than 50% of the doors or windows have been added and/or the
original opening sizes have been altered.
0- Most of the original door and window openings have been altered.
0 – All original windows and door openings have been altered.
CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES/SPARE QUALITY OF THE
DESIGN
10- The form and features that define the Rustic style are intact. There is an
overall sense of simplicity. Window and door openings and decorative
features are spare.
5- There are minor alterations to the form and features that define the Rustic
style.
0- There have been major alterations to the form and features that define the
Rustic style.
1 - Character defining features of the Rustic style are heavily altered and
almost unrecognizable to the Rustic Style. For example, corner logs do not
overlap, chinking is inappropriately applied, vertical seams cut through
horizontal logs, the entire building is painted, and additions obscure the
gable ends.
TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 45) = 9 points
• SETTING Setting is the physical environment of a historic property.
5- The physical surroundings are similar to that found when the structure was
originally constructed.
3-There are minor modifications to the physical surroundings.
0- The physical surroundings detract from the historic character of the building.
31
TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 5) = 0 points.
The log cabin is located next to a 19th century miner’s cabin, below street level.
The setting in a residential neighborhood does not convey the use of this cabin as
tourist accommodations overlooking the Roaring Fork Rivers as evident in the
1945 Historical Society photograph.
• MATERIALS Materials are the physical elements that were combined or
deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or
configuration to form a historic property.
EXTERIOR SURFACES
15- The original exterior wall materials (log, wood siding, and stone) and the
decorative trim materials are intact
10- There have been minor changes to the original combination of exterior
wall materials and the decorative trim materials, but the changes have
been made in a manner that conforms with the design guidelines.
5- There have been major changes to the original combination of exterior
wall materials and the decorative trim materials.
0- All exterior materials have been removed or replaced.
5 - There are major changes and alterations to the original exterior materials
that are irreparable – vertical cuts through the logs, removal of
overlapping logs at the corner, and major additions to both gable ends.
DOORS AND WINDOWS
10-All or most of the original doors and windows units are intact.
5- Some of the original door and window units have been replaced but the
new units would meet the design guidelines.
0- Most of the original door and window units have been replaced with units
that would not meet design guidelines.
0 – Most of the original windows have been replaced with units that would
not mee the design guidelines – for example, there is a bay window cut
into the west elevation. Original doors have been replaced and original
door openings are unknown.
TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 25) = 5 points
________________________________________________________________________
• WORKMANSHIP Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a
particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory.
32
DETAILING AND ORNAMENTATION/HAND-BUILT CHARACTER OR
IMITATION OF HAND-BUILT CHARACTER
15- The original detailing is intact. The building is built from locally available
materials and exhibits evidence of handwork, or is attempting to do so if mass
produced.
10- There have been some alterations of loss of the original detailing or
handwork character.
5- Detailing is discernible such that it contributes to an understanding of its
stylistic category.
0- New detailing has been added that confuses the character of the original
structure.
0- The detailing is gone.
0 - There is no details, hand built character or ornament on the log cabin.
FINISHES & COLOR SCHEME
5- The natural finishes and color scheme that define the Rustic style are
intact
3- There have been minor alterations to the natural finishes and color scheme
that define the Rustic style.
2- There have been substantial alterations to the natural finishes and color
scheme that define the Rustic style.
2 – The logs are painted grey which does not relate to the Rustic style of
architecture.
TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 20) 2 points
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF POINTS= 100
MINIMUM THRESHOLD FOR DESIGNATION= 75 POINTS
16 points in total which does not qualify for designation.
Note: Each area of the integrity analysis includes a description of the circumstances
that might be found and a point assignment. However the reviewer may choose
another number within the point range to more accurately reflect the specific
property.
33
It should be noted that SectionT-7o9 of the Aspen Municipal Code, "Establishment of
inventory of historic sites and structures," says, "It is not the intention of the HPC to
include insigniftcant structures or sites," "HPC will focus on those which are unique or
have some special value. . . " and the list includes all structures over 50 years of age
" and which have historic value. "
The data form for 925 KingStreet describes the building as being of "questionable datel
period" and having "little historical significance." That sounds like the definition of an
;,insignificant structure" that, according to code, should not be on the HPC inventory.
935 King Street, according to its data form, says, "The significance of this residential
structure is not of those who owned it or lived in it, nor of its architecture, although this
structure is representative of Aspen's Mining Era. This structure is of historical impor-
tance by illustrating the family/home environment and lifestyle of the average citizen in
Aspen which was then dominated by the silver mining industry."
This does not sound like the definition of a structure which is "unique" or has "some
special value" if the architecture nor anything else about it is significant nor unique. Part
og *rr building may be over 50 years of age, but the historical information on the data
form seems to admit there is little, if any, historical value'
The municipal code also says structures would be evaluated "by the HPC as to their
current architectural integnty, historic significance and community and neighborhood
influence . . ." Again, thcdata form admits there is no significance in the architecture and
what the data form says makes it important cannot be considered according to the
municpal code. Its significance as being "illustrative" or "representative of a lifestyle" is
not a consideration under municipal code. As it is not architecturally significant nor
historically significant nor of any influence to the community, it, too, should not be on the
HPC list.
/4,, a-,.- L Ln- Svantvrc'
Br{ fitt ZZ c4o;) z 7A -1O (3 4
Ail/l,rf , ,{'{T 5?/05
34
BARN (Laundry room and storage)
Part of the tool room of the old sawmill in Lenado and part cabin that was
sitting below the #1 lift of Aspen Mountain.
Junior Flogus, former owner of the sawmill, still lives in the area.
Calvin, backhoe operator for Gerbaz, backed it in for me on one of their
flatbed ffailers. The barn is still sitting on the beams on which I raised it
and moved it.
Fothergill was living in Isaac's house when I moved it in, and Isaac was
living there when I put the roof on a few years later.
The south and north walls were out. I covered the north wall with metal
and the south with a salvaged window, wood, and metal door.
LITTLE SHED
Was part chicken coop and coal storage for the Sparovic house.
935 KING STREET
No question about it, part of it was here in the last century. A Victorian it
isn'iinspite of I turned posts that partly hold up the porch. It doesn't have
wooden siding-it is metal siding and has been ever since I remember
(over 30 years).
The back part was open porch at one time, later closed in for bathroom
and storage setup. The kitchen part of the house was also added on in later
years as well as the front porch to original two-room cabin'
The light casement windows in back (south) I salvaged from around town
and put them in for a double up of what was there. (We couldn't afford to
buy new stuff, believe me, otherwise that house wouldn't be there as is for
many years.)
If I ever can afford to build, I don't want to live in old trash. I'm tired of it
for too many years. It will be modern-period. It doesn't show how
people usedtolive, it's an example of how poor folks have to live in this
town.
By the way, my mother was born in the last century and is still walking the
streets of Aspen. Nobody seems to want to consider her historic
35
To Whom It May Concern:
We, Louis and Minnie Sparovic, sold the property containing the cabin now
known as9?5 King Street. The cabin was moved onto the propefby us in the year
1965 or L966.At the time of sale, the cabin was sitting on a foundation of rocks on the
south side and logs on the north side. The other structures erected by * in the mid-
sixties were 905 King Street and 932 Queen Street which were included in the sale to
Ernst Kappeli in the fall of L967.
I
Dated / h Lsss.
Notary
IWIABY Pt BLIC &r tt. Etatc oftffi
Besidiry at Bllhg,,WU,
36
To Whom It May Concern:
We, Louis and Minnie Sparovic, sold the property containing the house now
known as 935 King Street. This house, the Sparovic residence, was altered and changed
over the years and added on to. The metal siding was installed in the mid'sixties before
the sale to Emst Kappeli nL967. The only structure on that property before the mid-
sixties in addition to the 935 King Street residence, was one old small chicken cooP
along the east property line. The other structures erected by us in the mid-sixties were
905 King Street andgS2Queen Street which were included in the sale to Ernst Kappeli
in the fall of L967.
I
Dated tflo ,-h /C, Lsss.
\
O2-?4t9,
Sparovic
usJl* &-Notary l/
$OIARYPUBIXC tuOD Etato of MonEr
Beddbg &Bufu5lrf,q.gl',
37
.ilJ.i r, '
STATE OF COI,ORADO
COUNTY OF FITKIN
upon
:..'
AFFIDAVIT))ss
)
1.
2.
IIANS R, GRAIIIGER, of lawful fl9€r being firEt duly sworn' .
oath dePosee and EaYE that :
I regide at ?6? WeEt Hopkins Avenue adjacent to the
cttyandTowngiteofAe-penandthq!_mymailingaddressi;-i,olsoi # 67, AEpen, cororado. 81612-0o57i
x first moved to Aspen in the year of Lg57 and on 'septetnber
Z3rdn 1gS7, i p"""r.iEea roii n- ana I ' in Block !20 , 1n and
to the cttv ""[ r"i*ii[" of Aspent-lg evidenced fY-the re-
;d;d ;;;a iii-eooi Lsl, ar_pale ??9, neception * 105637'
recorded on October 3f tgit, Ln the'recorfis for PitkLn
CountYr Coloradoi
r,purchasedanold-rggcabininoctober.orNovemberof
L957 from rr"r*-ina-if,ri"itne sparovicr $tltl.water Eaet
"i-espen on nigtrii + 8? and moved it to the lots on
Wateri Avenqe i.in Aspen;
r .reetored the floor of the. cabin ylriqtt.had fallen out
during the m'o'iri6-.ngiltl;;, insdal_led electrlc service
and plurnb.fng-and-initattea it** roofing consistLng of
iipr,lri- shiigleg;
on october 21, 1958r r.sold the above referred propeqty
inctuding tfrE'fog-c;bil to George Vagneur as per deed
recorded, on tlot"f,u"r L7, igser- it go6k 186r at-Page 56'
i;;6ti""-* lotiis,- of itre pitkin cor:nty Records;
3.
