HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.202203091
AGENDA
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
March 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: 2555 958 7838
Enter Password: 81611
Click "Join Meeting"
-- OR --
JOIN BY PHONE
Call: 1-408-418-9388
Enter Meeting Number: 2555 958 7838
Enter Password: 81611
I.SITE VISIT
II.ROLL CALL
III.MINUTES
III.A.Draft Minutes - 2/9/2022
minutes.hpc.20220209_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
1
2
XI.SUBMIT PUBLIC NOTICE FOR AGENDA ITEMS
XII.OLD BUSINESS
XII.A.303 S. Galena Street - Minor Development Review, PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED
TO 4/13
XII.B.132 W Hopkins Major Conceptual Review - PUBLIC HEARING
Exhibit C2.j_132 Hopkins Proposed Floor Area Calculations Rev._20220309.pdf
132_W_Hopkins_Memo_20220309.pdf
132_W_Hopkins_Resolution_2022_03_09.pdf
Exhibit A.1_HPGuidelinesCriteria 132 W Hopkins_20220309.pdf
Exhibit A.2_RelocationCriteria 132 W Hopkins_20220309.pdf
Exhibit A.3_Setback Staff Findings 132 W Hopkins_20220309.pdf
Exhibit A.4_FloorAreaBonus 132 w hopkins_20220309.pdf
Exhibit B_Past Staff Comments all addressed_20220309.pdf
Exhibit C.1_Original Application 20211208.pdf
Exhibit C.2a_132 Hopkins Previous & Revised South Elevations Drawings_20220309.pdf
Exhibit C.2b_132 Hopkins Previous & Proposed West Elevations_20220309.pdf
Exhibit C.2c_132 Hopkins Architecture Re-Submit_20220309.pdf
Exhibit C.2d_132 Hopkins Civil Responses_Applicant_20220309.pdf
Exhibit C2.e_132 Hopkins Garvik Statement on 2011 Drywell Excavation_20220309.pdf
Exhibit C2.f_132 Hopkins Proposed Setbacks_20220309.pdf
Exhibit C2.g_132 Hopkins Existing & Proposed Footprint_20220309.pdf
Exhibit C2.h_132 Hopkins Demolition Calculations Rev._20220309.pdf
Exhibit C2.i_132 Hopkins Existing Floor Area Calculations Rev._20220309.pdf
XIII.NEW BUSINESS
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)
2
3
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
3
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 9, 2022
Chairperson Thompson opened the meeting of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission at 4:30pm.
Commissioners in attendance: Jeffrey Halferty, Jodi Surfas, Kara Thompson, 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 January 12
th, 2022; 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 passed.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: None.
COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS: Mr. Moyer commented on an article in the newspaper about two
unfinished buildings in town owned by Mark Hunt. They are the Main Street Bakery and the old Crystal
Palace. He asked if anyone knew what was going on with these buildings that have been sitting for many
years now and if there is anything they can do about it.
Ms. Feinberg Lopez said there has been a fair amount of movement with the Main Street Bakery
building and that Ms. Yoon has received an application that they are reviewing, but there are several
things that have to be reviewed to get anything moving forward. She has had conversations on The
Crystal Palace all week and there are several issues that they have with respect to the wall that has been
saved with the mural. They related to how to deal with the building around it and make sure to keep the
wall intact.
Mr. Fornell asked Ms. Feinberg Lopez if they removed more of the wall than they were supposed to. She
said no.
Ms. Surfas asked what was supposed to be preserved on that building. Ms. Simon said the review
process was lengthy on that project and that it wasn’t what it appeared to be architecturally. What we
knew as the dinner theatre was actually built I in the 1970s and there was a Victorian era structure there
before that partially collapsed. She mentioned that HPC went back and forth on whether the 1970s
structure was historic or nothing was historic and what to do. The decision was to keep the that portion
of the west wall as it was considered to have the most integrity.
Ms. Thompson proposed that HPC do an in-person work session in the next month or two to review
some items that have been raised at previous meetings and the project monitoring process. She also
wanted to talk about how Aspen modern projects fit into the guidelines that are more intended for
Victorian era structures. The rest of the board supported that.
Ms. Thompson asked about what Council has been discussing regarding preservation benefits.
4
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 9, 2022
Ms. Simon said there hasn’t been anything specifically discussed, just a general sense that additions are
larger than Council would like.
DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: Ms. Thompson said that she is conflicted and will be turning
the meeting over to Mr. Halferty as Vice Chair for the first agenda item.
PROJECT MONITORING: None.
STAFF COMMENTS: None.
CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: None.
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 for the agenda item.
OLD BUSINESS: None.
NEW BUSINESS:
925 King Street – Demolition Review, PUBLIC HEARING
Applicant presentation: Sara Adams – Bendon Adams
Ms. Adams stated that they are requesting demolition of a cabin on the property. They were before HPC
in 2021 to redefine the preservation boundaries of this property and to request a lot split. The cabin was
included in the application, but after site visits with staff it was decided to try to get more information
because of questions about the cabin’s history. She stated that there was no mention of the cabin on
the Historic Inventory forms, but there is a 1995 notarized letter that mentions that the cabin was
originally located on Hwy 82 in the Stillwater neighborhood and then was moved to Waters Ave. in
1957. It was then moved up to King St.
Ms. Adams then showed the only historic photo that was found which is of Sparky’s Cabins and Trailer
Court located in Stillwater. It seemed to be a landing ground for many random buildings. She showed
the existing conditions at King St. and pointed out the miner’s cottage that is on the property. There is
no development of this cottage that is part of this application. They had removed the T1-11 siding in the
hopes of revealing something interesting, but rather it gave more questions. What was found was a lot
of haphazard construction, including lots of seams, and cut logs. She then showed a few pictures of the
cabin highlighting the construction issues and also described the roof framing, confirming the rebuild.
She went over the Purpose and Intent section of the HP guidelines and said that the program is not
about preserving every old building but finding a reasonable balance. She stated that if the cabin were
to stay it would require a full restoration and they would be guessing to what it looked like. She then
went over the demolition criteria that is being reviewed tonight and said they find criteria D is met, that
there is not documentation to support that the property has historic significance. She finished by stating
that the reason they are requesting demolition is to avoid guessing at history.
5
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 9, 2022
Mr. Fornell asked who does the scoring for demolition. Ms. Adams said that the scores in the application
was from her calculations.
Mr. Halferty asked what the use was in the cabin. Ms. Adams said that it was a residential rental. Mr.
Halferty asked about what was found in the attic space upon inspection. Ms. Adams said that all the
rafters were cut and there was a new ridge beam. It seemed to all have been rebuilt once it was moved
from Waters to King St. Ms. Feinberg Lopez said that it was all new truss work that was haphazard.
Staff Presentation: Natalie Feinberg Lopez, Historic Preservation Officer
Ms. Feinberg Lopez Showed the North and West elevations and described the details of the lot and
zoning. She said her and Ms. Yoon had been to the property many times to make sure they feel
comfortable with the proposal. She went over some of the alterations done over time between 1945
and today. She pointed out an addition on the south elevation and showed the east elevation, pointing
out the damage to the log structure and the haphazard way the logs were put back together. She
pointed out several new penetrations on the east and west elevations. She then showed some interior
photos.
Ms. Feinberg Lopez then went over the items staff is asking to be looked at for demolition and stated
that staff feels that we have lost the integrity and is recommending demolition. 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.
Mr. Fornell asked if staff agreed with the determination of the scoring that was provided by the
applicant. Ms. Feinberg Lopez said that she found that Ms. Adams did an excellent job in the research
and scoring.
Mr. Fornell thought that blatantly missing from the application is the requirement for the property
owner and applicant to provide affordable housing mitigation for the demolition. He stated that per
Land Use Code, if it can be demonstrated that the parcel provided workforce housing that the
requirement for affordable housing mitigation is absolute. He is confused as to why it is not mentioned
or being satisfied.
Ms. Feinberg Lopez said that this is just one of many reviews that will occur related to this property.
Mr. Fornell said that the construction of a new addition to the historic resource will kick in affordable
housing, but that it is separate to the employee housing replacement when you have a demolition.
Ms. Adams stated that Mr. Fornell is talking about the multi-family replacement section of the code and
that this property is not considered multi-family. It had a lot of bandit units on it with people living in
them, but was never a legally established multi-family property, therefore does not trigger replacement
with the demolition.
Mr. Fornell mentioned that the fathering parcel had four units on it and asked if the lot split that
occurred was by design to avoid the multi-family replacement.
Ms. Adams said the City never recognized this as multi-family, so they never required replacement and
that it was not the reason for the lot split.
6
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 9, 2022
Ms. Feinberg Lopez said that this structure is considered by staff to be the same as “sheds” or “out
buildings”.
Mr. Fornell said that it could be easily demonstrated that the bandit units were all occupied over time.
He asked if there was any affordable housing replacement required with the lot split.
Ms. Johnson noted from the Land Use Code that affordable housing replacement would be required if
you demolished a multi-family resident housing. She then quoted the definition of multi-family
residence. She said that there were no mitigation requirements associated with the lot split. She said
she did not believe it applies in this instance but said that if further development were to take place on
the property it would likely trigger affordable housing mitigation requirements.
Mr. Fornell said that he is not prepared to vote on this until he received a legal opinion on this.
Ms. Feinberg Lopez said that they are following code here and that is her job.
Mr. Fornell said that he thought it was an awful loophole in the affordable housing requirement.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
BOARD DISCUSSION:Mr. Halferty went over the criteria in front of the board.
Mr. Fornell made a motion to continue until they got a legal response from the attorney’s office
regarding the housing mitigation. No second made.
Ms. Johnson mentioned that the resolution in the packet had some errors. She said that if the Board
wishes to consider passage of the resolution, that they consider the amended resolution that Ms.
Feinberg Lopez set to members today. She went over some of the identifying information that was
corrected.
MOTION: Mr. Moyer moved to approve the demolition as per the amended resolution. Ms. Surfas
seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, abstained; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; 3-1 in
favor, motion passes.
Mr. Moyer referred to a walk around that HPC and staff did on the property approximately 2 years ago
and mentioned that there was no discussion of affordable housing. He asked Ms. Feinberg Lopez and
Ms. Johnson if employee housing something HPC is supposed to consider.
Ms. Johnson agreed that Mr. Fornell is right, that there are issues with the code that they hope to
correct. That affordable housing credits are not doing what they were designed to do. That said, every
project before HPC, we are going to look to the code to determine what the affordable housing
mitigation requirements are.
Mr. Halferty said he understood Mr. Fornell’s point but voted the way he did because of the criteria in
front of them.
Mr. Fornell said that he was not going to let this go and had talked with the mayor and Community
Development about the matter. He said it is a problem loophole that needs to be closed.
7
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 9, 2022
Mr. Moyer asked if when the miner’s cabin development comes before HPC in the future can they make
affordable housing mitigation part of their demands.
Ms. Johnson said it would depend on how it comes to them. If the land use approval is submitted after
the moratorium, it would be subject to any new terms. It would be subject to review for those issues
and HPC would be asked, as part of their conditions of approval, if those requirements had been met.
ADJOURN: Mr. Moyer moved to adjourn. Ms. Thompson seconded. All in favor; motion passed.
____________________
Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk
8
9
Page 1 of 7
437 Rio Grande, Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
Memorandum
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Natalie Feinberg Lopez, Historic Preservation Officer
THROUGH: Natalie Feinberg Lopez, Historic Preservation Officer
MEETING DATE: March 9, 2022
RE: 132 W Hopkins Ave – Conceptual Major Development, Relocation,
Setback Variations and Floor Area Bonus, PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICANT /OWNER:
Michael R. Berghoff Trust &
Kristian Berghoff Trust
REPRESENTATIVE:
Gretchen Greenwood
LOCATION:
Street Address:
132 W Hopkins
Legal Description:
Lot 2, 134 and 134 ½ W Hopkins
historic landmark lot split,
according to the plat thereof
recorded May 4, 2004, in plat
book 69 at page 6 as reception
no. 497137 City and Townsite of
Aspen, Colorado
Parcel Identification Number:
PID# 2735-124-19-002
CURRENT ZONING & USE
R-6 (Moderate-Density
Residential); Single-family home
PROPOSED ZONING & USE:
No change
SUMMARY: 132 W. Hopkins is a miner’s
cottage moved from Spring Street in 1988 and was part of a
Historic Landmark Lot Split in 2003 with allowable floor area
of 1,704 sf, and area bonus of up to 116.4 sf. Proposed
changes include to remove the existing non-historic
addition, relocate the historic home on a new basement
foundation, include 2 compliant on-site parking spaces. The
applicant requests for setback variations and a possible
floor area bonus for the proposed project.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff supports the restoration efforts of
this project, finds the redesign meets all criteria, and recommends
approval.
Site Locator Map – 132 W Hopkins
132
10
Page 2 of 7
437 Rio Grande, Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
BACKGROUND:
132 W. Hopkins (previously known as 134 ½ W. Hopkins) is a 3000sf lot in the R-6 zone district.
It contains a Victorian era miner’s cabin that was moved in 1988 from Spring Street and placed
on a property that contained another
Victorian era home in its historic location at
the corner of Hopkins and First Street. The
two structures were historically designated,
restored, expanded, and condomiumized into
two separate ownerships. Subsequently in
2003, each home was established on a fee
simple 3,000 square foot lot through a
Historic Landmark Lot Split via Ordinance No.
64, Series of 2003. At the time of the lot split,
Lot 2 (132 W. Hopkins) was allocated 1,704
square feet of floor area which included a
floor area bonus to legalize the existing floor
area overage on the site (1,620 square feet +
84 square feet = 1,704 square feet). In 2010
a Floor Area Allocation Agreement was made
between the owners of the lot split properties
and the City of Aspen to clarify floor area
discrepancies that occurred from a
misrepresentation during the subdivision
review. The result was a determination that
Lot 2 has an allowable floor area of 1,704
square feet with the opportunity to request a
floor area bonus of up to 116.4 square feet.
Alterations over time to the original structure
include changes in the siding, such as possibly
adding fish scales to the gable of the street
facing elevation on the South elevation,
changes to the fenestration and door openings
at the historic front porch, and large additions to the rear of the house that have increased the
footprint significantly from the period of original construction. The original house is off the 1904
Sanborn maps, thus the specific original footprint will require additional information at the time of
construction, such as indications from framing of the original construction methodologies and
changes that may indicate subsequent phases of construction. It is important to gather historic
documentation and photographs to aid any restoration efforts. More information in the form of
historic photos or physical evidence is needed for an accurate restoration of the rear portion of
the house.
Figure 1 – 132 W Hopkins, date unknow,
approx. early 1900s
Figure 2 –132 W Hopkins, 1991.
11
Page 3 of 7
437 Rio Grande, 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:
• Major Development (Section 26.415.070.D) to restore the historic home and construct a
new addition to the rear of the property.
• Relocation (Section 26.415.090) to relocate the historic resource onto a new basement
foundation.
• Setback Variation (Section 26.415.110.C) for the new addition towards the rear of the
property, on the North elevation, above and below grade, as well as for both the East and
the West elevations.
• Floor Area Bonus (Section 26.415.110.F) allowed to request up to 250 sf but must meet all
relevant criteria for the bonus including exceptional preservation outcome.
The Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) is the final review authority; however, this project is
subject to Call-up Notice by City Council.