'4.
5.
6.Ito the best of ny recoltect'ion ltr'
ueri"g of 1959, sold the log cabin
iiorn fh" p"operty to tttake room for
George Vagneur in thein oider I'o be removed
a spec-home;
The log cabin was bought by-Louie end Minnie Lee (nspankyn)
;;;;;i"-r"fro r"rra it-to iiS-ffng qtreet, AsPen, Colorado',lt
8.ieii=ii'"E*i[tI"t (srnati ]and ti1'ga. Titp?lil-YlE^: ::flT:"tI hane been. contacted by the present owners/occupants of
i3:alliifr";;-H; irrlJ""r"gi;"r historl- of this los cabin
r-- i- -€ &ha#" fi lJ*#e-nil-6ilril1:ti -*"
TYY : "il:"::l v-. !?,, o f ^ :l:;;i;i;; frrat thiE los'cabin ,s
Aspen rColorado
Octobar .3lr 1995'
IBSD AND SNPRN TO BE 'ORE
Commiselon exPiresl
:'
azizl 965T/TAlTT
l-***1h
TB IgVd
My
VSN03 NSdSV H39IhIVH9
ME
LgZL946EL6
38
COTORADC CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY -Preservation 0fflee,
INVENTORY RECORD
1300 Broadway, Denver, CO 80203
2)renp. No. J9l--
N"*.ASPEN, INVENTORY 0 ES/
STRUCTURESHist./Arehit. Dtstrict .
II4PORTANT: CO}IPLETE THIS S}{EET FOR EACTI
RESOURCE PLUS EITIIER AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL OR
HI STORICAL/ARCHITECTURAL CO}IPONENT FORI"I.
I. IDENTIPICATION: L)-Resource No.sPT -225
3)_Resource Name 935 Kinq Street 4)Prol ect
S)Category: Arch. Sl.te' r HLst./Archit. Structure *,
6) (for Arch. site)In a District:yes-no : ;l{ane N/A .
II. LQc.q!!QN: 7)Township_1_Q.!-;Range ${}J i .-- \ of h,of \of SE r< of
Section 7 ;P.M.' 6 . 8)County,_Pjlkl"!
g)uscs QUAD Aspe_[;7.5 * l5-;Date 1960 Attach photoccpy
portion of Quad. ClearlY show
Approx.30 ft. x
site. 10)other rnaps 1-50t scale Cooper Aerial
ll)Dirnensions uX
100 ft.
m t2)Area 3.000 sq- ft.sq.ru(*4047=) less than I acres
L3)UTll P.eference: (One Unt centered on resource may be given for resource under 10 acres.)
A.ll,3hl3l4,3l4,8,OlrnE;|4,313,912,0,01rnN. B.l , hl I I ' , hE;l , | , l , lrnN.
c.l , hl 1,1,, i-"E;l r lr lr r lrnN. D.l , hl 1.r1,,ltE;l ' l,l',lmN.
Ui)Address 935 Kinq Mtreet iot Block Addit.ion
III. HANAcnmNf pifa: ls)Field Assessment: E1lgible* Nat Eligible Need Data
16) s"rrer/Address N/A
NOT FOR FIELD USE
_ DST. ELrG.
_ DET. NOT ELrG.
-- N0r'1INATED
LISTED, DATE
l7)Govrt InvoLvement: Count.v-State FederaL Privata : Agency N/A
L8)Disturbance:none lighr rnoderate-heavy-tota'l iExplain N/A
19)I'hreats to Resour,:e:Water Erosion Wind Erosiorn-Animal Activity-Neglect-\tandal1s"s
Recreatlon-Construct ion-; Conunents ll/A
20 )Manageurent Reconnenda tions Follow Des'iqn Gu'idel ines
V. REFERENCE:
-
22)Photo Nos.
21)State/Fed. Persrit Nos.
292 oo' ftle at t303U39-1394
23)Report Title ASPE}I INVENTORY OF HISTORIC SITES/STRUCTURES
24)Recorder Vera G. Ki rkPatr L5)Recording Date SeP.!:*j0: 1980
Colorado Preservation 0ffice
Z5)Recorder AffiLiaLion Aspen/Pjtkjn cou! 7)Phone No. (303) 925-2020
39
Resource lio . 5P I -ZZb Page 2
V. SKETCH MAP: llap a1J- features and show the bouirrlaries of the resources. Show all
;affi,'ffi'phlc features, permanent modern features, and legecation zcnes as appropriate.
Give names of features, sEreets and addresses if knorsn" Provide scale, key arrcl direction.
scale:
'key:
iFF ATTA HFD 'NPY lF'
1"-5 tsc 'le nap ( Coo erl ]r1a )
28)Location/Accees:
935 King Street, Aspen, Colorado
ZgEg""d*Iy D"ng.i!! ",
See map.
30) Boundary Justif ication :
1-
true
Ilrag.__
N/A
40
coLoF-{Do CULTURAT RESOL]RCE SURVEY Colorado Preservation Office
1300 Broadvray, Denver, C0 80203
1) Resource
4) Address
ARCHITECTURA]./HISTORICAL C OMPONENT FORM
IMPORTANT: USE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE GREEN INVENTORY RECORD FORM FOR
rOR RECORDING HISTORIC STRUCTURES AND DISTRICTS. USE SEPARATELY FOR
RECORDING STRUCTURES LOCATED WITIiIN DISTRICT BOUNDARIES.
No. 5PT-225 2) Ternp No.292 3) Na*e 935 King Street Hourc
935 K'ing Street 5) District Nane None
* Fair Deteriorated-Lr-JW'
7) OrigtnaL Use
6) Condition: Good
Res i dence 8) Present Use Res i dence
9) OriginaL Site * fioved Date(s) sf Ms'ret
L0) Unaltered Altered * brplain:Now sidino
II" DESCRIPTIOSj! 11) Buildling Materials
L2) Construction Date . lg80ts 13), Architectf BuiLder lln known
Wnnd
L4) Architeetural- Sty'Le C"s)_ V j ctori an
f5) Special FeaturesfSurroundings:
16)- Archaeological Potentlali Yes tlnknovn -l f*pt"intNo
TTT . CIILTUML ACTIVITIES:Key the resource tlpe (ie: house, barn, shed, school, churchretc)
to the cultural activity theme and sub-theme category associated
with it,
17) THEME Resi dence
18) SUB-THEME Urban
19) TYPES Sinole-fami lv
41
RESOURCE NO. 5PT-225
(Attach PhotograPhs)Frame Number
Roll Number
Facade Orientation
27
9
Front
w. sIG:NIrIcAl{cE: Assess whether or not t'he resource has any historical or architectural
.merl,tbycheckl.ngapproPrtatecategorlesandJustlfyingbelow.Include
any relevant historlcal data'
20) Architectural Signif icance:
Represerits work of a master
- ?ossesses high artistic values
T Rept""ent's a t)Pe' Period' or
- method of constr:uctioo
The sign.ificance of this residentiar structure'is not of those who own'ed it or
lived in it, nor;i ii, archit..iri.,-iiltougrr.ilris-itiucture is representative
of Aspen,s Mininq-ira. This stru;t;;.-ii oi"r,isloiicat importance bv illustrating
the ramity/home :r;i;;n,n;ni"uni' i;;; itvi.(r) or Aspen's population'
21) I{istorlcal Slgntficance:
Associateil with significant Persons
] Associated wlth significant events or
PatternsContlibutes to the sigaificance of, an
- historic dlstrict
Any Associated Cultural GrouP:None??\ List
V. RXFER
Pitkin County Court House Records
RECORDER V"G. Kirkpatrick DATE Oct. 30, 1980
42
ETSTORTC ARCBTTECTURAT. BUTLDING/STRUCTURE FORU
State Site Number:
Photo Information:
Loca1 Site Number: 935.KS
ASP-S-6 t I
Township 10 South Range 84 West Section 7
USGS Quad Name Aspen Year 1960 X 7.51
Building or Structure Name:FuIl Street Address:935 Kincr Street
Legal Descriptj-on:
151
City Aspen County Pitkin
Historic District/Neighborhood Name: smuqqler Mountain
Owner : Privat,e/State/Federal
Ownert s Mailing Address:
ARCEITECTURAIJ DEsBuilding Type:
CRIPTIOlI
Resi dent i a'l
Architectural Style:Victorian Minerrs Cottacre
Dimensions: L: x W: = Square Feet:
Number of Stories: 1Building Plan (Footprint, Shape):L-shaped with rear addition (irreql)
Landscaping or Special Setting Features: Set down and back from the
road with mature cottonwoods front (northeast) and back; backs up tothe Roaring Fork Gullev
Associated Buildings, Features or Objects Describe Material and
Function (rnap number / nane): 1 shed southwest rear; 1 single gabled
vertical wood sidinq
For the following categories include materials, techniques and styles inthe description as appropriate:Roof: L-crabled with shed rear addition; roll asphall
Walls: Wide horizontal wood sidincr
Foundation / Basement: Unknown
Chinney(s): None
Windows: one over one wood doublehuncr; 9 ticrht casernent rear
Doors: Transom over double arch liqht over wood panel
Porches: Northeast entrv, shed on turned posts with decorative
brackets, in disrenair. with sided knee wall
General Architectural Description: Simnle L-qabled miners cottaqewith some norch and material modifications-
43
Page 2 of 2
FUNCTION
Current Use:original Use:
Intermediate Use:
UoDTFICATIONS AIID/OR ADDTTTONS
Minor- Moderate X Major
Describe Modifications and Date:r,rall: all dates unknown
State Site Number
Local Site Number 935 . KS
Residential
Residential
ARCHITECTURAI, HTSTORY
Architect: Unknown
Builder:Unknown
Residential Construction Date: 188ors
- Actual X Estimate - Assessor
Based on: Buildinq tvpe
Moved Date
Wood sidinq. porch roof and knee-
Additions and Date:Several shed additions off rear; dates unknown
uap
Key
ttt-l
A
o
NATIONAIJ/STATE REGISTER EI,IGIBII,ITY A}ID CRITERIA
-
Is listed on
-
National Register i
-
State Register
-
Is eligible for
-
National Register i
-
State Register
MeetsNationalRegisterCriteria: A- B- C- D- E-
Loea1 Rating and Landmark Designation
Significant: Listed on or is eligible for National Register
Contributing: Resource has maintained historic or
architectural integrity.
Supporting: original integrity lost due to alterations,
however, is rrretrievabletr with substantial effort.
Locally Designated Landmarlt
Justify Assessment:
Associated Contexts and Historical Information: The significance of
this residential structure is not of those who owned it or lived in it.
nor of its architecture, although this structure is representative of
Aspents l,tining Era. This structure is of historical importance by
illustrat,ing the family/home environment and lifestyle of the averaqe
citizen in Aspen which was then dominated bv the silver mining
i ndrr s,trrr -
other Recording Information
Specific References to the Structure/Building: Pitkin County Court-
house Records; Sanborn and Sons Insurance Maps
Archaeological Potential: * (Y or N)Justify:
Recorded By:Date; *
Affiliation: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee - City of Aspen
Project Manager: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer/Planner
44
Official eligibility determination
(OAHP use only)
Architectural lnventory Form
(page 1 of 4)
l. loerunRcanoru1. Resource number: 5PT.225
coLoMDo CuLTURAL RESouRcE suRVEy Dab
"^rs.il:_ Determined Eligible-Determined Elioible- NR
_ Determined Not Eligible- NR
_ Determined Eligible- SR
_ Determined Not Eligible- SR
_ Need Data
_ Contributes to eligible NR District
_ Noncontributing to eligible NR District
2. Temporary resource number: 935.KlN
3. County:Pitkin
4. City:
5. Historic building name:
6. Current building name:
7. Building address: 935 Kinq Street Asoen, Colorado 81611
8. Owner name and address: Ernst Kappeli
PO Box 1962 Aspen. CO 81612
ll. Geographic Information
L P.M. 6 Township 10 South Range 84 West
r/n of r/r of r/r of 7a of Section 7
10. UTM reference
Zone 1 3 ;_ _mE
-mN11, USGS quad name: Aspen Quadrangle
Year: 1960. Photo Rev. 1987 Map scale: 7.5' X 15'- Attach photo copy of appropriate map section.
12. Lot(s): Block:_
Addition: Year of Addition:
13. Boundary Description and Justification: Site is comprised of a Metes and Bounds parcel in the East
Aspen & Huohes Addition. more fullv described at Bk 13. Pqs 781 and 791. Bk. 0425. Pqs.0781 and
0791 and a tract of land in Section 7-10-84. beinq oart of tract 40. East Aspen Addition and Sunset
Lode. U.S.M.S. No. 5310. and also sometimes described as part of Lots 1.2. & 3: BlkS and part of Lots 3
& 4: Blk 6. and a part of Queen Street. Huohes Addition.
Assessors office Record Number: 2737-074-00-022
This descriotion was chosen as the most specific and customarv descriotion of the site. '
lll. Architectural Description
14, Building plan (footprint, shape): Rectanqular
15. Dimensions in feet: Length x Width
16. Number of stories: One Storv
17. Primary external wall material(s) (enter no more than two): Wood Horizontal Sidinq
18. Roof configuration: (enter no more than one): Gable Roof
45
Resource Number:sPT.225
Temporary Resource Number: 935.KlN
L:
Architectural lnventory Form
(page 2 of 2)
19. Primary external roof material (enter no more than one): Asphalt Roof
20. Special features (enter all that apply):
21. General architectural description: A tvpical Miner's Cottaqe. The oable end faces the street (north) with
oair of double hunq windows as the principal window. A side qable runs to the east with a shed roof
porch infillinq the corner. The porch roof extends bevond the face of the front qable. A mixture of posts
supoort the roof and sit on a low frame wall with horizontal sidinq. The entry door sits below the porch
roof. facino the street.
22. Architectural style/building type: Late Victorian
23. Landscaping or special setting features:
24. Associated buildings, features, or objects: A shed at southwest rear: a sinqle oable structure with wood
sidino.
lV. Architectural History
25. Date of Construction: Estimate 1880's Actual
Source of information: Based on buildino stvle
26. Architect: Unknown
Source of information:
27. Builder/Contractor: Unknown
Source of information:
28. Original owner:Unknown
Source of information:
29. Construction history (include description and dates of major additions, alterations, or demolitions):
Several shed additions off rear. replaced sidinq. porch alterations. all pre 1980.
30. Original location X Moved _ Date of move(s):
V. Historical Associations
31. Original use(s):Domestic
32. lntermediate use(s):
33. Current use(s):Domestic
34. Site type(s): Residential Neiohborhood
35. Historical background: This structure is representative of Aspen's mining era character. The
building represents a type known locally as the "Miner's Cottage". characterized by the size. simole plan.
and front qable / oorch relationshio
36. Sources of information: Pitkin County Courthouse records; Sanborn and Sons lnsurance Maps:1990
and 1980 CiW of Aspen Survey of Historic Sites and Structures
46
Resource Number: 5PT.225
Temporary Resource Number: 935.KlN
Vl. Significance
37. Local landmark designation
Architectural lnventory Form
(page 3 of 3)
: Yes No X Date of designation:
Designating authority:
38. Applicable National Register Criteria:
_ A. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of our
history;
_ B. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past;
X C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or
represents the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or represents a significant
and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
_ D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory.
Qualifies under Criteria Considerations A through G (see Manual)
Does not meet any of the above National Register criteria
39. Area(s) of significance: _Architecture
40. Period of significance:Late 1800's Silver Minino Era
41. Level of significance: National _ State _ Local X
42. Statement of significance:
era. lt describes the nature of the life of an average family or individual during that oeriod. as well as
the construction technioues- materials available ancl the fashion of fhe fime-
43. Assessment of historic physical integrity related to significance: This structure is intact in its massing and
scale. Additions are small and at the rear. materials and details have been altered.
Vll. National Register Eligibility Assessment
44. National Register eligibility field assessment:
Eligible _ Not Eligible X Need Data
45. ls there National Register district potential? Yes No X
Discuss:
lf there is National Register district potential, is this building: Contributing Noncontributing
46. lf the building is in existing National Register district, is it Contributing _ Noncontributing
Vlll. Recording lnformation
47. Photograph numbers: R11, F17 Negatives filed at: Asoen/Pitkin Communitv Development Deot.
48. Report title: Citv of Aspen Uodate of Survev of Historic Sites and Structures. 2000
49. Date(s): 612912000 50. Recorder(s): Suzannah Reid and Patrick Duffield
51. Organization: Reid Architects
52. Address: 412 North Mill Street. PO Box 1303, Aspen CO 81612
53. Phone number(s): 970 920 9225
47
Resource Number:sPT 225
Temporary Resource Number:_935.K!N_
Architectural Inventory Form
(page 4 of 4)
NOTE: Please attach a sketch map, a photocopy of the USGS quad. map indicating resource location, and
photographs.