PROJECT SUMMARY:
The applicant proposes a complete restoration of the historic resource according to the Historic
Preservation Design Guidelines by restoring the fenestration and doorways found at the historic
porch on the East elevation, restoring the siding to match historic photos, and removing the
previous non-historic additions to the rear of the house. The historic home is to be relocated onto
a new basement foundation and a two-story addition is proposed to the rear of the property
connected by a one-story, 10’ long connecting element. The applicant requests multiple setback
variations Set back variations: 3’ variation on the West property line; a variation along the East
property line (see associate plans Exhibit A.3); a variation for the new basement and upstairs
living area along the North side of the property (alleyway) of 5’. The applicant requests a 105sf
floor area bonus.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Staff supports the plan to restore the historic resource using historic documentation and
exploratory demolition to better understand the original footprint, fenestration configuration,
phases of construction, and material integrity of the resource. Staff supports the proposed
relocation of the historic resource on a new basement foundation. The proposed new addition is
adequately distanced from the historic resource and uses forms that are related to the historic
resource and meets the design guidelines. Staff’s concerns with items identified in the previous
submittal have been addressed. This includes removing the non-historic double hung windows at
the front of the house on the East elevation, review during demolition of current chimney and flue
to identify the original location, changes in the fenestration at the South elevation of the new
addition, the reduction of the sill plate height for the new construction, and the landscape items
identified by the Parks department. Staff recommends approval of the project.
12
Page 4 of 7
437 Rio Grande, Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
Staff recommends HPC further discuss the following topic in more detail.
1. Historic Landmark –Restoration and Alterations:
A preservation plan will be required for the restoration of the historic resource outlining the
existing conditions and the proposed treatments. Staff fully supports the restoration of the
historic resource and the removal of non-historic materials and demolition of non-historic
additions. Staff finds the scope of work related to the restoration/rehabilitation of the historic
resource gives the applicant the necessary merit for requesting for a floor area bonus.
Staff supports the proposed restoration and rehabilitation efforts.
2. New Addition – Form, Materials and Fenestration: The proposed new addition is
compatible in size/scale and strikes a good balance between contemporary and historic
features (Design Guideline 10.8). The addition is located to the rear of the property towards
the alley, and the 10’ long connecting element creates a separation between the historic
resource and the new two-story addition (Design Guideline 10.9 & 10.10). The new addition
has a minimal footprint and utilizes forms found on the historic resource. The proposed siding
of the new addition relates to the restored historic siding material and selects contemporary
fenestration as the departing point for the design. In compliance with Design Guideline 10.6,
the proposed addition appears to relate to form and materials while deviating from fenestration.
Additional information regarding materials to be reviewed during Final Review for compatibility.
Staff finds the overall design of the new addition meets the relevant Historic
Preservation Design Guidelines.
3. Site Planning and Parking: The proposed site planning respects the underlying zoning
requirements for front and side yard setbacks. The preliminary stormwater plans have been
addressed by the applicant as requested by the City of Aspen Engineering Department and
Parks, including the request for study of the electrical use and transformers required. This plan
is code compliant for required parking with one spot in the parking garage and a new additional
spot located off the alley to the north.
Staff supports the location of the new addition, and the current proposed design as it
addresses Engineering, Park, and Zoning’s referral comments, and provide for two
code compliant on-site parking spaces.
13
Page 5 of 7
437 Rio Grande, Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
Figure 5 – Proposed Site Plan with setback items and associated requested
variances outlined in red. North is located at the top of the site plan.
4. Setback Variations & Floor Area Bonus: Setback variations and floor area bonuses are
benefits available to historic properties granted by the HPC. They are site-specific approvals
that are tied to a specific design reviewed for compatibility and appropriateness.
Setback Variations: The applicant requires a reduction of the 10’ rear yard setback
requirement along the alley for the proposed addition, above and below grade. The proposed
design shows the subgrade level within the rear yard setback by approximately 5’. The
proposed above grade one-car garage has livable space on top and is 5’ within the rear yard.
A 5’ setback variation is needed for the proposed design of livable space above the garage.
Staff finds the request for a setback variation is appropriate because it pushes the new addition
closer to the rear and provides more distance between the historic resource and the new
addition. This allows for all requirements of the design guidelines to be met, while protecting
the historic resource. Additional set back requests are located along the East and West
property lines. The setback along the east side of the property as proposed increases the
current space to give additional square footage between 132 W Hopkins and the neighbor to
the east, increasing the set back from 1’ to 3’ which staff considers a marked improvement
over the current site conditions. This will require a variation as the setback is required to be 5’.
As the property line is not straight, there is a specific section of the setback that is less than 3’
(see drawings on Exhibit A.3) which is noted in the final conditions. The setback variance along
the west side of the property is required due to the structure not sitting in perfect alignment
with the latest survey and may be up to 8” in the setback. The applicant proactively requests
14
Page 6 of 7
437 Rio Grande, Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
a variance of 4’ to allow for any discrepancies between the original plat, alignment of the
historic structure, and survey results.
Floor Area Bonus: The applicant plans to undertake a complete restoration of the historic
resource. Staff finds the request for a 105sf floor area bonus is appropriate considering the
scope of preservation that will occur. See Exhibit A.4 for criteria and detailed staff findings.
Staff finds all criteria for setback variations are met and supports the request. The
proposed restoration for the project will greatly benefit the historic resource and
proposed design is in order to meet all criteria for a floor area bonus requested.
REFERRAL COMMENTS:
The application was referred out to other City departments who have requirements that will
significantly affect the permit review. Please see Exhibit B for full comments from the previous
submission. The applicant has worked individually with each department to ensure all requests
have been met.
Engineering Department: 12/09/2021
1. Provide a conceptual Utility Plan
2. Electricity and transformer study required.
3. Install sidewalk
4. Urban Runoff Management Plan requires a drainage impact study as related to a dry well,
the large cottonwood, and the creation of a new basement.
Parks Department: 12/09/2021
1. Airspading of all trees required
2. Maintain current walkway
3. Micropiling and one-sided foundation pours may be required
Zoning Department: 12/09/2021
1. Revisit demolition totals
2. Look at setbacks on the north side of the property for proper variances.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) approve this application as
submitted.
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution #____, Series of 2022
Exhibit A.1 – Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Criteria / Staff Findings
Exhibit A.2 – Relocation Review / Zoning Staff Findings
Exhibit A.3 – Setback Variations Review Criteria / Staff Findings
15
Page 7 of 7
437 Rio Grande, Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
Exhibit A.4 – Floor Area Bonus / Staff Findings
Exhibit B – Referral Comments
Exhibit C.1 – Application from 12/09/21
Exhibit C.2a-j – Application supplements 03/09/22
16
HPC Resolution #, Series of 2022
Page 1 of 3
RESOLUTION #__, SERIES OF 2022
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
GRANTING CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, RELOCATION,
SETBACK VARIATIONS AND A FLOOR AREA BONUS FOR THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 132 W HOPKINS, 134 & 1341/2 W HOPKINS LANDMARK LOT SPLIT
LOT 2 BLOCK 59, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO
PARCEL ID: 2735512419002
WHEREAS, the applicant, Michael R. Berghoff Trust & Kristian Berghoff Trust, represented by
Gretchen Greenwood, has requested HPC approval for Conceptual Major Development,
Relocation, Setback Variations and a Floor Area Bonus for the property located at 132 W
Hopkins, 134 & 1341/2 W Hopkins landmark lot split lot 2 block 59, City and Townsite of
Aspen, Colorado. As a historic landmark, the site is exempt from Residential Design Standards
review; and
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that “no building or structure
shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a
designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted
to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures
established for their review;” and
WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application,
a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project’s
conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section
26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC
may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain
additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and
WHEREAS, for approval of Relocation, the application shall meet the requirements of Aspen
Municipal Code Section 26.415.090, Relocation; and
WHEREAS, for approval of Setback Variations, the application shall meet the requirements of
Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.415.110.C, Setback Variations; and
WHEREAS, for approval of Floor Area Bonus, the application shall meet the requirements of
Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.415.110.F, Floor Area Bonus; and
WHEREAS, Community Development Department staff reviewed the application for
compliance with applicable review standards and recommends approval with conditions; and
WHEREAS, HPC reviewed the project on December 8, 2021. HPC considered the application,
the staff memo and public comment, and found the proposal consistent with the review standards
and granted approval with conditions by a vote of 5-0.
17
HPC Resolution # , Series of 2022
Page 2 of 3
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That HPC hereby approves Conceptual Major Development, Relocation, Setback Variations and
Floor Area Bonus for 1132 W Hopkins, 134 & 1341/2 W Hopkins landmark lot split lot 2 block 59,
City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado as follows:
Section 1: Conceptual Major Development, Relocation, Setback Variations and a Floor Area
Bonus.
HPC hereby approves Conceptual Major Development, Relocation, Setback Variations and Floor
Area Bonus as proposed with the following conditions:
1.) Investigate the historic framing for any evidence of historic material and openings.
Fenestration changes to be reviewed and approved by staff and monitor
before proceeding.
2.) Provide a detailed Preservation Plan including existing conditions documenting
investigation of historic framing and proposed treatment, to be reviewed by staff and
monitor prior to building permit submission.
3.) Work closely with all relevant City Departments to meet all requirements.
4.) Provide financial assurances of $30,000 for the relocation of the historic home onto a new
basement foundation, to be provided prior to building permit submission.
5.) Up to a 116.4 sf floor area bonus is granted for the approved design.
6.) The following setback variation for the proposed addition is granted:
a.North rear yard 5' setback for the addition above and below grade, as represented
in the approved application
b.West side yard 3’setback in segment A and D, 1' setback in segment B, 4'2"
setback in segment C, increased from the current 1’ setback as represented in
the approved application
c.East side yard 1' side yard setback as represented in the approved application
7.) A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one
(1) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an
application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the
Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole
discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date for
a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written
request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date.
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.
18
HPC Resolution # , Series of 2022
Page 3 of 3
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 9th day of March,
2022.
Approved as to Form: Approved as to Content:
________________________________________________________________
Katharine Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Kara Thompson, Vice Chair
ATTEST:
________________________________
Michael Sear, Deputy City Clerk
19
Page 1 of 14
Exhibit A.1
Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Criteria
Staff Findings
NOTE: Staff responses begin on page 13 of this exhibit, following the list of applicable
guidelines.
26.415.070.D Major Development. No building, structure or landscape shall be erected,
constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated
historic property or a property located within a Historic District until plans or sufficient
information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved
in accordance with the procedures established for their review. An application for a
building permit cannot be submitted without a development order.
3. Conceptual Development Plan Review
b) The procedures for the review of conceptual development plans for major
development projects are as follows:
1) The Community Development Director shall review the application materials
submitted for conceptual or final development plan approval. If they are
determined to be complete, the applicant will be notified in writing of this
and a public hearing before the HPC shall be scheduled. Notice of the
hearing shall be provided pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E.3 Paragraphs
a, b and c.
2) Staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a report that analyzes
the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable
Land Use Code sections. This report will be transmitted to the HPC with
relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to
continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons
for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff
analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the
project's conformance with the City Historic Preservation Design
Guidelines.
3) The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the
application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to
approve or deny.
4) A resolution of the HPC action shall be forwarded to the City Council in
accordance with Section 26.415.120 - Appeals, notice to City Council, and
call-up. No applications for Final Development Plan shall be accepted by
the City and no associated permits shall be issued until the City Council
takes action as described in said section.
20
Page 2 of 14
Chapter 1: Site Planning & Landscape Design MET NOT MET
1.1 All projects shall respect the historic development pattern or context of the block, neighborhood
or district.
1.4 Design a new driveway or improve an existing driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual
impact.
1.5 Maintain the historic hierarchy of spaces.
1.6 Provide a simple walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry on residential
projects.
1.7 Provide positive open space within a project site.
1.8 Consider stormwater quality needs early in the design process.
1.10 Built-in furnishings, such as water features, fire pits, grills, and hot tubs, that could interfere
with or block views of historic structures are inappropriate.
1.11 Preserve and maintain historically significant landscaping on site, particularly landmark trees
and shrubs.
Chapter 2: Rehabilitation - Building Materials MET NOT MET
2.1 Preserve original building materials.
2.2 The finish of materials should be as it would have existed historically.
2.3 Match the original material in composition, scale and finish when replacing materials on primary
surfaces.
2.4 Do not use synthetic materials as replacements for original building materials.
2.5 Covering original building materials with new materials is inappropriate.
2.6 Remove layers that cover the original material.
Chapter 3: Rehabilitation - Windows MET NOT MET
3.1 Preserve the functional and decorative features of a historic window.
3.2 Preserve the position, number, and arrangement of historic windows in a building wall.
3.3 Match a replacement window to the original in its design.
3.4 When replacing an original window, use materials that are the same as the original.
3.5 Preserve the size and proportion of a historic window opening.
3.6 Match, as closely as possible, the profile of the sash and its components to that of the original
window.
Chapter 4: Rehabilitation - Doors MET NOT MET
4.1 Preserve historically significant doors.
4.2 Maintain the original size of a door and its opening.
4.3 When a historic door or screen door is damaged, repair it and maintain its general historic
appearance.
4.4 When replacing a door or screen door, use a design that has an appearance similar to the
original door or a door associated with the style of the building.
4.5 Adding new doors on a historic building is generally not allowed.
4.7 Preserve historic hardware.
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Review Criteria for 132 W Hopkins
The applicant is requesting Conceptual Major Development review for restoring the historic resource and a new
above grade addition. The proposed design must meet applicable Historic Preservation Design Guidelines.
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
21
Page 3 of 14
Chapter 5: Rehabilitation - Porches & Balconies MET NOT MET
5.1 Preserve an original porch or balcony.
5.2 Avoid removing or covering historic materials and details.
5.3 Enclosing a porch or balcony is not appropriate.
5.4 If reconstruction is necessary, match the original in form, character and detail.
5.5 If new steps are to be added, construct them out of the same primary materials used on the
original, and design them to be in scale with the porch or balcony
5.6 Avoid adding handrails or guardrails where they did not exist historically, particularly where
visible from the street.
Chapter 6: Rehabilitation - Architectural Details MET NOT MET
6.1 Preserve significant architectural features.
6.2 When disassembly of a historic element is necessary for its restoration, use methods that
minimize damage to the original material.
6.3 Remove only the portion of the detail that is deteriorated and must be replaced.
6.4 Repair or replacement of missing or deteriorated features are required to be based on original
designs.
6.5 Do not guess at “historic” designs for replacement parts.
Chapter 7: Rehabilitation - Roofs MET NOT MET
7.1 Preserve the original form of a roof.
7.2 Preserve the original eave depth.
7.4 New vents should be minimized, carefully, placed and painted a dark color.
7.5 Preserve original chimneys, even if they are made non-functional.
7.7 Preserve original roof materials.
7.8 New or replacement roof materials should convey a scale, color and texture similar to the
original.
7.10 Design gutters so that their visibility on the structure is minimized to the extent possible.
Chapter 9: New Construction - Excavation, Building Relocation & Foundations MET NOT MET
9.1 Developing a basement by underpinning and excavating while the historic structure remains in
place may help to preserve the historic fabric.
9.3 Site a relocated structure in a position similar to its historic orientation.
9.4 Position a relocated structure at its historic elevation above grade.
9.5 A new foundation shall appear similar in design and materials to the historic foundation.
9.6 Minimize the visual impact of lightwells.
9.7 All relocations of designated structures shall be performed by contractors who specialize in
moving historic buildings, or can document adequate experience in successfully relocating such
buildings.
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
22
Page 4 of 14
Relevant Historic Preservation Design Guidelines:
1.1 All projects shall respect the historic development pattern or context of the block,
neighborhood or district.
• Building footprint and location should reinforce the traditional patterns of the neighborhood.
• Allow for some porosity on a site. In a residential project, setback to setback development is
typically uncharacteristic of the historic context. Do not design a project which leaves no useful
open space visible from the street.
1.4 Design a new driveway or improve an existing driveway in a manner that minimizes its
visual impact.
• If an alley exists at the site, the new driveway must be located off it.
• Tracks, gravel, light grey concrete with minimal seams, or similar materials are appropriate for
driveways on Aspen Victorian properties.
1.5 Maintain the historic hierarchy of spaces.
• Reflect the established progression of public to private spaces from the public sidewalk to a
semi-public walkway, to a semi private entry feature, to private spaces.
1.6 Provide a simple walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry on
residential projects.
• Meandering walkways are not allowed, except where it is needed to avoid a tree or is typical of
the period of significance.