Colorado Historical Socie$ - Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation
1300 Broadway, Denver, CO 80203 (303) 866-3395
48
EXISTING SITE PLAN925 KING STREET | EXISTING CONDITIONS
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE
10/26/21 1
X
#5 R E B A R & C A P
L .S . #2 5 9 4 7 B E A R S
S 2 9 °3 1 '0 2 "W 3 .4 6 'E
F N D #5 R E B A R &
Y E L L O W P L A S T IC
C A P P L S 2 8 3 7 5
F N D #5 R E B A R &
Y E L L O W P L A S T IC
C A P P L S 2 8 3 7 5
F N D #5 R E B A R &
F N D #5 R E B A R &
Y E L L O W P L A S T IC
C A P P L S 2 3 8 7 5
G
E
T 9 7
T 1 0 0
T 1 2
T 7 1
T 1 9
T 9 1
T 9 2T93
T 9 4
T 9 5
T 9 6
T 9 9
T 9 8
T 1 0 1
T 1 0 2
T 1 0 3
T 1 0 4
T 1 0 5
T 1 0 6
T 1
T 2 T 3
T 4 T 5 T 6
T 7
T 8
T 9 T 1 0
T 1 1
T 1 3 T 1 4
T 1 0 9
T 1 0 8T107
T 1 1 0
T 7 3
T 2 9 T 3 0
T 2 8
T 3 1
T 3 2
T 2 7
T 2 6
T 2 5
T 2 4
T 2 3
T 2 2
T 2 1
T 2 0
T 1 8
T 1 7
T 1 5
T 7 0
T 7 2
T 1 1 1
T 1 6
P O N D
P
8 " G A T E
V A L V E
E L E C T R IC
P E D E S T A L O N
C O N C R E T E P A D
E
D
L E A N T O
EEEE
N 16°04'29" E 96.88'1 8 " C M P
I/O : 7 9 2 5 .8 2 'B O X C U L V E R T
T O 1 8 " C M P
I/O : 7 9 2 9 .3 7 '18.3'33.5'13.2 '2.1'14.2'12.5'2.8 '4.3'6 .3'14.7'4 .0 '3.6'4 .0 'ASPHALTDRIVEWAYADJACENTDRIVEWAYGRAVEL DRIVEWAYS H E D3.6'O N E -S T O R Y
W O O D H O U S E
9 2 5 K IN G S T .G
B R ID G E
P L A N T E RCEMENTPATIOPLANTERPLANTER
WOOD
DECKWALKWAY M A IL
B O X E S
E L E C T R IC
M E T E R X 4
B O U L D E R
R E T A IN IN G
W A L L
CURB EDGE
S T O N E
P A T H WOODDECKKING STREET - ASPHALT
R-O-W WIDTH VARIES
18.77'39.62'20.59'
5 5 .8 8 '0.6'P O S S IB L E L E A N T O
E N C R O A C H M E N T
C O V E R E D
W O O D D E C K
B R ID G E
8 " C P P
M S 5 3 1 0
S U N S E T L O D E
L O T 1
A S T O R S U B .L O T 1
1 1 4 N E A L E /1 7
Q U E E N
H IS T O R IC L O T
S P L IT
S 65°05'54" E 163.03' FIELD
S 65°21'00" E 163.28' REC.
S 1 6 °5 8 '2 3 "W 4 .5 0 ' R E C .S 1 7 °1 3 '0 4 "W 4 .4 9 ' F IE L D
S 34°59'08" W 94.17' FIELDS 34°45'00" W 93.75' REC.S 66°06'55" E 42.31' FIELD
S 66°21'00" E 42.12' REC.
H IS T O R IC
D E S IG N A T IO N
B O U N D A R Y O F
S U N S E T L O D E M S
5 3 1 0
XWA
L
K
WA
Y
S 7 6 °0 9 '4 2 " E
3 9 .7 7 '
S 61°39'36" E 93.74'
3 .4 6 '5' UTILITY EASEMENT PLAT BK 131 PG 255 '10'1 0 ' U T I L I T Y E A S E M E N T
P L A T B K 1 3 1 P G 2 5 5' UTILITY EASEMENTPLAT BK 131 PG 255'
P O R T IO N O F 8 'X 1 1 'T R A N S F O R M E R
E A S E M E N T C R E A T E D
B Y T H IS P L A T
1 2 S .F .±
1 0 ' U T I L I T Y E A S E M E N T
P A R C E L 2 B
9 2 5 /9 3 5 K IN G S T R E E T
1 5 ,0 0 1 S .F .±
H IS T O R IC
0 8'16'32'
49
PROPOSED SITE PLAN925 KING STREET | EXISTING CONDITIONS
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE
10/26/21 2
X
#5 R E B A R & C A P
L .S . #2 5 9 4 7 B E A R S
S 2 9 °3 1 '0 2 "W 3 .4 6 'E
F N D #5 R E B A R &
Y E L L O W P L A S T IC
C A P P L S 2 8 3 7 5
F N D #5 R E B A R &
Y E L L O W P L A S T IC
C A P P L S 2 8 3 7 5
F N D #5 R E B A R &
F N D #5 R E B A R &
Y E L L O W P L A S T IC
C A P P L S 2 3 8 7 5
G
T 9 7
T 1 0 0
T 1 2
T 7 1
T 1 9
T 9 1
T 9 2T93
T 9 4
T 9 5
T 9 6
T 9 9
T 9 8
T 1 0 1
T 1 0 2
T 1 0 3
T 1 0 4
T 1 0 5
T 1 0 6
T 1
T 2 T 3
T 4 T 5 T 6
T 7
T 8
T 9 T 1 0
T 1 1
T 1 3 T 1 4
T 1 0 9
T 1 0 8T107
T 1 1 0
T 7 3
T 2 9 T 3 0
T 2 8
T 3 1
T 3 2
T 2 7
T 2 6
T 2 5
T 2 4
T 2 3
T 2 2
T 2 1
T 2 0
T 1 8
T 1 7
T 1 5
T 7 0
T 7 2
T 1 1 1
T 1 6
P O N D
P
8 " G A T E
V A L V E
E L E C T R IC
P E D E S T A L O N
C O N C R E T E P A D
E
D
L E A N T O
EEEE
N 16°04'29" E 96.88'1 8 " C M P
I/O : 7 9 2 5 .8 2 'B O X C U L V E R T
T O 1 8 " C M P
I/O : 7 9 2 9 .3 7 '18.3'33.5'13.2 '2.1'14.2'12.5'2.8 '4.3'6 .3'14.7'ASPHALTDRIVEWAYADJACENTDRIVEWAYO N E -S T O R Y
W O O D H O U S E
9 2 5 K IN G S T .B R ID G E
P L A N T E R
WOOD
DECKWALKWAY M A IL
B O X E S
E L E C T R IC
M E T E R X 4
B O U L D E R
R E T A IN IN G
W A L L
CURB EDGE WOODDECKKING STREET - ASPHALT
R-O-W WIDTH VARIES
39.62'20.59'0.6'P O S S IB L E L E A N T O
E N C R O A C H M E N T
B R ID G E
8 " C P P
M S 5 3 1 0
S U N S E T L O D E
L O T 1
A S T O R S U B .L O T 1
1 1 4 N E A L E /1 7
Q U E E N
H IS T O R IC L O T
S P L IT
S 65°05'54" E 163.03' FIELD
S 65°21'00" E 163.28' REC.
S 1 6 °5 8 '2 3 "W 4 .5 0 ' R E C .S 1 7 °1 3 '0 4 "W 4 .4 9 ' F IE L D
S 34°59'08" W 94.17' FIELDS 34°45'00" W 93.75' REC.S 66°06'55" E 42.31' FIELD
S 66°21'00" E 42.12' REC.
H IS T O R IC
D E S IG N A T IO N
B O U N D A R Y O F
S U N S E T L O D E M S
5 3 1 0
XWA
L
K
WA
Y
S 7 6 °0 9 '4 2 " E
3 9 .7 7 '
S 61°39'36" E 93.74'
3 .4 6 '5' UTILITY EASEMENT PLAT BK 131 PG 255 '10'1 0 ' U T I L I T Y E A S E M E N T
P L A T B K 1 3 1 P G 2 5 5' UTILITY EASEMENTPLAT BK 131 PG 255'
P O R T IO N O F 8 'X 1 1 'T R A N S F O R M E R
E A S E M E N T C R E A T E D
B Y T H IS P L A T
1 2 S .F .±
1 0 ' U T I L I T Y E A S E M E N T
P A R C E L 2 B
9 2 5 /9 3 5 K IN G S T R E E T
1 5 ,0 0 1 S .F .±
H IS T O R IC
DEMOLITION AND
REVEGETATION LEGEND
AREA TO BE DEMOLISHED
AREA TO BE REVEGETATED
0 8'16'32'
NOTES:
ALL AREAS DISTURBED WILL BE REVEGETATED WITH PITKIN
COUNTY DRYLAND PASTURE SEED MIX.
ALL SEEDED AREAS WILL BE IRRIGATED FROM DITCH ON
PROPERTY.
A SUMP PUMP WILL BE PLACES INTO THE DITCH TO DRAW WATER.
SEED MIX
PITKIN COUNTY DRYLAND PASTURE MIX
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME % OF MIX
Western Wheatgrass Pascopyrum smithii 33%
Green Needlegrass Nassella viridula 33%
Slender Wheatgrass Elymus trachycaulus 33%
HAND SEEDING OR HYDROSEEDING IS ACCEPTABLE, APPROPRIATE
50
PLANS925 KING STREET | EXISTING CONDITIONS
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE
10/26/21 3
E
T 1 2
T 7
T 8
T 9 T 1 0
T 1 1
T 1 0 8
T 1 0 7
T 1 1 0
T 1 1 1
4 .0 '3.6'4 .0 'GRAVEL DRIVEWAYS H E D3.6'G
B R ID G ECEMENTPATIO PLANTERPLANTER
S T O N E18.77'C O V E R E D
W O O D D E C K
P A R C E L 2 B
9 2 5 /9 3 5 K IN G S T R E E T
1 5 ,0 0 1 S .F .±
H IS T O R IC
E
T 1 2
T 7
T 8
T 9 T 1 0
T 1 1
T 1 0 8
T 1 0 7
T 1 1 0
T 1 1 1 15.7'20.4'12.2'1.2'30.4'8.8'4.9'8.9'22.0'4.0'
4 .0 '3.6'4 .0 'GRAVEL DRIVEWAYS H E D3.6'O N E -S T O R Y
W O O D H O U S E
9 2 5 K IN G S T .G
B R ID G ECEMENTPATIO PLANTERPLANTER
S T O N E18.77'C O V E R E D
W O O D D E C K
P A R C E L 2 B
9 2 5 /9 3 5 K IN G S T R E E T
1 5 ,0 0 1 S .F .±
H IS T O R IC
6:12 6:12
3/4:12RIDGE HEIGHT 14'-3 3/8" V.I.F0 4'8'16'
EXISTING MAIN LEVEL PLAN EXISTING ROOF PLAN
51
ELEVATIONS925 KING STREET | EXISTING CONDITIONS
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE
10/26/21 4
4 3 2 1
4'-111/4"14'-10"
2'-71/4"
6:126:12
6:12
100'-0"
T.O. FF V.I.F = 7928' 3"
101'-5"
T.O. FF V.I.F
91'-8 3/8"
T.O. SLAB V.I.F
108'-1 5/8"
T.O. PLATE V.I.F
113'-3 3/8"
T.O. RIDGE V.I.F
A B C D
3/4:12
100'-0"
T.O. FF V.I.F = 7928' 3"
101'-5"
T.O. FF V.I.F
91'-8 3/8"
T.O. SLAB V.I.F
108'-1 5/8"
T.O. PLATE V.I.F
113'-3 3/8"
T.O. RIDGE V.I.F
1 2 3 4
6:126:12
100'-0"
T.O. FF V.I.F = 7928' 3"
101'-5"
T.O. FF V.I.F
91'-8 3/8"
T.O. SLAB V.I.F
108'-1 5/8"
T.O. PLATE V.I.F
113'-3 3/8"
T.O. RIDGE V.I.F
D C B A
3/4:12
100'-0"
T.O. FF V.I.F = 7928' 3"
101'-5"
T.O. FF V.I.F
91'-8 3/8"
T.O. SLAB V.I.F
108'-1 5/8"
T.O. PLATE V.I.F
113'-3 3/8"
T.O. RIDGE V.I.F
BUILDING MATERIAL
LEGEND
LOG CONSTRUCTION
RUBBLE FOUNDATION
WOOD SHAKE SIDING
HORIZONTAL WOOD SIDING
PLYWOOD SIDING
EARTH
VETRICAL COORUGATED
METAL ROOFING
0 4'8'16'
EXISTING EAST ELEVATION
EXISTING WEST ELEVATION EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION
EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION
52
NORTH ELEVATION925 KING STREET | EXISTING CONDITIONS
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE
10/26/21 5
4 3 2 1
4'-111/4"14'-10"
2'-71/4"
6:126:12
6:12
100'-0"
T.O. FF V.I.F = 7928' 3"
101'-5"
T.O. FF V.I.F
91'-8 3/8"
T.O. SLAB V.I.F
108'-1 5/8"
T.O. PLATE V.I.F
113'-3 3/8"
T.O. RIDGE V.I.F
BUILDING MATERIAL
LEGEND
LOG CONSTRUCTION
RUBBLE FOUNDATION
WOOD SHAKE SIDING
HORIZONTAL WOOD SIDING
PLYWOOD SIDING
EARTH
VETRICAL COORUGATED
METAL ROOFING
0 4'8'16'
EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION
53
EAST ELEVATION925 KING STREET | EXISTING CONDITIONS
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE
10/26/21 6
A B C D
3/4:12
100'-0"
T.O. FF V.I.F = 7928' 3"
101'-5"
T.O. FF V.I.F
91'-8 3/8"
T.O. SLAB V.I.F
108'-1 5/8"
T.O. PLATE V.I.F
113'-3 3/8"
T.O. RIDGE V.I.F
BUILDING MATERIAL
LEGEND
LOG CONSTRUCTION
RUBBLE FOUNDATION
WOOD SHAKE SIDING
HORIZONTAL WOOD SIDING
PLYWOOD SIDING
EARTH
VETRICAL COORUGATED
METAL ROOFING
0 4'8'16'
EXISTING EAST ELEVATION
54
EAST ELEVATION925 KING STREET | EXISTING CONDITIONS
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE
10/26/21 6.1
BUILDING MATERIAL
LEGEND
LOG CONSTRUCTION
RUBBLE FOUNDATION
WOOD SHAKE SIDING
HORIZONTAL WOOD SIDING
PLYWOOD SIDING
EARTH
VETRICAL COORUGATED
METAL ROOFING
A B C D
3/4:12
100'-0"
T.O. FF V.I.F = 7928' 3"
101'-5"
T.O. FF V.I.F
91'-8 3/8"
T.O. SLAB V.I.F
108'-1 5/8"
T.O. PLATE V.I.F
113'-3 3/8"
T.O. RIDGE V.I.F
0 4'8'16'
EXISTING EAST ELEVATION
55
SOUTH ELEVATION925 KING STREET | EXISTING CONDITIONS
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE
10/26/21 7
1 2 3 4
6:126:12
100'-0"
T.O. FF V.I.F = 7928' 3"
101'-5"
T.O. FF V.I.F
91'-8 3/8"
T.O. SLAB V.I.F
108'-1 5/8"
T.O. PLATE V.I.F
113'-3 3/8"
T.O. RIDGE V.I.F
BUILDING MATERIAL
LEGEND
LOG CONSTRUCTION
RUBBLE FOUNDATION
WOOD SHAKE SIDING
HORIZONTAL WOOD SIDING
PLYWOOD SIDING
EARTH
VETRICAL COORUGATED
METAL ROOFING
0 4'8'16'
EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION
56
WEST ELEVATION925 KING STREET | EXISTING CONDITIONS
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE
10/26/21 8
D C B A
3/4:12
100'-0"
T.O. FF V.I.F = 7928' 3"
101'-5"
T.O. FF V.I.F
91'-8 3/8"
T.O. SLAB V.I.F
108'-1 5/8"
T.O. PLATE V.I.F
113'-3 3/8"
T.O. RIDGE V.I.F
BUILDING MATERIAL
LEGEND
LOG CONSTRUCTION
RUBBLE FOUNDATION
WOOD SHAKE SIDING
HORIZONTAL WOOD SIDING
PLYWOOD SIDING
EARTH
VETRICAL COORUGATED
METAL ROOFING
0 4'8'16'
EXISTING WEST ELEVATION
57
WEST ELEVATION925 KING STREET | EXISTING CONDITIONS
FORUM PHI ARCHITECTURE
10/26/21 8.1
BUILDING MATERIAL
LEGEND
LOG CONSTRUCTION
RUBBLE FOUNDATION
WOOD SHAKE SIDING
HORIZONTAL WOOD SIDING
PLYWOOD SIDING
EARTH
VETRICAL COORUGATED
METAL ROOFING
D C B A
3/4:12
100'-0"
T.O. FF V.I.F = 7928' 3"
101'-5"
T.O. FF V.I.F
91'-8 3/8"
T.O. SLAB V.I.F
108'-1 5/8"
T.O. PLATE V.I.F
113'-3 3/8"
T.O. RIDGE V.I.F
0 4'8'16'
EXISTING WEST ELEVATION
58
November 2017 City of Aspen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5090
CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
LAND USE APPLICATION
Project Name and Address:_________________________________________________________________________
Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) _____________________________
APPLICANT:
Name: ______________________________________________________________________________________________
Address: _______________________________________________________________________________________________
Phone #: ___________________________ email: __________________________________
REPRESENTIVATIVE:
Name: _________________________________________________________________________________________________
Address:________________________________________________________________________________________________
Phone#: _____________________________ email:___________________________________
Description: Existing and Proposed Conditions
Review: Administrative or Board Review
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
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 ________
59
PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PLANNER: Garrett Larimer, garrett.larimer@cityofaspen.com
REPRESENTATIVE: Sara Adams, BendonAdams
PROJECT LOCATION: 925 King St., Lot 2B King Street Lot Split
REQUEST: HPC Demolition Review
DESCRIPTION: City Council approved a Historic Lot Split for Parcel 2 of the Boundary Agreement Plat via
Ordinance No. 15, Series of 2021 creating two lots, Lot 2A and 2B. Lot 2B is Historically Designated and
contains two residential structures. A 19th Century miner’s cabin will remain, but the second log structure is
proposed to be demolished. This structure is referred to in previous reviews and approvals as the “old log
cabin” and is west of the miner’s cabin. Records indicate that the log cabin was relocated to this property in
late 1950s from its original location near Highway #82. Since then, a number of alterations have been made
to the log cabin including impactful additions to the front and rear of the structure.