• Use paving materials that are similar to those used historically for the building style and install
them in the manner that they would have been used historically. For example on an Aspen
Victorian landmark set flagstone pavers in sand, rather than in concrete. Light grey concrete,
brick or red sandstone are appropriate private walkway materials for most landmarks.
Chapter 10: New Construction - Building Additions MET NOT MET
10.2 A more recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed.
10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary
building is maintained.
10.4 The historic resource is to be the focus of the property, the entry point, and the predominant
structure as viewed from the street.
10.6 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time.
10.8 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building.
10.9 If the addition is taller than a historic building, set it back from significant façades and use a
“connector” to link it to the historic building.
10.10 Place an addition at the rear of a primary building or set it back substantially from the front to
minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and
character to remain prominent.
10.11 Roof forms shall be compatible with the historic building.
10.12 Design an addition to a historic structure that does not destroy or obscure historically
important architectural features.
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
23
Page 5 of 14
• The width of a new entry sidewalk should generally be three feet or less for residential
properties. A wider sidewalk may be appropriate for an AspenModern property.
1.7 Provide positive open space within a project site.
• Ensure that open space on site is meaningful and consolidated into a few large spaces rather
than many small unusable areas.
• Open space should be designed to support and complement the historic building.
1.8 Consider stormwater quality needs early in the design process.
• When included in the initial planning for a project, stormwater quality facilities can be better
integrated into the proposal. All landscape plans presented for HPC review must include at least
a preliminary representation of the stormwater design. A more detailed design must be
reviewed and approved by Planning and Engineering prior to building permit submittal.
• Site designs and stormwater management should provide positive drainage away from the
historic landmark, preserve the use of natural drainage and treatment systems of the site,
reduce the generation of additional stormwater runoff, and increase infiltration into the ground.
Stormwater facilities and conveyances located in front of a landmark should have minimal visual
impact when viewed from the public right of way.
• Refer to City Engineering for additional guidance and requirements.
1.10 Built-in furnishings, such as water features, fire pits, grills, and hot tubs, that could
interfere with or block views of historic structures are inappropriate.
• Site furnishings that are added to the historic property should not be intrusive or degrade the
integrity of the neighborhood patterns, site, or existing historic landscape.
• Consolidating and screening these elements is preferred.
1.11 Preserve and maintain historically significant landscaping on site, particularly landmark
trees and shrubs.
• Retaining historic planting beds and landscape features is encouraged.
• Protect historically significant vegetation during construction to avoid damage. Removal of
damaged, aged, or diseased trees must be approved by the Parks Department.
• If a significant tree must be removed, replace it with the same or similar species in coordination
with the Parks Department.
• The removal of non-historic planting schemes is encouraged.
• Consider restoring the original landscape if information is available, including original plant
materials.
2.1 Preserve original building materials.
• Do not remove siding that is in good condition or that can be repaired in place.
• Masonry features that define the overall historic character, such as walls, cornices, pediments,
steps and foundations, should be preserved.
• Avoid rebuilding a major portion of an exterior wall that could be repaired in place.
Reconstruction may result in a building which no longer retains its historic integrity.
• Original AspenModern materials may be replaced in kind if it has been determined that the
weathering detracts from the original design intent or philosophy.
24
Page 6 of 14
2.2 The finish of materials should be as it would have existed historically.
• Masonry naturally has a water-protective layer to protect it from the elements. Brick or stone
that was not historically painted shall not be painted.
• If masonry that was not painted historically was given a coat of paint at some more recent time,
consider removing it, using appropriate methods.
• Wood should be painted, stained or natural, as appropriate to the style and history of the
building.
2.3 Match the original material in composition, scale and finish when replacing materials on
primary surfaces.
• If the original material is wood clapboard for example, then the replacement material must be
wood as well. It should match the original in size, and the amount of exposed lap and finish.
• Replace only the amount required. If a few boards are damaged beyond repair, then only those
should be replaced, not the entire wall. For AspenModern buildings, sometimes the replacement
of a larger area is required to preserve the integrity of the design intent.
2.4 Do not use synthetic materials as replacements for original building materials.
• Original building materials such as wood siding and brick should not be replaced with synthetic
materials.
2.5 Covering original building materials with new materials is inappropriate.
• Regardless of their character, new materials obscure the original, historically significant material.
• Any material that covers historic materials may also trap moisture between the two layers. This
will cause accelerated deterioration to the historic material which may go unnoticed.
2.6 Remove layers that cover the original material.
• Once the non-historic siding is removed, repair the original, underlying material.
3.1 Preserve the functional and decorative features of a historic window.
• Features important to the character of a window include its frame, sash, muntins/mullions, sills,
heads, jambs, moldings, operations, and groupings of windows.
• Repair frames and sashes rather than replacing them.
• Preserve the original glass. If original Victorian era glass is broken, consider using restoration
glass for the repair.
3.2 Preserve the position, number, and arrangement of historic windows in a building wall.
• Enclosing a historic window is inappropriate.
• Do not change the size of an original window opening.
3.3 Match a replacement window to the original in its design.
• If the original is double-hung, then the replacement window must also be double-hung. If the
sash have divided lights, match that characteristic as well.
3.4 When replacing an original window, use materials that are the same as the original.
25
Page 7 of 14
3.5 Preserve the size and proportion of a historic window opening.
• Changing the window opening is not permitted.
• Consider restoring an original window opening that was enclosed in the past.
3.6 Match, as closely as possible, the profile of the sash and its components to that of the
original window.
• A historic window often has a complex profile. Within the window’s casing, the sash steps back
to the plane of the glazing (glass) in several increments. These increments, which individually
only measure in eighths or quarters of inches, are important details. They distinguish the actual
window from the surrounding plane of the wall.
• The historic profile on AspenModern properties is typically minimal.
4.1 Preserve historically significant doors.
• Maintain features important to the character of a historic doorway. These include the door, door
frame, screen door, threshold, glass panes, paneling, hardware, detailing, transoms and flanking
sidelights.
• Do not change the position and function of original front doors and primary entrances.
• If a secondary entrance must be sealed shut, any work that is done must be reversible so that
the door can be used at a later time, if necessary. Also, keep the door in place, in its historic
position.
• Previously enclosed original doors should be reopened when possible.
4.2 Maintain the original size of a door and its opening.
• Altering its size and shape is inappropriate. It should not be widened or raised in height.
4.3 When a historic door or screen door is damaged, repair it and maintain its general historic
appearance.
4.4 When replacing a door or screen door, use a design that has an appearance similar to the
original door or a door associated with the style of the building.
• A replica of the original, if evidence exists, is the preferred replacement.
• A historic door or screen door from a similar building also may be considered.
• Simple paneled doors were typical for Aspen Victorian properties.
• Very ornate doors, including stained or leaded glass, are discouraged, unless photographic
evidence can support their use.
4.5 Adding new doors on a historic building is generally not allowed.
• Place new doors in any proposed addition rather than altering the historic resource.
• Greater flexibility in installing a door in a new location may be considered on rear or secondary
walls.
• A new door in a new location should be similar in scale and style to historic openings on the
building and should be a product of its own time.
26
Page 8 of 14
• Preserve the historic ratio of openings to solid wall on a façade. Significantly increasing the
openings on a character defining façade negatively affects the integrity of a structure.
4.7 Preserve historic hardware.
• When new hardware is needed, it must be in scale with the door and appropriate to the style of
the building.
• On Aspen Victorian properties, conceal any modern elements such as entry key pads.
5.1 Preserve an original porch or balcony.
• Replace missing posts and railings when necessary. Match the original proportions, material and
spacing of balusters.
• Expanding the size of a historic porch or balcony is inappropriate.
5.2 Avoid removing or covering historic materials and details.
• Removing an original balustrade, for example, is inappropriate.
5.3 Enclosing a porch or balcony is not appropriate.
• Reopening an enclosed porch or balcony is appropriate.
5.4 If reconstruction is necessary, match the original in form, character and detail.
• Match original materials.
• When reconstructing an original porch or balcony without historic photographs, use dimensions
and characteristics found on comparable buildings. Keep style and form simple with minimal, if
any, decorative elements.
5.5 If new steps are to be added, construct them out of the same primary materials used on the
original, and design them to be in scale with the porch or balcony
• Steps should be located in the original location.
• Step width should relate to the scale of entry doors, spacing between posts, depth of deck, etc.
• Brick, red sandstone, grey concrete, or wood are appropriate materials for steps.
5.6 Avoid adding handrails or guardrails where they did not exist historically, particularly
where visible from the street.
• If handrails or guardrails are needed according to building code, keep their design simple in
character and different from the historic detailing on the porch or balcony.
6.1 Preserve significant architectural features.
• Repair only those features that are deteriorated.
• Patch, piece-in, splice, or consolidate to repair the existing materials, using recognized
preservation methods whenever possible.
• On AspenModern properties, repair is preferred, however, it may be more important to preserve
the integrity of the original design intent, such as crisp edges, rather than to retain heavily
deteriorated material.
27
Page 9 of 14
6.2 When disassembly of a historic element is necessary for its restoration, use methods that
minimize damage to the original material.
• Document its location so it may be repositioned accurately. Always devise methods of replacing
the disassembled material in its original configuration.
6.3 Remove only the portion of the detail that is deteriorated and must be replaced.
• Match the original in composition, scale, and finish when replacing materials or features.
• If the original detail was made of wood, for example, then the replacement material should be
wood, when feasible. It should match the original in size and finish.
6.4 Repair or replacement of missing or deteriorated features are required to be based on
original designs.
• The design should be substantiated by physical or pictorial evidence to avoid creating a
misrepresentation of the building’s heritage.
• When reconstruction of an element is impossible because there is no historical evidence,
develop a compatible new design that is a simplified interpretation of the original, and maintains
similar scale, proportion and material.
6.5 Do not guess at “historic” designs for replacement parts.
• Where scars on the exterior suggest that architectural features existed, but there is no other
physical or photographic evidence, then new features may be designed that are similar in
character to related buildings.
• Using ornate materials on a building or adding new conjectural detailing for which there is no
documentation is inappropriate.
7.1 Preserve the original form of a roof.
• Do not alter the angle of a historic roof. Preserve the orientation and slope of the roof as seen from
the street.
• Retain and repair original and decorative roof detailing.
• Where the original roof form has been altered, consider restoration.
7.2 Preserve the original eave depth.
• Overhangs contribute to the scale and detailing of a historic resource.
• AspenModern properties typically have very deep or extremely minimal overhangs that are key
character defining features of the architectural style.
7.4 New vents should be minimized, carefully, placed and painted a dark color.
• Direct vents for fireplaces are generally not permitted to be added on historic structures.
• Locate vents on non-street facing facades.
• Use historic chimneys as chases for new flues when possible.
7.5 Preserve original chimneys, even if they are made non-functional.
• Reconstruct a missing chimney when documentation exists.
28
Page 10 of 14
7.7 Preserve original roof materials.
• Avoid removing historic roofing material that is in good condition. When replacement is
necessary, use a material that is similar to the original in both style as well as physical qualities
and use a color that is similar to that seen historically.
7.8 New or replacement roof materials should convey a scale, color and texture similar to the
original.
• If a substitute is used, such as composition shingle, the roof material should be earth tone and
have a matte, non-reflective finish.
• Flashing should be in scale with the roof material.
• Flashing should be tin, lead coated copper, galvanized or painted metal and have a matte, non-
reflective finish.
• Design flashing, such as drip edges, so that architectural details are not obscured.
• A metal roof is inappropriate for an Aspen Victorian primary home but may be appropriate for a
secondary structure from that time period.
• A metal roof material should have a matte, non-reflective finish and match the original seaming.
7.10 Design gutters so that their visibility on the structure is minimized to the extent possible.
• Downspouts should be placed in locations that are not visible from the street if possible, or in
locations that do not obscure architectural detailing on the building.
• The material used for the gutters should be in character with the style of the building.
9.1 Developing a basement by underpinning and excavating while the historic structure
remains in place may help to preserve the historic fabric.
• This activity will require the same level of documentation, structural assessment, and posting of
financial assurances as a building relocation.
9.3 Site a relocated structure in a position similar to its historic orientation.
• It must face the same direction and have a relatively similar setback. In general, a forward
movement, rather than a lateral movement is preferred. HPC will consider setback variations
where appropriate.
• A primary structure may not be moved to the rear of the parcel to accommodate a new building in
front of it.
• Be aware of potential restrictions against locating buildings too close to mature trees. Consult with
the City Forester early in the design process. Do not relocate a building so that it becomes
obscured by trees.
9.4 Position a relocated structure at its historic elevation above grade.
• Raising the finished floor of the building slightly above its original elevation is acceptable if needed
to address drainage issues. A substantial change in position relative to grade is inappropriate.
• Avoid making design decisions that require code related alterations which could have been
avoided. In particular, consider how the relationship to grade could result in non-historic
guardrails, etc.
29
Page 11 of 14
9.5 A new foundation shall appear similar in design and materials to the historic foundation.
• On modest structures, a simple foundation is appropriate. Constructing a stone foundation on a
miner’s cottage where there is no evidence that one existed historically is out of character and is
not allowed.
• Exposed concrete or painted metal flashing are generally appropriate.
• Where a stone or brick foundation existed historically, it must be replicated, ideally using stone
salvaged from the original foundation as a veneer. The replacement must be similar in the cut of
the stone and design of the mortar joints.
• New AspenModern foundations shall be handled on a case by case basis to ensure preservation
of the design intent.
9.6 Minimize the visual impact of lightwells.
• The size of any lightwell that faces a street should be minimized.
• Lightwells must be placed so that they are not immediately adjacent to character defining
features, such as front porches.
• Lightwells must be protected with a flat grate, rather than a railing or may not be visible from a
street.
• Lightwells that face a street must abut the building foundation and generally may not “float” in
the landscape except where they are screened, or on an AspenModern site.
9.7 All relocations of designated structures shall be performed by contractors who specialize
in moving historic buildings, or can document adequate experience in successfully relocating
such buildings.
• The specific methodology to be used in relocating the structure must be approved by the
HPC.
• During the relocation process, panels must be mounted on the exterior of the building to protect
existing openings and historic glass. Special care shall be taken to keep from damaging door
and window frames and sashes in the process of covering the openings. Significant
architectural details may need to be removed and securely stored until restoration.
• The structure is expected to be stored on its original site during the construction process.
Proposals for temporary storage on a different parcel will be considered on a case by case basis
and may require special conditions of approval.
• A historic resource may not be relocated outside of the City of Aspen.
10.2 A more recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed.
• For Aspen Victorian properties, HPC generally relies on the 1904 Sanborn Fire Insurance maps to
determine which portions of a building are historically significant and must be preserved.
• HPC may insist on the removal of non-historic construction that is considered to be detrimental to
the historic resource in any case when preservation benefits or variations are being approved.
10.3 Design a new addition such that one’s ability to interpret the historic character of the
primary building is maintained.
• A new addition must be compatible with the historic character of the primary building.
30
Page 12 of 14
• An addition must be subordinate, deferential, modest, and secondary in comparison to the
architectural character of the primary building.
• An addition that imitates the primary building’s historic style is not allowed. For example, a new
faux Victorian detailed addition is inappropriate on an Aspen Victorian home.
• An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate.
• Proposals on corner lots require particular attention to creating compatibility.
10.4 The historic resource is to be the focus of the property, the entry point, and the
predominant structure as viewed from the street.
• The historic resource must be visually dominant on the site and must be distinguishable against the
addition.
• The total above grade floor area of an addition may be no more than 100% of the above grade floor
area of the original historic resource. All other above grade development must be completely
detached. HPC may consider exceptions to this policy if two or more of the following are met:
o The proposed addition is all one story
o The footprint of the new addition is closely related to the footprint of the historic resource
and the proposed design is particularly sensitive to the scale and proportions of the
historic resource
o The project involves the demolition and replacement of an older addition that is
considered to have been particularly detrimental to the historic resource
o The interior of the resource is fully utilized, containing the same number of usable floors
as existed historically
o The project is on a large lot, allowing the addition to have a significant setback from the
street
o There are no variance requests in the application other than those related to historic
conditions that aren’t being changed
o The project is proposed as part of a voluntary AspenModern designation, or
o The property is affected by non-preservation related site specific constraints such as trees
that must be preserved, Environmentally Sensitive Areas review, etc.
10.6 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time.
• An addition shall be distinguishable from the historic building and still be visually compatible with
historic features.
• A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material, or a
modern interpretation of a historic style are all techniques that may be considered to help define
a change from historic construction to new construction.
• Do not reference historic styles that have no basis in Aspen.
• Consider these three aspects of an addition; form, materials, and fenestration. An addition must
relate strongly to the historic resource in at least two of these elements. Departing from the
historic resource in one of these categories allows for creativity and a contemporary design
response.
• Note that on a corner lot, departing from the form of the historic resource may not be allowed.
• There is a spectrum of appropriate solutions to distinguishing new from old portions of a
development. Some resources of particularly high significance or integrity may not be the right
instance for a contrasting addition.
10.8 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building.
• An addition that is lower than, or similar to the height of the primary building, is preferred.
31
Page 13 of 14
10.9 If the addition is taller than a historic building, set it back from significant façades and use
a “connector” to link it to the historic building.
• Only a one-story connector is allowed.
• Usable space, including decks, is not allowed on top of connectors unless the connector has
limited visibility and the deck is shielded with a solid parapet wall.
• In all cases, the connector must attach to the historic resource underneath the eave.
• The connector shall be a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition and the primary building.
• Minimize the width of the connector. Ideally, it is no more than a passage between the historic
resource and addition. The connector must reveal the original building corners. The connector
may not be as wide as the historic resource.
• Any street-facing doors installed in the connector must be minimized in height and width and
accessed by a secondary pathway. See guideline 4.1 for further information.
10.10 Place an addition at the rear of a primary building or set it back substantially from the
front to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original
proportions and character to remain prominent.
• Locating an addition at the front of a primary building is inappropriate.
• Additions to the side of a primary building are handled on a case-by-case basis and are
approved based on site specific constraints that restrict rear additions.
• Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not alter
the exterior mass of a building.
10.11 Roof forms shall be compatible with the historic building.
• A simple roof form that does not compete with the historic building is appropriate.
• On Aspen Victorian properties, a flat roof may only be used on an addition to a gable roofed
structure if the addition is entirely one story in height, or if the flat roofed areas are limited, but
the addition is primarily a pitched roof.
10.12 Design an addition to a historic structure that does not destroy or obscure historically
important architectural features.
• Loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices, and eavelines must be avoided.
Staff Finding: The applicable sections of the design guidelines are as follows: site planning,
building materials, windows, doors, roofs, porches, and building additions. All relevant Design
Guidelines in Chapter 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 related to the preservation plan need to be
reviewed in detail as part of the permit submittal for further historic evidence and/or investigative
demolition in order to ensure no historic fabric is being removed. This will be a condition of Final
approval.
Design Guideline 4.5 & 10.4 is about the prominence of the historic resource as it relates to the
historic entry of the home. The guidelines stipulate the maintenance of the historic entrance of
the historic home as a key feature requiring the use match the historic function. The porch
currently has a different entry and window configuration from the historic photos, with the
proposed design to appropriately mitigate intrusion and restore to original. The application
32
Page 14 of 14
includes double hung windows on the East elevation to the south of the porch that the proposed
design leaves in place. Staff recommends the windows be removed and the clapboard siding
restored to match historic photos, as the applicant shows.
Design Guidelines 1.8 & 9.4 address plans for stormwater mitigation and positive drainage
related to the historic structures. The applicant has addressed stormwater management that
meets both the Engineering Department and Parks Department requests. Staff recommends
details be provided for the Final Review process.
Design Guidelines 5.6, 7.4, 7.10, 9.5, 9.6 and 9.7 address various aspects of the restoration of
historic features and the relocation of the historic resource. In addition to a detailed preservation
plan, HPC will want to address appendages to the historic resource in the form of handrails,
vents/flues, gutters, curb heights of lightwells and similar, as well as all foundation details. Items
must be minimal in size and located in areas with the least visual impact when viewing the
historic resource. Staff recommends the listed details be provided for the Final Review process.
Design Guidelines 10.6, 10.8, 10.9 and 10.10 speaks to the design expectations for the new
addition. The proposed addition is compatible in size/scale with a floor area that is less than that
of the historic home. It has a minimal footprint and utilizes forms found on the historic resource.
The two-story addition is located to the rear of the property towards the alley and distanced from
the historic resource with a 10’ long connecting element. The design strikes a good balance
between contemporary and historic features where the proposed siding of the new addition
relates to the restored historic siding material, overall form of the addition strongly relates to the
historic resource, and fenestration is the departing point for the design. Additional information
regarding materials to be reviewed during Final Review for compatibility. Staff finds the design
to be appropriate and in compliance with relevant design guidelines.
In summary, staff recommends approval as stated in the staff memo.
33
Page 1 of 2
Exhibit A.2
Relocation Criteria
Staff Findings
26.415.090.C Relocation:
Relocation for a building, structure or object will be approved if it is determined that it meets any one of the
following standards:
1. It is considered a noncontributing element of a historic district and its relocation will not affect the
character of the historic district; or
2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on which it is located,
and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the Historic District or property; or
3. The owner has obtained a certificate of economic hardship; or
4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given the
character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not adversely affect the
integrity of the Historic District in which it was originally located or diminish the historic, architectural
or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated properties; and
Additionally, for approval to relocate all of the following criteria must be met:
1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding the
physical impacts of relocation:
2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and
3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and
preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary financial
security.
26.415.090.C - Relocation. Relocation for a building, structure or object will be approved if it is
determined that it meets any one of the following standards:MET NOT MET DOES NOT
APPLY
1. It is considered a noncontributing element of a historic district and its relocation will not affect
the character of the historic district; or N/A
2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on which it is located
and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the Historic District or property; or .N/A
3. The owner has obtained a certificate of economic hardship; or N/A
4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given the
character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not adversely affect the
integrity of the Historic District in which it was originally located or diminish the historic, architectural
or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated properties; and
Additionally, for approval to relocate all of the following criteria must be met:MET NOT MET DOES NOT
APPLY
1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding the
physical impacts of relocation;CONDITION
2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and N/A
3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and
preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary financial
security.
CONDITION
MET
Review Criteria for 227 E. Bleeker
The applicant is planning to straighten out the alignment of the historic home
on the site after it is relocate the home onto a new basement foundation.
Summary of Review Criteria for Relocation Request
34
Page 2 of 2
Staff Finding: The applicant proposes to relocate the historic resource on a new basement
foundation which results in the historic resource being closer to the allotted setbacks and property
lines on the west side, but further from the adjacent property to the east. The applicant has
indicated that the historic resource does not line up with the property lines along the East property
line setback, as it is an abnormal property line. The proposed relocation does not diminish the
historic integrity of the resource and the relationship to grade will remain consistent. The
necessary letter from an engineer determining the resource capable of withstanding the relocation
and the financial assurances in the amount of $30,000 will be required prior to building permit
submission. Unless a masonry foundation is discovered behind the vertical wooden skirt around
the foundation, the new foundation is to be a simple concrete finish.
Staff finds the relocation criteria are met.
35
36
Page 1 of 3
Exhibit A.4
Floor Area Bonus Criteria
Staff Findings
26.415.110.F Floor Area Bonus:
1. In selected circumstances, the HPC may grant up to five hundred (500) additional square feet of
allowable floor area for projects involving designated historic properties. The potential bonus is
determined by net lot area such that a 3,000-5,999 square foot lot is eligible for a maximum of a
two hundred fifty (250) square foot floor area bonus, a 6,000-8,999 square foot lot is eligible for a
maximum of a three hundred seventy-five (375) square foot floor area bonus and a 9,000 square
foot or larger lot is eligible for a maximum of a 500 square foot floor area bonus. Floor area
bonuses are cumulative. More than one bonus may be approved up to the maximum amount
allowed for the lot. If a property is subdivided, the maximum bonus will be based on the original lot
size, though the bonus may be allocated amongst the newly created parcels to the extent
permitted.
On any lot where a historic property is permitted a duplex density while a non-historic property is
not, the increased allowable floor area that results from the density will be deducted from the
maximum bonus that the property may receive.
To be considered for the bonus, it must be demonstrated that the project meets all of the following
criteria:
a) The historic building is the key element of the property, and the primary entry into the
structure, and the addition is incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of
the historic building; and
b) If applicable, historically significant site and landscape features from the period of
significance of the historic building are preserved; and the applicant is undertaking
multiple significant restoration actions, including but not limited to, re-opening an enclosed
porch, re-installing doors and windows in original openings that have been enclosed,
removing paint or other nonoriginal finishes, or removing elements which are covering
original materials or features; and
c) The project retains a historic outbuilding, if one is present, as a free standing structure
above grade; and
d) The applicant is electing a preservation outcome that is a high priority for HPC, including
but not limited to, creating at least two detached structures on the site, limiting the amount
of above grade square footage added directly to a historic resource to no more than twice
the above grade square footage of the historic resource, limiting the height of an addition
to a historic resource to the height of the resource or lower, or demolishing and replacing
a significantly City of Aspen Land Use Code Part 400 – Historic Preservation Page 29
incompatible non-historic addition to a historic resource with an addition that meets
current guidelines.
2. Granting of additional allowable floor area is not a matter of right but is contingent upon the sole
discretion of the HPC and the Commission's assessments of the merits of the proposed project
and its ability to demonstrate exemplary historic preservation practices.
37
Page 2 of 3
LOT SIZE MAXIMUM
FLOOR AREA
BONUS
REQUESTED
FLOOR AREA
BONUS
3000 SF 116.4 SF 116.4 SF
To be considered for the bonus, it must be demonstrated that the project meets all of the following
criteria: MET NOT MET DOES NOT
APPLY
a) The historic building is the key element of the property, and the primary entry into the structure,
and the addition is incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic
building; and
b) If applicable, historically significant site and landscape features from the period of significance of
the historic building are preserved; and the applicant is undertaking multiple significant restoration
actions, including but not limited to, re-opening an enclosed porch, re-installing doors and windows
in original openings that have been enclosed, removing paint or other nonoriginal finishes, or
removing elements which are covering original materials or features; and
c) The project retains a historic outbuilding, if one is present, as a free standing structure above
grade; and N/A
d) The applicant is electing a preservation outcome that is a high priority for HPC, including but not
limited to, creating at least two detached structures on the site, limiting the amount of above grade
square footage added directly to a historic resource to no more than twice the above grade square
footage of the historic resource, limiting the height of an addition to a historic resource to the height
of the resource or lower, or demolishing and replacing a significantly City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 400 – Historic Preservation Page 29 incompatible non-historic addition to a historic resource
with an addition that meets current guidelines.
MET
Review Criteria for 132 W Hopkins
The applicant is requesting for a 116.4 sf Floor Area Bonus for significant restoration efforts that include
re-opening the front porch and other enclosed areas, restored siding and historic openings. According to
intent of Ordinace No. 34, Series of 2005, the applicant may request up to a 250 sf floor area bonus.
Summary of Review Criteria for Floor Area Bonus Request
26.415.110.F - Floor Area Bonus.
In selected circumstances, the HPC may grant up to five hundred (500) additional square feet of
allowable floor area for projects involving designated historic properties. The potential bonus is
determined by net lot area such that a 3,000-5,999 square foot lot is eligible for a maximum of a two
hundred fifty (250) square foot floor area bonus, a 6,000-8,999 square foot lot is eligible for a
maximum of a three hundred seventy five (375) square foot floor area bonus and a 9,000 square
foot or larger lot is eligible for a maximum of a 500 square foot floor area bonus. Floor area bonuses
are cumulative.
MET
CONDITION
3. The decision to grant a floor area bonus for major development projects will occur as part of the
approval of a Conceptual Development Plan, pursuant to Subsection 26.415.070.D.
4. Floor area bonuses are only available for single-family, duplex or 100% affordable housing
development. A property shall receive no more than 500 square feet total. The award of a bonus is
project specific. At such time that more than 40% of an addition to a historic resource that was
constructed as part of a project which previously received a floor area bonus is demolished, the
bonus may be retained only if the proposed redevelopment is found to meet the requirements of
this Section.
5. Separate from the floor area bonus described above, on a lot that contains a historic resource,
HPC may exempt wall exposed by a light well that is larger than the minimum required for egress
from the calculation of subgrade floor area only if the light well is internalized such that it is entirely
recessed behind the vertical plane established by the portion of the building façade(s) closest to
any street(s), the light well is screened from view from the street by building walls or fences, and
any addition that is made to the affected resource simultaneous or after the construction of the
light well is entirely one story.
38
Page 3 of 3
Staff Finding: The applicant proposes to restore the historic resource using historic
photographs and any additional found documentation. Photographs reveal the possible addition
of new fish scale siding in the gable of the South elevation, and fenestration and door changes
at the historic porch. It appears that there was a change in the form of the historical resource,
with possible additions at the rear of the house that removed the original chimney, which
appears to have been originally at the exterior of the house on the North elevation. Staff agrees
with the applicant that the proposed restoration will be a positive impact to the historic resource,
as well as a benefit to the neighbors on both sides. It is required that the applicant supply a
detailed Preservation Plan to document the existing conditions, original fenestration patterns,
lost elements, and original material integrity with treatments ensuring compliance with the
rehabilitation guidelines found in the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, Chapters 2-7.
One of the criteria for granting a floor area bonus speaks to the importance of the historic entry
and the visual integrity of the resource. The proposed design places emphasis on the historic
porch entry as the main entrance to the home. Staff agrees the project restoration meets all
necessary criteria for the floor area bonus.
The two structures were historically designated, restored, expanded and condomiumized into
two separate ownerships. Subsequently in 2003, each home was established on a fee simple
3,000 square foot lot through a Historic Landmark Lot Split via Ordinance No. 64, Series of
2003. At the time of the lot split, Lot 2 (132 W. Hopkins) was allocated 1,704 square feet of floor
area which included a floor area bonus to legalize the existing floor area overage on the site
(1,620 square feet + 84 square feet = 1,704 square feet). According to the Historic Landmark
Lot Split via Ordinance No. 64, Series of 2003, the applicant for this historic property was
allocated 1,704 sf of floor area. In 2010 a Floor Area Allocation Agreement was made between
the owners of the lot split properties and the City of Aspen to clarify floor area discrepancies that
occurred from a misrepresentation during the subdivision review. The result was a determination
that Lot 2 has an allowable floor area of 1,704 square feet with the opportunity to request a floor
area bonus of up to 116.4 square feet.
The design has been amended to review the chimney location during deconstruction with
a reduced height of the proposed new addition, and new compatible fenestration, staff
finds all relevant criteria would be met and fully supports granting the applicant up to
116.4 sf bonus for this project.
39
Exhibit B
Referral Comments
Engineering
Parks
Engineering Comments
Haily Guglielmo
Re: HPC Referral Project 132 W Hopkins
Prior to HPC approval the following comments need to be addressed:
1. Provide a conceptual utility plan. What new utilities are needed and what existing
service lines will remain to serve the property? Consideration for utilities should
be taken with trees and above ground features.
2. What transformer serves the property and does the existing transformer have
capacity for the increased use? Will this property require a new transformer?
Work with the City Electric Department to determine available capacity. A Load
Calc Form will be required at time of building permit.
3. The property is not in a sidewalk deferred zone. A sidewalk will need to be
installed or a sidewalk agreement signed to install a sidewalk at a later date.
Applicant may need to coordinate design with Engineering & Parks Departments
to minimize tree impacts.