The structure is proposed to be demolished, with no development proposed. Demolition of a structure on a
historically designated lot requires review and approval by the Historic Preservation Commission. Following
approval, if granted, staff will inform City Council of the HPC decision, allowing them the opportunity to uphold
HPC’s decision or to “Call Up” the approval for further discussion. This is a standard practice for Historic
Preservation Demolition Review.
HPC will use the review criteria to Section 26.415.080 of the Land Use Code to this project to assist with their
determinations. Specifically, the review criteria in Section 26.415.080.4 will inform their decision:
4. The HPC shall review the application, the staff report and hear evidence presented by the property
owners, parties of interest and members of the general public to determine if the standards for
demolition approval have been met. Demolition shall be approved if it is demonstrated that the
application meets any one of the following criteria:
a. The property has been determined by the City to be an imminent hazard to public safety and
the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely manner;
b. The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly
maintain the structure;
c. The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen; or
d. No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic, architectural,
archaeological, engineering or cultural significance; and
Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met:
a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or Historic District in which it
is located;
b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the
Historic District or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated
properties; and
c. Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the
area.
RELEVANT LAND USE CODE SECTIONS:
60
Section Number Section Title
26.304 Common Development Review Procedures
26.415.080 Demolition of Designated Historic Properties or Properties within a
Historic District
26.575.020 Calculations and Measurements
26.710.060 Moderate-Density Residential (R-15A)
For your convenience – links to the Land Use Application and Land Use Code are below:
Land Use Application Land Use Code Historic Preservation Design Guidelines
Review by: Staff for completeness and recommendations
HPC for decisions
Public Hearing: Yes, at HPC Demolition Review
Neighborhood Outreach: No
Referrals: No
Planning Fees: $1,950 for 6 billable hours of staff time. (Additional/ lesser hours will
be billed/ refunded at a rate of $325 per hour.)
Referral Agencies Fee: $0.
Total Deposit: $1,950.
APPLICATION CHECKLIST:
Below is a list of submittal requirements for HPC Demolition review. Please email the entire application in
a single pdf to garrett.larimer@cityofaspen.com. The fee will be requested after the application is
determined to be complete.
Completed Land Use Application and signed Fee Agreement.
Pre-application Conference Summary (this document).
Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur,
consisting of a current (no older than 6 months) certificate from a title insurance company, an
ownership and encumbrance report, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing
the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts
and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner’s right to apply for the
Development Application.
Applicant’s name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant that states
the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the
applicant.
HOA Compliance form (Attached).
List of adjacent property owners for both properties within 300’ for public hearing.
An 8 1/2” by 11” vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen.
61
Site improvement survey including topography and vegetation showing the current status,
certified by a registered land surveyor, licensed in the state of Colorado.
A written description of the proposal (scope of work) and written explanation of how the proposed
development complies with the review standards and design guidelines relevant to the
application.
A proposed site plan and revegetation plan.
Written documentation that the Chief Building Official has determined the building an imminent
hazard if applicable, or narrative text, graphic illustrations or other exhibits that provide evidence
that the building, structure or object is of no historic or architectural value or importance (integrity
assessment for a 19th Century Miner’s Cottage).
Supplemental materials to provide a visual description of the context surrounding the designated
historic property including photographs and other exhibits, as needed, to accurately depict
location and extent of proposed work.
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.
62
ASPEN OFFICE
625 E. Hyman Ave., Suite 201
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Telephone: (970) 925-1936
Facsimile: (970) 925-3008
GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SINCE 1975
www.garfieldhecht.com
*Admitted in Colorado, Montana and Wyoming
John D. Belkin, Esq.
jbelkin@garfieldhecht.com
Mobile: (303) 888-1812
October 8, 2021
VIA E-MAIL DELIVERY
Ms. Sarah Yoon
Community Development Department
Historic Preservation Planner
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
E-mail: sarah.yoon@cityofaspen.com
Re: Proof of Ownerhsip 925 King Street (LPA-20-118)
Dear Ms. Yoon:
This Firm represents King Street Com, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company (the
“Applicant”), the vested title owner of the above-referenced real property (the “Property”). Attached is
the vesting deed in connection with the property. Also attached is the title policy for the Property. As a
reminder, the legal description for the Property has changed since the Applicant and the City completed
the King Street Lot Split as described in the map thereof attached hereto.
There are no mortgages, liens, judgments or other encumbrances respecting the Property, other
than those listed as being of recorded in Schedule B-2 of the Title Commitment. Please call me if you
have any questions in this regard.
Sincerely,
GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C.
By: /s/John D. Belkin
John D. Belkin
JB:hb
Encls./3
ec: Sara Adams (sara@bendonadams.com)
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
900
824
824
824
824
824
824
824
824
824
977973
403
403
403
403
403
403
979
981 1/2
345
341
333
407
990
990
990
990
980
980
982
980
938
990
935
931
936
975
955 1/2
955
985
987
993
995
996
998
950
940
105
932
932
927
110
735
114
113
109
111
115
117
119
905
920
930
925
935
PD
PD
PD
R-6
R-6
P
R-15A
R-15
R-6
P
P
R/MF
NEALE
A
V
E
E HO
P
K
I
N
S
A
V
E GIBSON AVEPARK
A
V
EMATCHLESS DR
NEAL
E
A
V
E
QU
E
E
N
S
TNEALE AVEKI
N
G
S
T
GI
B
S
O
N
A
V
E
NEALE AVEDate: 10/13/2021
Geographic Information Systems
This map/drawing/image is a graphical
representation of the features
depicted and is not a legal representation.
The accuracy may change
depending on the enlargement or reduction.
Copyright 2021 City of Aspen GIS
0 0.02 0.040.01
mi
When printed at 8.5"x11"
4
Legend
Urban Growth Boundary (UGB)
Emissions Inventory Boundary
(EIB)
City of Aspen
Greenline 8040
Stream Margin
Hallam Bluff ESA
Historic Sites
Historic Districts
Parcels
Zone Overlay
DRAINAGE
LP PD
DRAIN/TRANS
GCS PD
L PD
LP
PD
Zoning
R-3 High Density Residential
AH Affordable Housing
R/MF Residential/Multi-Family
R/MFA Residential/Multi-Family
R-6 Medium Density Residential
R-15 Moderate Density
Residential
R-15-A Moderate Density
Residential
R-15B Moderate Density
Residential
R-30 Low Density Residential
RR Rural Residential
L Lodge
CL Commercial Lodge
CC Commercial Core
C-1 Commercial
SCI Service Commercial
Industrial
NC Neighborhood Commercial
MU Mixed Use
SKI Ski Area Base
C Conservation
OS Open Space
P Park
Scale: 1:1,882
925 King Street
Vicinity Map
81
Pitkin County Mailing List of 300 Feet Radius
Pitkin County GIS presents the information and data on this web
site as a service to the public. Every effort has been made to
ensure that the information and data contained in this electronic
system is accurate, but the accuracy may change. Mineral
estate ownership is not included in this mailing list. Pitkin County
does not maintain a database of mineral estate owners.
Pitkin County GIS makes no warranty or guarantee concerning
the completeness, accuracy, or reliability of the content at this
site or at other sites to which we link. Assessing accuracy and
reliability of information and data is the sole responsibility of the
user. The user understands he or she is solely responsible and
liable for use, modification, or distribution of any information or
data obtained on this web site.
This document contains a Mailing List formatted to be
printed on Avery 5160 Labels. If printing, DO NOT "fit to
page" or "shrink oversized pages." This will manipulate the
margins such that they no longer line up on the labels
sheet. Print actual size.