4. Applicant will be required to follow the requirements of a major development
within the Urban Runoff Management Plan. The conceptual HPC plan shows the
reuse or re installation of a drywell to account for stormwater requirements. It
does not appear the drywell could be reinstalled without negative impacts to the
existing tree. Verify with Parks Dept excavation for the drywell would be
permitted within five feet of the tree trunk or verify the existing drywell meets
todays stormwater requirements.
Parks Comments
David Radeck
Re: HPC Referral Project 132 W Hopkins
Prior to HPC approval the following comments need to be addressed:
1. Impacts to the large cottonwood in the ROW is of utmost concern with this
project. Thus, any forward encroachment into its dripline, either from the
proposed forward movement of the home to the south or replacement of the
drywell in the front yard, will need approval of the City Forester.
2. Air spading will be required along the east west axis at the front of the proposed
basement to expose extents of tree roots.
40
3. Additionally, the spruce trees on the neighbor to the east will require air-spading
and the potential for a one-sided concrete pour may need to occur.
4. There are also trees in the NE corner of the neighbor on the west that may
require air-spading and one-sided pour.
5. The front walk will need to be retained in its original location with no additional
excavation to minimize impacts to the trees.
6. Micropiling or soil nailing with one sided foundation pour may be required to
preserve trees for this project.
7. All trees impacted need to be on a survey - this includes trees on the neighboring
lot(s)
Building Department Comments
Bonnie Muhigirwa
Re: HPC Referral Project 132 W Hopkins
No comments at this time.
Zoning Comments
Bob Narracci (as narrated, transposed by NFL)
Re: HPC Referral Project 132 W Hopkins
Prior to HPC approval the following comments need to be addressed:
1. The Application is over the 40% demolition rate – this will need to be corrected in
order to save the existing floor area without requiring new approvals.
2. The set back at the alley on the North elevation will required a variance for the
2nd floor living space as well as the basement. Both are required to be 10’ from
the property line.
41
CCity of Aspen Community Development Department
Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Packet
City of Aspen | 130 S. Galena Street. | (970) 920 5090 Historic Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: March, 2020
ATTACHMENT 2 - Historic Preservation Land Use Application
PROJECT:
APPLICANT:
Name:
Address:
Phone #: Fax#: E-mail:
REPRESENTATIVE:
Name:
Address:
Phone #: Fax#: E-mail:
TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply):
EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.)
PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.)
Name:
Location:
(Indicate street address, lot & block number or metes and bounds description of property)
Parcel ID # (REQUIRED)
Historic Designation
Certificate of No Negative Effect
Certificate of Appropriateness
Minor Historic Development
Major Historic Development
Conceptual Historic Development
Final Historic Development
Relocation (temporary, on or off-site)
Demolition (total demolition)
Substantial Amendment
Historic Landmark Lot Split
Berghoff Family Home
132 Hopkins Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611
134 & 1341/2 w Hopkins Landmark Lot Split Lot 2 Block 59
2735512419002
Michael R. Berghoff Trust & Kristian Berghoff Trust
9112 Walnut Grove Dr. Indianapolis, In. 46236
970-429-4928 michaelberghoff@lenexsteel.com
Gretchen Greenwood
0166 Surrey Street Carbondale, CO. 81623
970-925-4502 ggreenwood@ggaaspen.com
X X
X
Existing Historically Designated Victorian Home that ws re-located form the East side of
Aspen to 132 Hopkins in 1980.
To remove the non historic addition/relocate the historic building 2' to the South and add a
new addition on the rear, with a smaller footprint than the previous addition. No changes
are proposed to the historic home as, the home was previously restored and approved by
HPC..42
CCity of Aspen Community Development Department
Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Packet
City of Aspen | 130 S. Galena Street. | (970) 920 5090 Historic Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: March, 2020
General Information
Please check the appropriate boxes below and submit this page along with your application. This information will
help us review your plans and, if necessary, coordinate with other agencies that may be involved.
YES NO
Does the work you are planning include exterior work; including additions, demolitions, new
construction, remodeling, rehabilitation or restoration?
Does the work you are planning include interior work, including remodeling, rehabilitation,
or restoration?
Do you plan other future changes or improvements that could be reviewed at this time?
In addition to City of Aspen approval for a Certificate of Appropriateness or No Negative
Effect and a building permit, are you seeking to meet the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for Rehabilitation or restoration of a National Register of Historic Places
Property in order to qualify for state or federal tax credits?
If yes, are you seeking federal rehabilitation investment tax credits in Conjunction with this
project? (Only income producing properties listed on the National Register are eligible.
Owner-occupied residential properties are not.)
If yes, are you seeking the Colorado State Income Tax Credit for Historical Preservation?
Please check all City of Aspen Historic Preservation Benefits which you plan to use:
Rehabilitation Loan Fund Dimensional Variances Tax Credits
Increased Density Conservation Easement Program Waiver of Park Dedication Fees
Conditional Uses Historic Landmark Lot Split
X
43
CCity of Aspen Community Development Department
Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Packet
City of Aspen | 130 S. Galena Street. | (970) 920 5090 Historic Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: March, 2020
ATTACHMENT 3 - Dimensional Requirements Form
(Item #10 on the submittal requirements key. Not necessary for all projects.)
Project:
Applicant:
Project
Location:
Zone District:
Lot Size:
Lot Area:
(For the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the
high-water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in
the Municipal Code.)
Commercial net leasable: Existing: Proposed:
Number of residential units: Existing: Proposed: _______________________________
Proposed % of demolition: ____________________________________%
DIMENSIONS: (write N/A where no requirement exists in the zone district)
Height
Proposed:
Principal Bldg.: Existing: Allowable: Proposed:
Accessory Bldg.: Existing: Allowable: Proposed:
On-Site parking: Existing: Required: Proposed:
% Site coverage: Existing: Required: Proposed:
% Open Space: Existing: Required: Proposed:
Front Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed:
Rear Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed:
Combined Front/Rear:
Indicate N, S, E, W
Existing: Required: Proposed: _______________
Side Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed:
Side Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed:
Combined Sides: Existing: Required: Proposed:
Distance between buildings Existing: Required: Proposed:
Existing non-conformities or encroachments and note if encroachment licenses have been issued:
Variations requested (identify the exact variances needed):
Berghoff Family Home
Michael R. Berghoff Trust and Kristian Berghoff Trust
132 Hopkins Avenue Aspen,Co. 81611R-63000 Sq.Ft.3,000 Sq.Ft.
1 1
43%
Floor Area: Existing: 1,722 Allowable: 1,820 1,820
18'-0"25'-0"25'-0"
1 2 2
49%N/A 47&
N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A
N/A
12'-10"10'-0"10'-0"
4'-9"5'-0"5'-0"
16'-10"15'-0"15'-0"
W 1'-0"5'-0"VARIES FROM 1'-2" TO 3''-0"
E 4'10"5'-0"5'-0"
5'-10"10'-0"VARIES FROM 6'-2" TO 8'-0"
N/A 5'-0"N/A
The roof of the East neighbor at 130 Hopkins roof overhangs 132
Hopkins. the Improvement Survey attached notes the encroachment.
West Side Yard Setback Variance from 3'-8"
Combined Side Setback Variance from 8'-8"
1. North Setback Living area of 5'-0"
SEE A-102 PROPOSED SETBACK DIAGRAM ATTACHED IN THIS APPLICATION
44
45
PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PLANNER: Sarah Yoon, sarah.yoon@cityofaspen.com
REPRESENTATIVE: Gretchen Greenwood, ggreenwood@ggaaspen.com
PROJECT LOCATION: 132 W. Hopkins
REQUEST: Major Development, Relocation, Setback Variations and Floor Area Bonus
DESCRIPTION: 132 W. Hopkins (previously known as 134 ½ W. Hopkins) is a Victorian era miner’s
cabin that in 1988 was moved from Spring Street and placed on a property that contained another
Victorian era home in its historic location at the corner of Hopkins and First Street. The two structures
were historically designated, restored, expanded and condomiumized into two separate ownerships.
Subsequently in 2003, each home was established on a fee simple 3,000 square foot lot through a
Historic Landmark Lot Split via Ordinance No. 64, Series of 2003. At the time of the lot split, Lot 2
(132 W. Hopkins) was allocated 1,704 square feet of floor area which included a floor area bonus to
legalize the existing floor area overage on the site (1,620 square feet + 84 square feet = 1,704 square
feet). In 2010 a Floor Area Allocation Agreement was made between the owners of the lot split
properties and the City of Aspen to clarify floor area discrepancies that occurred from a
misrepresentation during the subdivision review. The result was a determination that Lot 2 has an
allowable floor area of 1,704 square feet with the opportunity to request a floor area bonus of up to
116.4 square feet.
The current owner of 132 W. Hopkins proposes to remove the existing non-historic addition and
relocate the historic home on a new basement foundation. The proposed new above grade addition
will include 2 compliant on-site parking spaces. The applicant requests for setback variations and a
possible floor area bonus for the proposed project. Major Development is a two-step process,
requiring the approval of Conceptual Design and a Final Design.
The applicant has represented that the project will demolish less than 40% of the existing structure.
If more than 40% is demolished, a request to re-earn the 84 square foot floor area bonus approved
in 2003 would be required to incorporate that area into the new project.
Conceptual Design review will consider mass, scale and site plan. At this meeting, HPC will consider
any benefits requested by the applicant. Following Conceptual, staff will inform City Council of the
HPC decision, allowing them the opportunity to uphold HPC’s decision or to “Call Up” aspects of the
approval for further discussion. This is a standard practice for all significant projects. Following the
Notice of Call Up, HPC will conduct Final Design review to consider landscape, lighting and
materials.
HPC will use the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines and the Land Use Code Sections that are
applicable to this project to assist with their determinations.
RELEVANT LAND USE CODE SECTIONS:
Section Number Section Title
26.304 Common Development Review Procedures
26.415.070.D Historic Preservation – Major Development
46
26.415.090 Relocation of Designated Historic Properties
26.415.110 Historic Preservation – Benefits
26.575.020 Calculations and Measurements
26.710.040 Medium-Density Residential (R-6)
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
City Council for notice of the HPC Conceptual decision
Public Hearing: Yes, at Conceptual and Final
Neighborhood Outreach: No
Referrals: Staff will seek referral comments from the Building
Department, Zoning, Engineering and Parks regarding any
relevant code requirements or considerations. There will be
no Development Review Committee meeting or referral fees.
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.) This fee will
be due at Conceptual and Final submittal.
Referral Agencies Fee: $0.
Total Deposit: $1,950.
APPLICATION CHECKLIST:
Below is a list of submittal requirements for HPC Conceptual and Final reviews. At each review
step, please email the entire application as one pdf to sarah.yoon@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.
47
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.
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 and any requests for variations or benefits complies with the
review standards and design guidelines relevant to the application.
A proposed site plan.
Scaled drawings of all proposed structure(s) or addition(s) depicting their form, including
their height, massing, scale, proportions and roof plan; and the primary features of all
elevations. Existing and proposed floor area calculations, and demolition calculations.
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.
For Conceptual, the following items will need to be submitted in addition to the items listed
above:
Graphics identifying preliminary selection of primary exterior building materials.
A preliminary stormwater design.
For Final Review, the following items will need to be submitted in addition to the items listed
above:
Drawings of the street facing facades must be provided at ¼” scale.
Final selection of all exterior materials, and samples or clearly illustrated photographs.
Samples are preferred for the presentation to HPC.
A lighting plan and landscape plan, including any visible stormwater mitigation features.
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.