From Parcel: 273707400048 on 10/13/2021
Instructions:
Disclaimer:
http://www.pitkinmapsandmore.com
82
GIBSON MATCHLESS LLC
ATLANTA, GA 30324
1924 PIEDMONT CIR NE
BLEEKER STREET REV TRUST
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 22
HATANAKA HOWARD I
ASPEN, CO 81611
980 KING ST
LEILA KING LLC
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111
4 EMBARCADERO CTR # 1900
WAGAR RICHARD H
ELK RAPIDS, MI 49629-9778
6718 W HARBOR DR
CITY OF ASPEN
ASPEN, CO 81611
130 S GALENA ST
LAWRENCE LARRY S QPR TRUST
LA JOLLA, CA 92037
8560 RUETTE MONTE CARLO
ALVIS MARCI L
HOUSTON, TX 77040
8827 W SAM HOUSTON PKWY N #200
BEIT SIMCHA LLC
DALLAS, TX 75240
13101 PRESTON RD #200
RIVER HOUSE LLC
WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33401
915 S DIXIE HWY
975 KING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
312 AABC STE D
DECRAY MARCELLA TRUST
SANTA MONICA, CA 90405
1528 HILL ST
990 KING ST UNIT #4 LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
1295 RIVERSIDE DR
17 QUEEN LLC
MIAMI, FL 33156
9515 SW 60TH CT
GIRVIN LINDA A
ASPEN, CO 81611
414 N MILL ST
981 KING STREET LLC
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 3123
CITY OF ASPEN
ASPEN, CO 81611
130 S GALENA ST
BECK JEFFREY L & JANET SUE
DALLAS, TX 75254
6211 RAINTREE CT
107 THUNDERBOWL LLC
HOUSTON, TX 77005
6521 VANDERBILT ST
WEISMAN FAMILY LP
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55416
2701 DEAN PKWY
BYARD ANNE/MORRIS JAMES LIV TRUST
ASPEN, CO 81611
860 GIBSON AVE
SHORT/ASPEN LLC
DALLAS, TX 75201
1918 OLIVE ST #1901
SHOAF JEFFREY S
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 3123
HARRIS DAVID E & PATRICIA
ASPEN, CO 81611
117 NEALE AVE
MAPLE CHARLES A & BRYCE M
ASPEN, CO 81611
1250 MOUNTAIN VIEW DR
990 KING ST UNIT #2 LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
1295 RIVERSIDE DR
2013 WOLFOND FAMILY TRUST
TORONTO ONTARIO M2L 1G7 CANADA,
49 HIGHLAND CRESCENT
DIBELLO JACQUELINE
ASPEN, CO 81611
990 KING ST # 1
PATRICIA CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
COMMON AREA
980 KING ST
DECRAY MARCELLA IRREV PROPERTY TRUST
SANTA MONICA, CA 90405
1528 HILL ST
83
LAWRENCE MARA B QPR TRUST
LA JOLLA, CA 92037
8560 RUETTE MONTE CARLO
930 KING STREET LLC
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 7699
CITY OF ASPEN
ASPEN, CO 81611
130 S GALENA ST
SURVIVORS TRUST
ALAMEDA, CA 94501
1352 BAY ST
URBAN BLIGHT CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
COMMON AREA
925 GIBSON AVE
MEADOWS JEAN R & STANLEY H
HIGHLAND PARK, IL 60035
538 HILLSIDE DR
FUENTE DAVID & SHEILA
BOCA RATON, FL 33431
701 TERN POINT CIR
CITY OF ASPEN
ASPEN, CO 81611
130 S GALENA ST
SNOW ORCHID LLC
MENLO PARK, CA 94025
1125 SAN MATEO DR
VARE DARLENE DESEDLE TRUST
SANTA MONICA, CA 90403
1024 19TH ST #7
LIPSEY WILLIAM S
ASPEN, CO 81611
955 KING ST
CITY OF ASPEN
ASPEN, CO 81611
130 S GALENA ST
SMUGGLER HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
ASPEN, CO 81611
OAK LN, COTTONWOOD LN, MAPLE LN
ASPEN LOVE STORY LLC
ABINGDON, VA 24210
448 CUMMINGS #303
BELINDA BEE CONDO
ASPEN, CO 81611
990 KING ST
84
OEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEDYH59.88'BUILDINGENCROACHMENTEASEMENT PERBK 704 PG 818SHADED AREADEGEGEIXXXBOULDER(TYP.)WINDOWWELL CONCRETEPATIOSPATELE.PED.ELEC.METERSSTORM DRAINRIM 7901.64'INV 7898.14'BOTT 7887.75'GASMETER0.40' STONEFASCIA (TYP.)#5 REBAR & CAPL.S. #25947#5 REBAR & CAPL.S. #25947 BEARSS29°31'02"W 3.46'FLAGSTONE WALKCOVEREDFLAGSTONEENTRANCECONCRETE WALK WINDOWWELLQUEEN STREET - ASPHALTR-O-W WIDTH VARIESX FENCE(TYP.)FENCE(TYP.)LOT 1TIE RETAINING WALLLOT 215,160 S.F.±0.348 AC.±MULTI LEVEL WOOD& STONE FRAME HOUSEWITH BASEMENT17 QUEEN STREET110 NEALE AVENUEELEC.OUTLETCONCRETE SIDEWALKWVMAIL BOXSTONEWALL(TYP.)WATERFEATURESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSEWER MANHOLERIM EL=7912.50'100' OFFSET FROMORDINARY HIGH WATERMARK OF ROARINGFORK RIVER ACCORDINGTO RIVER RESTORATIONWATERLINE EASEMENTPER BK 340 PG 1GGEX-UETCTVWWELECTRICTIE RETAINING WALLADJOINER UPPERLEVEL DECK BOULDERWALL (TYP.)IRR.CONTROLDRIDGE7936.0'F.F.7903.6'F.F.7908.8'WSTEELPOSTSTORM DRAINRIM 7902.00'BOTT 7889.12'AREADRAINX
EFND #5 REBAR &YELLOW PLASTICCAP PLS 28375FND #5 REBAR &YELLOW PLASTICCAP PLS 28375FND #5 REBAR &PLASTIC CAPPLS ILLEGIBLEFND #5 REBAR &PLASTIC CAPPLS ILLEGIBLEFND #5 REBAR &YELLOW PLASTICCAP PLS 2376TBM EL=7929.25'FND #5 REBAR &YELLOW PLASTICCAP PLS ILLEGIBLEFND #5 REBAR &YELLOW PLASTICCAP PLS 23875GET44T43T55T56T57T53T52T51T80T79T97T100T12T71T69T19T38T37T39T40T41T42T45T46T47T48T49T81T82T83T84T85T86T87T88T89T90T91T92T93T94T95T96T99T98T101T102T103T104T105T106T1T2T3T4T5T6T7T8T9T10T11T13T14T109T108T107T110T73T29T30T28T31T32T33T34T35T27T26T25T24T23T22T21T20T18T17T15T70T72T111T50T36T16PONDP8" GATEVALVEELECTRICPEDESTAL ONCONCRETE PADT112EDLEAN TOWEEEEN 16°04'29" E 96.88'18" CMPI/O: 7925.82'BOX CULVERTTO 18" CMPI/O: 7929.37'XXXT11318.3'33.5'13.2'2.1'14.2'12.5
'2.8'4.3'6.3'14.
7
'
15.7'20.4'12.2'1.2'30.4'8.8'4.9'8.9'22.0'4.0'4.0'3.6'4.0'BRIDGEBRIDGEASPHALTDRIVEWAY ADJACENTDRIVEWAYGRAVEL DRIVEWAYSHED3.6'ONE-STORYWOOD HOUSE925 KING ST.ONE-STORYWOOD HOUSE925 KING ST.GBRIDGEPLANTERCEMENTPATIOPLANTERPLANTER
WOODDECKW
A
L
K
W
A
Y
MAILBOXESELECTRICMETER X 4BOULDERRETAININGWALLCURB EDGESTONEPATHWO
O
D
DE
C
KSTONE PATHFENCE(TYP.)KING STREET - ASPHALTR-O-W WIDTH VARIES18.77'
39.
6
2
'20.59'55.88'T54OEOEOEASPEN DITCH0.6'POSSIBLE LEAN TOENCROACHMENTT114T121T119T118T117T116T115T120ADJOINER ADU COVEREDWOOD DECK8" IRONPIPESANITARYSEWER LINEBRIDGE8" CPP12.5 ACCESSEASEMENTPER PLATBK.13 PG.35BK 204 PG 29112.5 ACCESSEASEMENTPER PLATBK.13 PG.35BK 204 PG 29125' ACCESS EASEMENTPER PLAT BK 13 PG 35AND BK 198 PG 543 ACCESS EASEMENTPER PLAT BK 13PG 35 AND LICENSEPER NO. 498801ADJACENTBUILDING LOT 2114 NEALE/17QUEENHISTORIC LOTSPLITMS 5310SUNSET LODELOT 1ASTOR SUB.PARCEL 7PARCEL 3LOT 1114 NEALE/17QUEENHISTORIC LOTSPLITN 84°59'50" W 121.31' FIELDN 85°22'00" W 121.36' REC.N 02°00'15" W 49.69' FIELDN 02°37'05" W 49.64' REC.N 30°17'00" E 132.20'S 65°05'54" E 163.03' FIELDS 65°21'00" E 163.28' REC.S16°58'23"W 4.50' REC.S17°13'04"W 4.49' FIELDS
3
4
°
5
9
'
0
8
"
W
9
4
.
1
7
'
F
I
E
L
D
S
3
4
°
4
5
'
0
0
"
W
9
3
.
7
5
'
R
E
C
.S 66°06'55" E 42.31' FIELDS 66°21'00" E 42.12' REC.S 63°45
'43"
W
84
.26
'
F
IELDS 62°18
'30"
E
83
.92
'
REC
.
S 22°50'57" W 68.39' FIELDS 22°46'00" W 68.06' REC.5' UTILITYEASEMENTPER BK 425 PG 774BASIS OFBEARINGSN30°51'03"EHISTORICDESIGNATIONBOUNDARY OFSUNSET LODE MS5310HISTORICDESIGNATIONBOUNDARY OFSUNSET LODE MS5310X X XWALKWAYS 76°09'42" E39.77'S 61°39'36" E 93.74'3.46'5' UTILITY EASEMENT PLAT BK 131 PG 255'10'10' UTILITY EASEMENTPLAT BK 131 PG 255'
U
T
I
L
I
T
Y
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
P
L
A
T
B
K
1
3
1
P
G
2
55'5'
UT
IL
ITY
EASEMENTPLAT BK
131
PG
255'5' UTILITY EASEMENT PLAT BK 131 PG 25 5'PORTION OF 8'X11'TRANSFORMEREASEMENT CREATEDBY THIS PLAT12 S.F.±10' UTILITY EASEMENTPLAT BK 131 PG 25PARCEL 2A932 QUEEN STREET21,045 S.F.±PARCEL 2B925/935 KING STREET15,001 S.F.±HISTORICSLOPE TABLENUMBER123MIN. SLOPE0.000%20.000%30.000%MAX. SLOPE20.000%30.000%10000.000%COLORAREA14229.19 S.F.±232.40 S.F.±539.55 S.F.±SLOPE TABLENUMBER123MIN. SLOPE0.000%20.000%30.000%MAX. SLOPE20.000%30.000%10000.000%COLORAREA14804.92 S.F.±2030.23 S.F.±4210.03 S.F.±NOTICE: ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW, YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGAL ACTIONBASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY WITHIN THREE YEARS AFTER YOU FIRSTDISCOVER SUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVENT MAY ANY ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT INTHIS SURVEY BE COMMENCED MORE THAN TEN YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THECERTIFICATION SHOWN HEREON.ByNO.DateProject NO.RevisionDrawn By:Checked By:Date:Computer File:P.O. Box 1746Rifle, CO 81650Phone (970) 625-1954Fax (970) 579-7150www.peaksurveyinginc.comSNWEPeak Surveying, Inc.Est. 2007201031 OF 1KING STREET COM, LLC.CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADOIMPROVEMENT & TOPO SURVEYPARCELS 2A & 2B KING ST LOT SPLIT925 KING STREETSFJRNSEPT. 29, 2021103-POST DEMO109/30/21UPDATE SURVEYJRNIMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT & PARTIAL TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEYPARCELS 2A AND 2B, KING STREET LOT SPLITACCORDING TO THE PLAT RECORDED AUGUST 27, 2021 IN PLAT BOOK 131 AT PAGE 25CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADOPROPERTY DESCRIPTIONPARCEL 2 OF THE BOUNDARY AGREEMENT PLAT RECORDED APRIL 29, 1983 IN PLAT BOOK 13AT PAGE 35 AS RECEPTION NO. 240935, PITKIN, COUNTY, COLORADO.NOTES:1) THIS PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO RESERVATIONS, RESTRICTIONS, COVENANTS, BUILDINGSETBACKS AND EASEMENTS OF RECORD, OR IN PLACE AND EXCEPTIONS TO TITLE SHOWN INTHE TITLE COMMITMENT PREPARED BY ATTORNEYS TITLE INSURANCE AGENCY OF ASPEN,LLC., AS AGENT FOR FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, COMMITMENT NO.20004521, DATED EFFECTIVE AUGUST 29, 2020.2) THE DATE OF THIS SURVEY WAS OCTOBER 8-23, 2020 AND AUGUST 17, 2021.3) BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS SURVEY IS A BEARING OF N30°51'03"E BETWEEN THESOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF PARCEL 2, A #5 REBAR & PLASTIC CAP P.L.S. # ILLEGIBLE FOUNDIN PLACE AND THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF PARCEL 2, A #5 REBAR & YELLOW PLASTICCAP P.L.S. #28375 FOUND IN PLACE.4) UNITS OF MEASURE FOR ALL DIMENSIONS SHOWN HEREON IS U.S. SURVEY FEET.5) THIS SURVEY IS BASED ON THE KING STREET LOT SPLIT PLAT RECORDED AUGUST 27, 2021 INPLAT BOOK 131 AT PAGE 25, THE BOUNDARY AGREEMENT PLAT RECORDED APRIL 29, 1983 INPLAT BOOK 13 AT PAGE 35, RECORDED AUGUST 24, 1959 IN PLAT BOOK 2 AT PAGE 252, THESMUGGLER ENCLAVE ANNEXATION RECORDED JUNE 27, 1979 IN PLAT BOOK 8 AT PAGE 13 ANDTHE SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION PLAT FOR 114 NEALE/17 QUEEN HISTORIC LOT SPLIT RECORDEDMAY 29, 1998 IN PLAT BOOK 45 AT PAGE 17 IN THE PITKIN COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER'SOFFICE AND CORNERS FOUND IN PLACE.6) ELEVATIONS AS SHOWN ARE BASED ON A GPS OBSERVATION UTILIZING THE WESTERNCOLORADO RTVRN GPS NETWORK (1988 ORTHO DATUM) YIELDING AN ONSITE ELEVATION OF7929.25' ON THE EASTERLY ANGLE POINT OF PARCEL 2. CONTOUR INTERVAL EQUALS 1 FOOT.7) THE QUEEN STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY AS SHOWN ON THE ABOVE MENTIONED EAST ASPENADDITION PLAT OVERLAYS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY NORTH OF THE CURRENT LOCATION OFTHE DRIVEABLE SURFACE OF QUEEN STREET. SUBSEQUENT PLATS LISTED ABOVE INDICATETHAT THE QUEEN STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY EXISTS SOUTH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. IT ISBELIEVED BY PSI THAT THE QUEEN STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY AS SHOWN ON SAID EAST ASPENADDITION IS NOT THE CURRENT OR CORRECT LOCATION OF SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY AND THAT NODEDICATION OR ACCEPTANCE WAS FOUND TO CONFIRM OTHERWISE.8) BUILDING SETBACKS ACCORDING TO THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE FOR R-15A26.710.060 ARE AS FOLLOWS:FRONT YARD SETBACKRESIDENTIAL DWELLING = 25'ACCESSORY AND ALL OTHER BUILDINGS = 30'SIDE YARD SETBACK = 10'REAR YARD SETBACKRESIDENTIAL DWELLING = 10'ACCESSORY AND ALL OTHER BUILDINGS = 5'BUILDING SETBACKS SHOULD BE VERIFIED WITH THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING DEPARTMENTPRIOR TO ANY PLANNING OR CONSTRUCTION.9) SLOPE CALCULATIONS BASED ON EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY AFFECTING ASPEN DITCH, PONDAND WATER FEATURES HAVE BEEN REMOVED GRAPHICALLY FROM THIS SURVEY AND THESLOPE TABLE AS SHOWN AS REQUESTED.NESW0306090120150180210240270300330P e ak
S
urveying, Inc.02020408010SUBJECTPROPERTYVICINITY MAPSCALE: 1" = 2000'HATCH LEGENDBOUNDARYLINE TYPE LEGENDSTORM SEWERELECTRICEASEMENTASPHALTCONCRETESYMBOL LEGENDEDGE OF ROAD100YR FLOODPLAINPVC DRAIN LINETELEPHONECABLE TVGASLINEFIBER OPTICTELEPHONEADJ. BOUNDARYSTONE WALLSEWER LINEWATER LINESODPGEEDWDYHSTREET SIGN - "NO PARKING"GAS METERELECTRIC METERWATER METERELECTRIC MANHOLESTORM DRAINLIGHT POLEPOWER POLEWATER VALVEFIRE HYDRANTBOULDERWVC.O.A. CONTROL#5 BEARSN74°34'29"W 1479.10'C.O.A. CONTROL#4 BEARSS49°22'11"W 454.56'COL
O
R
ADO LICENSEDPROFESSIONAL LAND
S
U
RVEYOR
JAS
O
N R. NEIL37935IMPROVEMENT SURVEY STATEMENTI, JASON R. NEIL, HEREBY CERTIFY TO KING STREET COM, LLC., A COLORADO LIMITEDLIABILITY COMPANY, THAT I AM A PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR LICENSED UNDER THELAWS OF THE STATE OF COLORADO; THAT THIS IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT IS TRUE,CORRECT AND COMPLETE BASED ON MY KNOWLEDGE, INFORMATION AND BELIEF AS LAIDOUT AND SHOWN HEREON; THAT THIS IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT IS NOT A GUARANTY ORWARRANTY, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED; THAT THIS IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT WASMADE BY ME FROM AN ACCURATE SURVEY OF THE REAL PROPERTY PERFORMED BY ME ORUNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION ON OCTOBER 8 - 23, 2020 AND AUGUST 17, 2021; THAT, IN THEPREPARATION OF THIS IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT, I RELIED UPON THE TITLE COMMITMENTPREPARED BY ATTORNEYS TITLE INSURANCE AGENCY OF ASPEN, LLC., AS AGENT FOR FIRSTAMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, COMMITMENT NO. 20004521, DATED EFFECTIVEAUGUST 29, 2020; THAT THE LOCATION AND DIMENSIONS OF ALL BUILDINGS, IMPROVEMENTS,EASEMENTS, RIGHTS OF WAY IN EVIDENCE OR KNOWN TO ME AND ENCROACHMENTS BY ORON THE REAL PROPERTY AND MATTERS REFERENCED IN SAID TITLE COMMITMENT CAPABLEOF BEING SHOWN ARE ACCURATELY SHOWN, AND THAT THIS PLAT IS IN ACCORDANCE OF ANIMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT AS SET FORTH IN C.R.S. §38-51-102(9). DATED: SEPTEMBER 30, 2021 BY:___________________________________ JASON R. NEIL, P.L.S. NO. 37935 FOR AND ON BEHALF OF PEAK SURVEYING, INC.PARCEL 2APARCEL 2B85