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
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: 273512419002 on 11/02/2021
Instructions:
Disclaimer:
http://www.pitkinmapsandmore.com
62
HITE ANGELA R FAMILY TRUST
WOODY CREEK, CO 81656
PO BOX 155
MULLINS MARGARET ANN
ASPEN, CO 81611
216 W HYMAN AVE
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
233 W MAIN ST
TRAGGIS ELIZABETH G
NEW LONDON, CT 06320
PO BOX 284
BIELINSKI JUDITH R TRUST
GLENVIEW, IL 60026
2121 TROWBRIDGE CT
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
SUREFOOT LC
PARK CITY, UT 84060
1500 KEARNS BLVD #110
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
BACON SHIRLEY LIV TRUST
MIAMI, FL 33133
3 GROVE ISLE DR # 1608
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
WEST HOPKINS LLC
LOS ANGELES, CA 90071
400 S HOPE ST, STE 1000
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
108 HYMAN LLC
MIAMI, FL 33133
3500 N BAY HOMES DR
SMITH MARKELL LEIGHTON
WILMETTE, IL 60091
1333 WASHINGTON AVE
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
MELTON DAVID
ASPEN, CO 81611
135 W MAIN ST #A
211 WEST MAIN LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
323 W MAIN ST
INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
233 W MAIN ST
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
FRANK VALERIE EXEMPT TRUST U/W
PORTLAND, OR 972013544
1500 SW 11TH AVE #1504
2401 BLAKE LLC
DENVER, CO 80202
1615 CALIFORNIA ST # 707
INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
233 W MAIN ST
WINKELMAN WENDY L
ASPEN, CO 81611
108 W HYMAN AVE #8
SEIDER FAMILY TRUST
MALIBU, CA 90265
26642 LATIGO SHORE DR
63
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
132 W MAIN LLC
DENVER, CO 80202
1615 CALIFORNIA ST # 707
132 W MAIN LLC
DENVER, CO 80202
1615 CALIFORNIA ST # 707
RESIDENCES AT THE LITTLE NELL CONDO ASSOC INC
ASPEN, CO 81611
501 E DEAN ST
INVENTRIX LLC
CHICAGO, IL 60606-5096
227 MONROE
WARSHAW MARTIN R TRUST 1
ANN ARBOR, MI 48105-2585
1058 SCOTT PL
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
VALLEY EXCHANGE PROPERTIES LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
122 W MAIN ST
CHRISTENSEN ROBERT M & CANDICE L
ASPEN, CO 81611
1240 MOUNTAIN VIEW DR
BRENNAN SHAWN TIFFANY
MILL VALLEY, CA 94941
408 TENNESSEE GLEN WY
CORBETT RICHARD J & JILLIAN F
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 7955
235 W HOPKINS B LLC
BOCA RATON, FL 33432
250 S OCEAN BLVD # 14A
LITTLE HOPKINS HOTEL LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
233 W MAIN ST
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
ANLUJO CAPITAL INC
ROAD TOWN TORTOLA BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS VG 1110,
WOODBOURNE HALL POB 3162
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
GROVER FREDRICK W & PAULA J
ST PETERSBURG, FL 337043717
725 BRIGHTWATERG BLVD NE
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
132 W MAIN LLC
DENVER, CO 80202
1615 CALIFORNIA ST # 707
JACOBSON SUZAN & JAY
ASPEN, CO 81611
108 W HYMAN #7
BETA PROPERTIES LLC
FORT COLLINS, CO 80525
1609 E HARMONY RD
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
HOTEL ASPEN CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
COMMON AREA
110 W MAIN ST
JOBLON MATTHEW
ENGLEWOOD, CO 80013
43 COVINGTON CT
BLUEGREEN VACATIONS UNLIMITED INC
BOCA RATON, FL 33431
4960 CONFERENCE WY N #100
DHM FAMILY TRST
ATLANTA, GA 30309
2288 PEACHTREE RD, NW #12
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
64
TARADA LLC
RESTON, VA 201911530
1902 CAMPUS COMMONS DR #415
STRAUCH ELAINE B
GREENWOOD VILLAGE, CO 80111
4327 S YOSEMITE CT
FRANK EDMUND H EXEMPT TRUST
PORTLAND, OR 972013544
1500 SW 11TH AVE #1504
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
233 W MAIN ST
ASPEN SKIING COMPANY LLC
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 1248
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
2401 BLAKE LLC
DENVER, CO 80202
1615 CALIFORNIA ST # 707
132 W MAIN LLC
DENVER, CO 80202
1615 CALIFORNIA ST # 707
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
BIELINSKI ROBERT A JR
HOUSTON, TX 77018
523 WEST 34TH ST
SHADOW MOUNTAIN DUPLEX CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
COMMON AREA
W HOPKINS AVE
TIEMANN CAROLYN
ASPEN, CO 81611
124 W HYMAN AVE #2D
POOL ALEXANDRA M
DENVER, CO 80211
3038 ZUNI ST
WILLIAMS ROBERT A REV TRUST
ENCINO, CA 91436
16255 VENTURA BLVD #800
BLUEGREEN VACATIONS UNLIMITED INC
BOCA RATON, FL 33431
4960 CONFERENCE WY N #100
UTE HOUSING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
210 S GALENA ST
BETA PROPERTIES LLC
FORT COLLINS, CO 80525
1609 E HARMONY RD
BLUEGREEN VACATIONS UNLIMITED INC
BOCA RATON, FL 33431
4960 CONFERENCE WY N #100
BLUEGREEN VACATIONS UNLIMITED INC
BOCA RATON, FL 33431
4960 CONFERENCE WY N #100
COLES DAVID SEP A TRUST
CULVER CITY, CA 90232
4223 DUQUESNE AVE
SAND KATHERINE M
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 51
212 WEST HOPKINS LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
212 W HOPKINS AVE
JLR QPRT TRUST
CORAL GABLES, FL 33156
355 MARQUESA DR
MCBEE LISA A
SANTA ANA, CA 92705
2306 KEEGAN WY
HARPER MARILYN HILL & HILL
ASPEN, CO 81612-7952
PO BOX 7952
132 W MAIN LLC
DENVER, CO 80202
1615 CALIFORNIA ST # 707
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
65
135 HOPKINS LTD
AUSTIN, TX 78738
12400 HWY 71 W #350-371
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
233 W MAIN ST
COLES PETER SEP A TRUST
MASSACHUSETTS, MA 02138
20 PRESCOTT ST #41
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
132 W MAIN LLC
DENVER, CO 80202
1615 CALIFORNIA ST # 707
BLUEGREEN VACATIONS UNLIMITED INC
BOCA RATON, FL 33431
4960 CONFERENCE WY N #100
ASPEN SCHOOL DISTRICT #1
ASPEN, CO 81611
0235 HIGH SCHOOL RD
COTTONWOODS CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
124 W HYMAN AVE
HITE HENRY HARRIS REVOC TRUST
WOODY CREEK, CO 81656
PO BOX 155
2401 BLAKE LLC
DENVER, CO 80202
1615 CALIFORNIA ST # 707
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
COHEN ALIX O & CRAIG S
ROCKVILLE CENTRE, NY 11570
5 BUCKINGHAM RD
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
MAYER KEVIN
ASPEN, CO 81611
222 W HOPKINS AVE #2
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
2401 BLAKE LLC
DENVER, CO 80202
1615 CALIFORNIA ST # 707
INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
233 W MAIN ST
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
HOLTZMAN L BART & PATRICIA G
SAINT LOUIS, MO 63124
9741 LITZSINGER RD
HAYMAX LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
ASPEN SCHOOL DISTRICT #1
ASPEN, CO 81611
0235 HIGH SCHOOL RD
2401 BLAKE LLC
DENVER, CO 80202
1615 CALIFORNIA ST # 707
ROSS PAULINE
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 9969
INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
233 W MAIN ST
66
DIMITRIUS RALLI TRUST
PASADENA, CA 91101
530 S LAKE AVE #433
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
NORTHSTAR OFFICE BUILDING CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
COMMON AREA
122 W MAIN ST
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY
ASPEN, CO 81611
210 E HYMAN AVE #202
TIMBERLINE BANK
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 815054300
649 MARKET ST
MARTIN SCOTT M
ASPEN, CO 81611
PO BOX 51
GOLDSMITH HENRY JOSH
PIKESVILLE, MD 21208
7902 BRYNMOR CT #504
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
233 W MAIN ST
BLUEGREEN VACATIONS UNLIMITED INC
BOCA RATON, FL 33431
4960 CONFERENCE WY N #100
2401 BLAKE LLC
DENVER, CO 80202
1615 CALIFORNIA ST # 707
ASPEN TOWNHOUSE CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 12384
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
ASPEN TOWNHOMES 3 LLC
BASALT, CO 81621
1796 E SOPRIS CREEK RD
THOMAS GAIL HICKS REV TRUST
BEDFORD, VA 24523-1508
1242 HAMPTON RDG
INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
233 W MAIN ST
TARPLEY GERALD W JR & SUSAN
ANN ARBOR, MI 48105
2255 PLACID WY
HAERTER JONATHAN J & BETHANY S
SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615
PO BOX 6447
HAPPY PLACE VH2 LLC
WESTPORT, CT 06880
52 LYONS PLAINS RD
BRENNAN SAMANTHA SCOTT
MILL VALLEY, CA 94941
408 TENNESSEE GLEN WY
FCB LLC
SNOWMASS, CO 816549102
525 SHIELD O RD
AJAX VIEW COMMERCIAL/NORTH STAR OFFICE
ASPEN, CO 81611
132 W MAIN ST
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
MORGAN DONALD
ATLANTA, GA 30309
2288 PEACHTREE RD, NW #12
BLUEGREEN VACATIONS UNLIMITED INC
BOCA RATON, FL 33431
4960 CONFERENCE WY N #100
KOCH TOWNHOMES CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
COMMON AREA
W HYMAN AVE
132 W MAIN LLC
DENVER, CO 80202
1615 CALIFORNIA ST # 707
JOHNSON ASPEN HOLDINGS LLC
PARADISE VALLEY, AZ 852534108
4949 E LINCOLN DR #19
KOENIG RAYMOND J
NEW LONDON, CT 06320
PO BOX 284
67
SALTER CLAUDE C
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 5000
TIMBERLINE BANK
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 815054300
649 MARKET ST
SHIELD JULIET E
ASPEN, CO 81611
221 N STARWOOD DR
132 W MAIN LLC
DENVER, CO 80202
1615 CALIFORNIA ST # 707
CONSERVATION HOUSING PARTNERS LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
BOWMAN AL
MOUNT DORA, FL 32757
700 HELEN ST
132 W MAIN LLC
DENVER, CO 80202
1615 CALIFORNIA ST # 707
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
TYROLEAN LODGE LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
200 W MAIN ST
INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
233 W MAIN ST
2401 BLAKE LLC
DENVER, CO 80202
1615 CALIFORNIA ST # 707
GUNN ROBERT W FAMILY TRST
MARBLEHEAD, MA 01945
409 OCEAN AVE
ZITELLI MARK C
ASPEN, CO 81611
414 N 1ST ST
MARTIN SCOTT M
ASPEN, CO 81611
PO BOX 51
POOL JUDY F M
DENVER, CO 80206-1591
1650 FILLMORE ST #1304
KING LOUISE CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
600 E HOPKINS AVE #203
132 W MAIN LLC
DENVER, CO 80202
1615 CALIFORNIA ST # 707
2401 BLAKE LLC
DENVER, CO 80202
1615 CALIFORNIA ST # 707
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
WEST SIDE CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
234 W HOPKINS AVE
NORTH STAR LODGE LLC
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81505
633 24 RD
DEAN FAMILY LTD PTSHP LLP
BOULDER, CO 80301
590 DELLWOOD AVE
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
LAMPTON PATRICIA M TRUST
ASHEVILLE, NC 28814
PO BOX 18013
BOURKEY888 LLC
SINGAPORE 436853,
16 THIAM SIEW AVE
2401 BLAKE LLC
DENVER, CO 80202
1615 CALIFORNIA ST # 707
JES 2002 GRANTOR TRUST
ASPEN, CO 81611
221 N STARWOOD DR
GARET CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
400 E MAIN ST #2
HALCYON ENTERPRISES LLC
PRINCETON, NJ 08540
78 LOVERS LN
2401 BLAKE LLC
DENVER, CO 80202
1615 CALIFORNIA ST # 707
68
INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
233 W MAIN ST
SAND KATHERINE M
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 51
ASPEN UPTOWN LLC
SNYDER, OK 73566
PO BOX 348
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
69
S GARMISCH STS GARMISCH STW HY
M
A
N
A
V
E
S 1ST STW H
O
P
K
I
N
S
A
V
E
S 1ST STS 1ST STW HY
M
A
N
A
V
E S GARMISCH STN 1ST STN GARMISCH STW MAI
N
S
T
S GARMISCH STE MAI
N
S
T
S ASPEN STE HO
P
K
I
N
S
A
V
ES 1ST STW H
O
P
K
I
N
S
A
V
E
W M
A
I
N
S
T
S 1ST STDate: 8/23/2021
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 0.01 0.030.01
mi
When printed at 8.5"x11"
4
Legend
City of Aspen
Roads Zoomed In
Scale: 1:1,520
ArcGIS Web Map
70
71
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED RELOCATION, RESTORATION,
AND ADDITION FOR 132 HOPKINS AVENUE
The Historic resource at 132 Hopkins was moved from East Aspen to 132 Hopkins in
1988. The building is a unique historic building for its long one-story gable and side porch.
The original building as is evidenced on the photographs attached to this application has three
entry doors and two double hung windows on the porch side of the building. This building was
likely a multi-unit housing unit that housed Miners in the 1880’s on the East Side of town, due
to the number of entrances to the building.
The historic resource has undergone many development scenarios over the years since
being moved to Hopkins Ave. in 1988. In 1988, a building permit was issued for the re-location
of the resource to Hopkins and an addition added to the rear. In subsequent years,
non-historic windows and designs have been replaced, added, foundations repaired and civil
engineering and drainage plans added to the property. In 2004, the property with the historic
resource to the west (134 Hopkins) was lot split creating this odd shaped 3,000 square foot
property. All of these events were reviewed by the HPC and approved per the guidelines in
place at the time. Zoning variances for parking and setback variances were granted for this
property.
We propose to restore the building to its original façade as captured in the historic
photo. The two double hung windows and three doors will be restored along the front porch.
The restored door on the South façade will be the main entry into the building. Double hung
windows on the East façade will be replaced with the historic single double hung windows as
seen in the photo. The shingle gables will be replaced with siding. Non historic windows on the
North elevation will be relaced with matching double hung windows that are evidenced
around the house. The exterior flue detail will be replicated per the photo.
In addition to the restoration, it is proposed to move the building forward to the 10’
front yard setback, maintain the similar side yard setbacks that exist, and add an addition to
the rear that conforms with current HPC guidelines. A new parking space for the site will be
added that will conform to the Zoning requirements of 2 parking spaces per lot.
The existing floor area (FA) square footage is 1,722 Sq.Ft., the proposed new FA Sq.Ft. is
1,820 Sq.Ft.. This is a net increase of 98 Sq.Ft. of floor area (FA). The existing above grade
gross square footage is 1,984 Sq.Ft.. The new proposed above grade gross square footage is
2, 018 Sq.Ft. and increase of only 34 Sq.Ft.
At the time of the lot split in 2004, the property lines were configured based on the
existing location of the two residences. See Improvement Survey. Since 1988, the two
residences towards the west rear of both properties have existing foundations that are 20”
apart. The neighboring 134 Hopkins has been approved for a double basement with a portion
72
of that basement at grade proposed to be 1’-3 ½” from their east property line. The current
residence at 132 Hopkins has an existing foundation 1’-0” from their west property line, which
is a construction condition that does not allow 134 to build the foundation that was approved.
For this reason, it is the intention of this application to create a 3’-0” setback from the west
setback for 132 Hopkins to allow 134 and 132 to construct their approved plans without
conflict. Thus, the proposed footprint of the proposed addition for 132 Hopkins is smaller
than currently exists, allowing for a greater west side setback and a legal parking area off the
alley. A drawing of the existing and proposed foundations for both 132 and 134 Hopkin is
attached.
Variances requested for the restoration and development of this project:
West Side Yard Variance of 3’-0”.
East Side Yard Variance of 1’-0”
Combined Side Yard Variance T.B.D.
North Rear Yard Setback of 5’-0” for floor area development above and below grade
only.
(Code: Garage setback from alley 5’-0”, Living areas above or below grade 10’-0”
required).
FLOOR AREA Bonus of 98 Square feet per City of Aspen Agreement.
73
74
75
76
77
78
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIALS
Existing Historic Resource:
Exterior Siding: Maintain the 4-1/2” horizontal Lap Wood Siding. Where replacement
is needed, wood milled to the exact size and profile will be installed.
Exterior Wood Windows:
Existing Windows: Where window that are remaining, maintain in
original locations, which would be on the West South and West
Elevations and the East Window double hung window
New Windows: New windows are proposed as follows:
1- Single double hung windows per historic photograph on the East
Elevation.
2- 2 windows as a pair of double hung window on the porch of the
East Elevation per historic photograph.
3- 2 windows as a pair of double hung window on the North
elevation.
New Doors added to Front Porch:
3-0 x 6-8 Wood 4 panel doors per historic Photograph
Will be added with a round knob for entry hardware. The operating
door will be on the South Porch elevation, the remaining two doors
on the East side will be fixed shut.
Roof Material: Maintain the wood shingles on the 12/12 and 4/12 Roof Slope per
the existing condition and the historic photo.
New Chimney Detail:
The working chimney will be replicated with a running bond red brick
base/ metal saps and a stove pipe, per the historic photograph.
Fascia/Corner Boards/Porch Gingerbread Columns and Details:
Maintain the Wood details that currently exist and per historic photo.
Front Porch Floor: Maintain the wood front porch as existing and per historic
photograph.
Walkway to Front Porch:
Random slabs of bluestone forming a 3’ walkway from Street to Front
Porch.
Fence: Match the Historic Photo which is a wood picket fence 2 x 2 pickets
with 2/3 rails with pickets on the street side.
79
New Rear Addition Proposed:
Main Body of Addition-Exterior Siding:
1 x 4 Horizontal Wood Siding with 1/8” reveal.
1 x 4 Vertical Wood Siding with 1/8” reveal.
Linking element: Metal Paneling - Pattern: to be determined. building
Exterior Metal Windows:
Metal Windows with narrow frame profile: Window Manufacturer to
be determined.
Skylights: 3 skylights as a group at a 12/12 slope.
12/12 Sloping Roof Material:
Metal Standing Seam.
Flat Patio roof @ Link between Historic resource and new addition:
Partial Green roof and pavers. To be determined.
Upper Flat Roof: To be Determined: (not visible)
New Chimney Detail:
The working chimney will be a stove pipe to be the same size as the
replicated historic stove pipe.
Fascia: Metal to match the standing seam metal.
Corner Details: No corner boards will be on the new addition. Horizontal and Vertical
sidings will be mitered at the corner at 45 degrees.
Exposed Steel Cantilever:
East and North Elevation-Rear of property
Exposed Steel beam Size and profile to be determined.
Railing at rear Lightwell on North and East Elevation.:
1.25 ” Diameter stee l tubes horizontal @ 4” on center with 1.25”
Diameter vertical support at the corner.
Roof added above South Window for Sun protection:
4” metal frames. Details to be determined.
5’ Garage apron and parking area: Concrete
80
THIS IS THE PHOTO THAT SHOWS THE ORIGINAL FACADE
81
82
83
84
CHAPTER 1: SITE PLANNING & LANDSCAPE DESIGN
NEIGHBORHOOD AND DISTRICT PATTERN GUIDELINES
1.1 All projects shall respect the historic development pattern or context of the block, neighborhood or
district.
• Building footprint and location should reinforce the traditional patterns of the neighborhood.
• Allow for some porosity on a site. In a residential project, setback to setback development is
typically, uncharacteristic of the historic context. Do not design a project which leaves no useful
open space visible from the street.
Response – The Relocated Victorian home is proposed to be moved forward 2’-8” feet for a proposed 10’ front yard
setback. The Victorian to the west is approved to also move to the 10-foot setback maintaining the historic pattern
of front yards in Aspen. The proposed addition is setback from the front façade by 60 feet. Open space is visible on
the sides of the historic residence and addition, as the new addition has a smaller footprint than the existing
addition.
1.2 Preserve the system and character of historic streets, alleys, and ditches.
When HPC input is requested, the following bullet points may be applicable.
• Retain and preserve the variety and character found in historic alleys, including retaining
historic ancillary buildings or constructing new ones.
• Retain and preserve the simple character of historic ditches. Do not plant flowers or add
landscape.
• Abandoning or re-routing a street in a historic area is generally discouraged.
• Consider the value of unpaved alleys in residential areas.
• Opening a platted right of way which was abandoned or never graded may be encouraged on
a case-by-case basis.
Response – The character of the alley is being preserved by complying with the 5’ setback requirements. The alley
remains un-pav ed.
DRIVEWAYS & PARKING
1.3 Remove driveways or parking areas accessed directly from the street if they were not part of the
original development of the site.
• Do not introduce new curb cuts on streets.
• Non-historic driveways accessed from the street should be removed if they can be relocated
to the alley.
Response –There are no driveways off of Hopkins Avenue to the historic resource.
1.4 Design a new driveway or improve an existing driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual
impact.
• If an alley exists at the site, the new driveway must be located off it.
• Tracks, gravel, light grey concrete with minimal seams, or similar materials are appropriate for
driveways on Aspen Victorian properties.
Response – The driveway access to the property is located off the property’s north rear yard alley.
YARDS, WALKWAYS AND PATIOS
1.5 Maintain the historic hierarchy of spaces.
• Reflect the established progression of public to private spaces from the public sidewalk to a
semi-public walkway, to a semi private entry feature, to private spaces.
Response – A straight and simple stone walkway to open the front porch into the Main entry is proposed
Hopkins Avenue. There is no other access or walkways being proposed on the property.
1.6 Provide a simple walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry on residential
projects.
• Meandering walkways are not allowed, except where it is needed to avoid a tree or is typical
of the period of significance.
• Use paving materials that are similar to those used historically for the building style and install
85
them in the manner that they would have been used historically. For example, on an Aspen
Victorian landmark set flagstone pavers in sand, rather than in concrete. Light grey concrete,
brick or red sandstone are appropriate private walkway materials for most landmarks.
• The width of a new entry sidewalk should generally be three feet or less for residential
properties. A wider sidewalk may be appropriate for an Aspen Modern property.
Response – A simple straight linear stone walkway is proposed. Paving materials will be presented at Final Design
Review.
1.7 Provide positive open space within a project site.
• Ensure that open space on site is meaningful and consolidated into a few large spaces rather
than many small unusable areas.
• Open space should be designed to support and complement the historic building.
Response – Useable open space is in the front yard and the sides of the building.
1.8 Consider stormwater quality needs early in the design process.
• When included in the initial planning for a project, stormwater quality facilities can be better
integrated into the proposal. All landscape plans presented for HPC review must include at
least a preliminary representation of the stormwater design. A more detailed design must be
reviewed and approved by Planning and Engineering prior to building permit submittal.
• Site designs and stormwater management should provide positive drainage away from the
historic landmark, preserve the use of natural drainage and treatment systems of the site,
reduce the generation of additional stormwater runoff, and increase infiltration into the
ground. Stormwater facilities and conveyances located in front of a landmark should have
minimal visual impact when viewed from the public right of way.
• Refer to City Engineering for additional guidance and requirements.
Response – A conceptual drainage plan by a Civil Engineer is being developed that directs drainage away
from the landmarks. The plan is attached as part of the Conceptual Development Application.
1.9 Landscape development on Aspen Modern landmarks shall be addressed on a case-by-case basis.
Response –Not Applicable.
1.10 Built-in furnishings, such as water features, fire pits, grills, and hot tubs, that could interfere
with or block views of historic structures are inappropriate.
• Site furnishings that are added to the historic property should not be intrusive or degrade the
integrity of the neighborhood patterns, site, or existing historic landscape.
• Consolidating and screening these elements is preferred.
Response – A conceptual site plan is attached as part of the Conceptual Development Application. There are no Site
furnishings being proposed for the Site.
SOFTSCAPE FEATURES & PATIO
1.11 Preserve and maintain historically significant landscaping on site, particularly landmark trees and
shrubs.
• Retaining historic planting beds and landscape features is encouraged.
• Protect historically significant vegetation during construction to avoid damage. Removal of
damaged, aged, or diseased trees must be approved by the Parks Department.
• If a significant tree must be removed, replace it with the same or similar species in coordination
with the Parks Department.
• The removal of non-historic planting schemes is encouraged.
• Consider restoring the original landscape if information is available, including original plant
materials.
Response – There are no historic landscaping on the property. Landscaping is proposed to b e new and conforming
to the appropriate plantings for historic resources.
86
1.12 Provide an appropriate context for historic structures. See diagram.
• Simplicity and restraint are required. Do not overplant a site, or install a landscape which is
over textured or overly complex in relationship to the historic resource, particularly in Zone A.
In Zone A, new planting shall be species that were used historically or species of similar
attributes.
• In areas immediately adjacent to the landmark, Zone A and Zone B, plants up 42” in height,
sod, and low shrubs are often appropriate.
• Contemporary planting, walls and other features are not appropriate in Zone A. A more
contemporary landscape may surround new development or be located in the rear of the
property, in Zone C.
• Do not cover areas which were historically unpaved with hard surfaces, except for a limited
patio where appropriate.
• Where residential structures are being adapted to commercial use, proposals to alter the
landscape will be considered on a case-by-case basis. The residential nature of the building
must be honored.
•In the case of a historic landmark lot split, careful consideration should be given so as not to
over plant either property, or remove all evidence of the landscape characteristics from before
the property was divided.
• Contemporary landscapes that highlight an Aspen Modern architectural style are encouraged.
Response – An appropriate and simple landscape design is proposed for the historic residence.
1.13 Additions of plant material to the landscape that could interfere with or block views of historic
structures are inappropriate.
• Low plantings and ground covers are preferred.
• Do not place trees, shrubs, or hedgerows in locations that will obscure, damage, or block
significant architectural features or views to the building. Hedgerows are not allowed as
fences.
• Consider mature canopy size when planting new trees adjacent to historic resources. Planting
trees too close to a landmark may result in building deteriorate or blocked views and is
inappropriate.
• Climbing vines can damage historic structures and are not allowed.
Response – No new planting material is proposed that will block views of the Historic resource from Hopkins Ave.
SITE LIGHTING
1.14 Minimize the visual impacts of landscape lighting.
• Landscape and pathway lighting is not permitted in Zone A (refer to diagram) on Aspen
Victorian properties unless an exception are approved by HPC based on safety considerations.
• Landscape, driveway, and pathway lighting on Aspen Modern properties is addressed on a
case-by-case basis. Landscape light fixtures should be carefully selected so that they are
compatible with the building, yet recognizable as a product of their own time.
• Driveway lighting is not permitted on Aspen Victorian properties.
• Landscape up lighting is not allowed.
Response – The existing historic home will maintain the exterior lighting that was previously approved.
FENCES
1.15 Preserve original fences.
• Fences which are considered part of the historic significance of a site should not be moved,
removed, or inappropriately altered.
• Replace only those portions of a historic fence that are deteriorated beyond repair.
• Replacement elements must match the existing.
Response – The existing fence is not historic and is proposed to be removed.
1.16 When possible, replicate a missing historic fence based on photographic evidence.
Response – N/A
87
1.17 No fence in the front yard is often the most appropriate solution.
• Reserve fences for back yards and behind street facing façades, as the best way to preserve
the character of a property.
Response – The Existing Fence in not historic and is proposed to be removed.
1.18 When building an entirely new fence, use materials that are appropriate to the building type and
style.
• The new fence should use materials that were used on similar properties during the period of
significance.
• A wood fence is the appropriate solution in most locations.
• Ornate fences, including wrought iron, may create a false history are not appropriate for Aspen
Victorian landmarks unless there is evidence that a decorative fence historically existed on the site.
• A modest wire fence was common locally in the early 1900’s and is appropriate for Aspen
Victorian properties. This fence type has many desirable characteristics including
transparency, a low height, and a simple design. When this material is used, posts should be
simply detailed and not oversized.
Response – N/A
1.19 A new fence should have a transparent quality, allowing views into the yard from the street.
• A fence that defines a front yard must be low in height and transparent in nature.
• For a picket fence, spacing between the pickets must be a minimum of 1/2 the width of the
picket.
For Post-WWII properties where a more solid type of fence may be historically appropriate,
proposals will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
• Fence columns or piers should be proportional to the fence segment.
Response – N/A
1.20 Any fence taller than 42” should be designed so that it avoids blocking public views of important
features of a designated building.
• A privacy fence should incorporate transparent elements to minimize the possible visual
impacts. Consider staggering the fence boards on either side of the fence rail. This will give
the appearance of a solid plank fence when seen head on. Also consider using lattice, or other
transparent detailing on the upper portions of the fence.
• A privacy fence should allow the building corners and any important architectural features that
are visible from the street to continue to be viewed.
• All hedgerows (trees, shrub bushes, etc.) are prohibited in Zones A and B.
Response – N/A
RETAINING WALLS
1.21 Preserve original retaining walls
• Replace only those portions that are deteriorated beyond repair. Any replacement materials
should match the original in color, texture, size and finish.
• Painting or covering a historic masonry retaining wall or covering is not allowed.
• Increasing the height of a retaining wall is inappropriate.
Response – N/A
1.22 When a new retaining wall is necessary, its height and visibility should be minimized.
• All wall materials, including veneer and mortar, will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis and
should be compatible with the palette used on the historic structure.
Response – N/A.
1.23 Re-grading the site in a manner that changes historic grade is generally not allowed and will be
reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
Response – The proposed finish grades are proposed to remain the same as existing grades
88
CULTURAL AND DESIGNATED LANDSCAPES
1.24 Preserve historically significant landscapes with few or no alterations.
• An analysis of the historic landscape and an assessment of the current condition of the
landscape should be done before the beginning of any project.
• The key features of the historic landscape and its overall design intent must be preserved.
Response – N/A
1.25 New development on these sites should respect the historic design of the landscape and its built
features.
• Do not add features that damage the integrity of the historic landscape.
• Maintain the existing pattern of setbacks and siting of structures.
• Maintain the historic relationship of the built landscape to natural features on the site.
• All additions to these landscapes must be clearly identifiable as recent work.
• New artwork must be subordinate to the designed landscape in terms of placement, height,
material, and overall appearance. Place new art away from significant landscape features.
• Avoid installing utility trenches in cultural landscapes if possible.
Response – N/A
1.26 Preserve the historic circulation system.
• Minimize the impact of new vehicular circulation.
• Minimize the visual impact of new parking.
• Maintain the separation of pedestrian and vehicle which occurred historically.
Response – N/A
1.27 Preserve and maintain significant landscaping on site.
• Protect established vegetation during any construction.
• If any tree or shrub needs to be removed, replace it with the same or similar species.
• New planting should be of a species used historically or a similar species.
• Maintain and preserve any gardens and/or ornamental planting on the site.
• Maintain and preserve any historic landscape elements.
Response – N/A.
CHAPTER 2: BUILDING MATERIALS
TREATMENT OF MATERIALS
2.1 Preserve original building materials.
• Do not remove siding that is in good condition or that can be repaired in place.
• Masonry features that define the overall historic character, such as walls, cornices, pediments,
steps and foundations, should be preserved.
• Avoid rebuilding a major portion of an exterior wall that could be repaired in place.
Reconstruction may result in a building which no longer retains its historic integrity.
Original Aspen Modern materials may be replaced in kind if it has been determined that the
weathering detracts from the original design intent or philosophy.
Response – All building materials will be preserved.
2.2 The finish of materials should be as it would have existed historically.
• Masonry naturally has a water-protective layer to protect it from the elements. Brick or stone
that was not historically painted shall not be painted.
• If masonry that was not painted historically was given a coat of paint at some more recent
time, consider removing it, using appropriate methods.
• Wood should be painted, stained or natural, as appropriate to the style and history of the
Building.
Response – The finish of the siding will be painted as is original for the historic house.
89
REPLACEMENT OF MATERIALS
2.3 Match the original materia l in composition, scale and finish when replacing materials on primary
surfaces.
• If the original material is wood clapboard for example, then the replacement material must be
wood as well. It should match the original in size, and the amount of exposed lap and finish.
• Replace only the amount required. If a few boards are damaged beyond repair, then only those
should be replaced, not the entire wall. For Aspen Modern buildings, sometimes the
replacement of a larger area is required to preserve the integrity of the design intent.
Response – Only the windows on the historic house will be replaced, material surrounding the material will be
maintained.
2.4 Do not use synthetic materials as replacements for original building materials.
• Original building materials such as wood siding and brick should not be replaced with synthetic
materials.
Response –No synthetic material will be used on the building.
2.5 Covering original building materials with new materials is inappropriate.
• Regardless of their character, new materials obscure the original, historically significant
material.
• Any material that covers historic materials may also trap moisture between the two layers.
This will cause accelerated deterioration to the historic material which may go unnoticed.
Response –No exterior historic materials will be covered
2.6 Remove layers that cover the original material.
• Once the non-historic siding is removed, repair the original, underlying material.
Response – Not Applicable
CHAPTER 3: WINDOWS
TREATMENT OF WINDOWS
3.1 Preserve the functional and decorative features of a historic window.
• Features important to the character of a window include its frame, sash, muntin/mullions,
sills, heads, jambs, moldings, operations, and groupings of windows.
• Repair frames and sashes rather than replacing them.
• Preserve the original glass. If original Victorian era glass is broken, consider using restoration
glass for the repair.
Response –All historic materials will be preserved.
3.2 Preserve the position, number, and arrangement of historic windows in a building wall.
• Enclosing a historic window is inappropriate.
• Do not change the size of an original window opening.
Response –The windows to be added and replaced will match the historic photos.
REPLACEMENT OF WINDOWS THAT ARE BEYOND REPAIR OR HAVE BEEN REMOVED
3.3 Match a replacement window to the original in its design.
• If the original is double-hung, then the replacement window must also be double-hung. If the
sash have divided lights, match that characteristic as well.
Response –The replacement windows to be added and replaced will match the historic photos of double hung
windows in size and shape.
3.4 When replacing an original window, use materials that are the same as the original.
Response –The replacement windows to be added and replaced will match the historic photos of double hung
windows in size and shape.
3.5 Preserve the size and proportion of a historic window opening.
• Changing the window opening is not permitted.
• Consider restoring an original window opening that was enclosed in the past.
Response –The replacement windows to be added and replaced will match the historic photos of double hung
windows in size and shape.
90
3.6 Match, as closely as possible, the profile of the sash and its components to that of the original
window.
• A historic window often has a complex profile. Within the window’s casing, the sash steps back
to the plane of the glazing (glass) in several increments. These increments, which individually
only measure in eighths or quarters of inches, are important details. They distinguish the actual
window from the surrounding plane of the wall.
• The historic profile on Aspen Modern properties is typically minimal.
Response –The replacement windows to be added and replaced will match the historic photos of double hung
windows in size and shape.
ADDING WINDOWS
3.7 Adding new openings on a historic structure is generally not allowed.
• Greater flexibility in installing new windows may be considered on rear or secondary walls.
• New windows should be similar in scale to the historic openings on the building, but should in
some way be distinguishable as new, through the use of somewhat different detailing, etc.
• Preserve the historic ratio of window openings to solid wall on a façade.
• Significantly increasing the amount of glass on a character defining façade will negatively affect
the integrity of a structure.
Response –The replacement windows to be added and replaced will match the historic photos of double hung
windows in size and shape.
ENERGY CONSERVATION
3.8 Use a storm window to enhance energy conservation rather than replace a historic win dow.
• Install a storm window on the interior, when feasible. This will allow the character of the
original window to be seen from the public way.
• If a storm window is to be installed on the exterior, match the sash design and material of the original
window. It should fit tightly within the window opening without the need for subframes or panning around the
perimeter. A storm window should not include mutons unless necessary for structure. Any muntin should be
placed to match horizontal or vertical divisions of the historic window.
Response –The replacement windows to be added and replaced will match the historic photos of double hung
windows in size and shape.
CHAPTER 4: DOORS:
TREATMENT OF EXISTING DOORS
4.1 Preserve historically significant doors.
• Maintain features important to the character of a historic doorway. These include the door, door
frame, screen door, threshold, glass panes, paneling, hardware, detailing, transoms and flanking
sidelights.
• Do not change the position and function of original front doors and primary entrances.
• If a secondary entrance must be sealed shut, any work that is done must be reversible so that the
door can be used at a later time, if necessary. Also, keep the door in place, in its historic position.
• Previously enclosed original doors should be reopened when possible.
Response –The replacement doors will match in design and size the historic doors in the photos.
4.2 Maintain the original size of a door and its opening.
• Altering its size and shape is inappropriate. It should not be widened or raised in height.
4.3 When a historic door or screen door is damaged, repair it and maintain its general historic
appearance.
Response –The replacement doors will match in design and size the historic doors in the photos.
91
4.4 When replacing a door or screen door, use a design that has an appearance similar to the original
door or a door associated with the style of the building.
• A replica of the original, if evidence exists, is the preferred replacement.
• A historic door or screen door from a similar building also may be considered.
• Simple paneled doors were typical for Aspen Victorian properties.
• Very ornate doors, including stained or leaded glass, are discouraged, unless photographic
evidence can support their use.
Response –No Screen doors are proposed.
ADDING DOORS
4.5 Adding new doors on a historic building is generally not allowed.
• Place new doors in any proposed addition rather than altering the historic resource.
• Greater flexibility in installing a door in a new location may be considered on rear or secondary
walls.
• A new door in a new location should be similar in scale and style to historic openings on the building
and should be a product of its own time.
• Preserve the historic ratio of openings to solid wall on a façade. Significantly increasing the
openings on a character defining façade negatively affects the integrity of a structure.
Response –No new doors are proposed except for the doors that are located in their original location and a
proposed to be added.
ENERGY CONSERVATION
4.6 If energy conservation and heat loss are concerns, use a storm door instead of replacing a historic entry
door.
• Match the material, frame design, character, and color of the primary door.
• Simple features that do not detract from the historic entry door are appropriate for a new storm
door.
• New screen doors should be in character with the primary door.
Response –No screen d oors are proposed for the new doors being added.
DOOR HARDWARE
4.7 Preserve historic hardware.
• When new hardware is needed, it must be in scale with the door and appropriate to the style of
the building.
• On Aspen Victorian properties, conceal any modern elements such as entry key pads.
Response – Historic hardware as shown in the photo is a round handle. This desi gn will be used on the main Front
door per the historic photo. The other two doors will not have hardware as they will be fixed shut.
CHAPTER 5: PORCHES & BALCONIES
TREATMENT
5.1 Preserve an original porch or balcony.
• Replace missing posts and railings when necessary. Match the original proportions, material and
spacing of balusters.
• Expanding the size of a historic porch or balcony is inappropriate.
Response- The front porch will be disassembled and repaired and re-installed per exiting photos and
documentation.
5.2 Avoid removing or covering historic materials and details.
• Removing an original balustrade, for example, is inappropriate.
Response –N/A
5.3 Enclosing a porch or balcony is not appropriate.
• Reopening an enclosed porch or balcony is appropriate.
Response –N/A
92
RECONSTRUCTION
5.4 If reconstruction is necessary, match the original in form, character and detail.
• Match original materials.
• When reconstructing an original porch or balcony without historic photographs, use dimensions
and characteristics found on comparable buildings. Keep style and form simple with minimal, if
any, decorative elements.
Response – All original parts and pieces are in place for the front porch. The front porch will be disassembled and
repaired and re-installed per exiting photos and documentation.
STEPS, HANDRAILS AND GUARDRAILS
5.5 If new steps are to be added, construct them out of the same primary materials used on the original,
and design them to be in scale with the porch or balcony.
• Steps should be located in the original location.
• Step width should relate to the scale of entry doors, spacing between posts, depth of deck, etc.
• Brick, red sandstone, grey concrete, or wood are appropriate materials for steps.
5.6 Avoid adding handrails or guardrails where they did not exist historically, particularly where visible
from the street.
• If handrails or guardrails are needed according to building code, keep their design simple in
character and different from the historic detailing on the porch or balcony.
Response – N/A .
CHAPTER 6: ARCHITEC TURAL DETAILS
TREATMENT OF ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES
6.1 Preserve significant architectural features.
• Repair only those features that are deteriorated.
• Patch, piece-in, splice, or consolidate to repair the existing materials, using recognized preservation
methods whenever possible.
• On Aspen Modern properties, repair is preferred, however, it may be more important to preserve
the integrity of the original design intent, such as crisp edges, rather than to retain heavily
deteriorated material.
6.2 When disassembly of a historic element is necessary for its restoration, use methods that min imize
damage to the original material.
• Document its location so it may be repositioned accurately. Always devise methods of replacing
the disassembled material in its original configuration.
6.3 Remove only the portion of the detail that is deteriorated and must be replaced.
• Match the original in composition, scale, and finish when replacing materials or features.
• If the original detail was made of wood, for example, then the replacement material should be
wood, when feasible. It should match the original in size and finish.
6.4 Repair or replacement of missing or deteriorated features are required to be based on original designs.
• The design should be substantiated by physical or pictorial evidence to avoid creating a
misrepresentation of the building’s heritage.
• When reconstruction of an element is impossible because there is no historical evidence, develop
a compatible new design that is a simplified interpretation of the original, and maintains similar
scale, proportion and material.
6.5 Do not guess at “historic” designs for replacement parts.
• Where scars on the exterior suggest that architectural features existed, but there is no other
physical or photographic evidence, then new features may be designed that are similar in character
to related buildings.
• Using ornate materials on a building or adding new conjectural detailing for which there is no
documentation is inappropriate.
Response – Architectural details will be repaired and / or restored as needed. Historic photographs will be
used to accurately restore the detailing and roof massing of the Victorian.
93
CHAPTER 7: ROOFS
TREATMENT OF ROOFS
7.1 Preserve the original form of a roof.
• Do not alter the angle of a historic roof. Preserve the orientation and slope of the roof as seen
from the street.
• Retain and repair original and decorative roof detailing.
• Where the original roof form has been altered, consider restoration.
7.2 Preserve the original eave depth.
• Overhangs contribute to the scale and detailing of a historic resource.
• Aspen Modern properties typically have very deep or extremely minimal overhangs that are key
character defining features of the architectural style.
7.3 Minimize the visual impacts of skylights and other rooftop devices.
• Skylights and solar panels are generally not allowed on a historic structure. These elements may
be appropriate on an addition.
7.4 New vents should be minimized, carefully, placed and painted a dark color.
• Direct vents for fireplaces are generally not permitted to be added on historic structures.
• Locate vents on non-street facing facades.
• Use historic chimneys as chases for new flues when possible.
7.5 Preserve original chimneys, even if they are made non-functional.
• Reconstruct a missing chimney when documentation exists.
7.6 A new dormer should remain subordinate to the historic roof in scale and character.
• A new dormer is not appropriate on a primary, character defining façade.
• A new dormer should fit within the existing wall plane. It should be lower than the ridgeline and
set in from the eave. It should also be in proportion with the building.
• The mass and scale of a dormer addition must be subordinate to the scale of the historic building.
• While dormers improve the livability of upper floor spaces where low plate heights exist, they also
complicate the roof and may not be appropriate on very simple structures.
• Dormers are not generally not permitted on Aspen Modern properties since they are not
characteristics of these building styles.
MATERIALS
7.7 Preserve original roof materials.
• Avoid removing historic roofing material that is in good condition. When replacement is necessary,
use a material that is similar to the original in both style as well as physical qualities and use a color
that is similar to that seen historically.
7.8 New or replacement roof materials should convey a scale, color and texture similar to the original.
• If a substitute is used, such as composition shingle, the roof material should be earth tone and have
a matte, non-reflective finish.
• Flashing should be in scale with the roof material.
• Flashing should be tin, lead coated copper, galvanized or painted metal and have a matte,
nonreflective finish.
• Design flashing, such as drip edges, so that architectural details are not obscured.
• A metal roof is inappropriate for an Aspen Victorian primary home but may be appropriate for a
secondary structure from that time period.
• A metal roof material should have a matte, non-refle ctive finish and match the original seaming.
7.9 Avoid using conjectural features on a roof.
• Adding ornamental cresting, for example, where there is no evidence that it existed, creates a false
impression of the building’s original appearance, and is inappropriate.
7.10 Design gutters so that their visibility on the structure is minimized to the extent possible.
• Downspouts should be placed in locations that are not visible from the street if possible, or in
locations that do not obscure architectural detailing on the building.
• The material used for the gutters should be in character with the style of the building.
94
`
CHAPTER 8: SECONDARY STRUCTURES
Response: Not Applicable
CHAPTER 9: EXCAVATION, BUILDING RELOCATION & FOUNDATIONS
PRESERVING BUILDING LOCATIONS AND FOUNDATIONS
9.1 Developing a basement by underpinning and excavating while the historic structure stays in place may
help to preserve the historic fabric.
• This activity will require the same level of documentation, structural assessment and posting of financial
assurances as a building relocation.
Response – Not Applicable
9.2 Proposals to relocate building will be considered on a case-by case basis
• In general, on-site relocation has led of an impact on individual structures than those in a historic district.
• In a district, where numerous adjacent historic structures may exist, the way that buildings were placed on
the site historically, and the open yards visible from the street are characteristics that should be respected in
new development.
• Provide a figure ground study of the surrounding parcels to demonstrate the effects of building relocation.
• In some cases, the historic significance of the structure, the context of the site, the construction technique,
and the architectural style may make on-site relocation too impactful to be appropriate. It must be
demonstrated that on -site relocation is the best preservation alternate in order for approval to be granted.
Response – Not Applicable
9.3 Site a relocated structure in a position similar to its historic orientation.
• In must face the same direction and have a relatively similar setback. In general, a forward movement,
rather than a lateral movement is preferred. HPC will consider setback variations, where appropriate.
• A primary structure may not be moved to the rear of the parcel to accommodate a new building in front of
it.
• Be aware of potential restrictions against locating buildings too close to mature trees. Consult with the City
Forester early in the design process. Do not relocate a building so that it becomes obstructed by trees.
Response – Not Applicable
9.4 Position a relocated structure at its historic elevation above grade.
• Raising the finished floor of the building slightly above its original elevation is acceptable if needed to
address drainage issues. A substantial change in position relative to grade is in appropriate.
• Avoid making design decisions that require code related alterations which could have been avoided. In
particular, consider how the relationship to grade could result in non-historic guardrails, etc.
Response – Not Applicable
9.5 A new foundation shall appear similar in design and materials to the historic foundation.
• On modest structures, a simple foundation is appropriate. Constructing a stone foundation on a miner’s
cottage where there is no evidence that one existed historically is out of character and is not allowed.
• Exposed concrete or painted metal flashing are generally appropriate.
• Where a stone or brick foundation existed historically, it must be replicated, ideally using stone salvaged
from the original foundation as a veneer. The replacement must be similar in the out of the stone and the
mortar joints. concrete or painted metal flashing are generally appropriate.
• New AspenModern foundations shall be handled on a case-by-case basis to ensure preservation of the
design intent.
Response – Not Applicable
95
9.6 Minimize the visual impact of lightwells.
• The size of any lightwell that faces a street should be minimized.
• Lightwells must be placed so that they are not immediately adjacent to character defining features, such as
front porches.
• Lightwells must be protected with a flat grate, rather than a railing or may not be visible from a street.
• Lightwells that face a street must about the building foundation and generally may not “float” in the
landscape except where they are screened or on an AspenModern site.
• Response – Not Applicable
9.7 All relocations of designated structures shall be performed by contractors who specialize in moving
historic buildings, or can document adequate experience in successfully relocating such buildings.
• The specific methodology to be used in relocating the structure must be approved by the HPC.
• During the relocation process, panels must be mounted on the exterior of the building to protect existing
openings and historic glass. Special care shall be taken to keep from damaging door and window frames and
sashes in the process of covering the openings. Significant architectural details may need to be removed and
securely stored until restoration.
• The structure is expected to be stored on its original site during the construction process. Proposals for
temporary storage on a different parcel will be considered on a case-by-case basis and may require special
conditions of approval.
• A historic resource may not be relocated outside of the City of Aspen.
• Response –
9.8 Proposals to relocate a building to a new site are highly discouraged.
• Permanently relocating a structure from where it was built to a new site is only allowed for special
circumstances, where it is demonstrated to be the only preservation alternative.
Response – Not Applicable
96
CHAPTER 10 BUILDING ADDITIONS
EXISTING ADDITIONS
10.1 Preserve an older addition that has achieved historic significance in its own right.
Response – Not Applicable
10.2 A more recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed.
• For Aspen Victorian properties, HPC generally relies on the 1904 Sanborn Fire Insurance maps to
determine which portions of a building are historically significant and must be preserved.
• HPC may insist on the removal of non-historic construction that is considered to be detrimental to
the historic resource in any case when preservation benefits or variations are being approved.
Response – The 1988 Rear Addition and Link to the Historic Resource are proposed to be removed.
NEW ADDITIONS
10.3 Design a new addition such that one’s ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building
is maintained.
• A new addition must be compatible with the historic character of the primary building.
• An addition must be subordinate, deferential, modest, and secondary in comparison to the
architectural character of the primary building.
• An addition that imitates the primary building’s historic style is not allowed. For example, a new
faux Victorian detailed addition is inappropriate on an Aspen Victorian home.
• An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate.
• Proposals on corner lots require particular attention to creating compatibility.
Response – The new rear addition’s mass is located behind the one-story linking element by 65 feet. Due to the
location of the new addition, it is not visible form Hopkins Ave. The new addition has similar massing
characteristics in the form of the upper gable roof line by following the 12/12 roof lines of the historic resource
and the new gable at the rear of the addition maintains the same gable dimension as the historic resource,
providing sensitive massing to the resource.
10.4 The historic resource is to be the focus of the property, the entry point, and the predominant structure
as viewed from the street.
• The historic resource must be visually dominant on the site and must be distinguishable against the
addition.
• The total above grade floor area of an addition may be no more than 100% of the above grade floor
area of the original historic resource. All other above grade development must be completely
detached. HPC may consider exceptions to this policy if two or more of the following are met:
o The proposed addition is all one story
o The footprint of the new addition is closely related to the footprint of the historic resource
and the proposed design is particularly sensitive to the scale and proportions of the historic
resource
Response: The new proposed addition has a similar footprint of the historic resource by having the main gable
designed from south to north like the historic resource. The existing gable of the old addition runs east to west
with dormers which is incompatible with the Historic resource.
o The project involves the demolition and replacement of an older addition that is considered
to have been particularly detrimental to the historic resource
Response: the project involves demolition and replacement of an older addition that is detrimental to the historic
resource. The old addition was built 1’-0” off the west property line. The new addition proposes 3’-0”. The new
addition allows for an additional parking space on the property. The old addition design does not relate to the
simplicity of the architecture of the Historic resource. The old addition has 4 small dormers on the addition, which
is inconsistent with the simplicity of the roof form of the historic resource.
97
o The interior of the resource is fully utilized, containing the same number of usable floors as
existed historically
Response: There is no change to the historic resource and the project maintains the same number of floors
historically.
o The project is on a large lot, allowing the addition to have a significant setback from the
street
o There are no variance requests in the application other than those related to historic
conditions that aren’t being changed.
Response: The variations that are being asked for currently exist for the Histo ric resource and the old addition.
The new project maintains the setback variations, except on the west side where the setback variation is
decreased by 2’-0”. The New project also reduces a parking variation, baa the addition of a new parking space
on the east side of the lot off the alley.
o The project is proposed as part of a voluntary Aspen Modern designation, or o The property
is affected by non-preservation related site-specific constraints such as trees that must be
preserved, Environmentally Sensitive Areas review, etc.
In Summary Response –The demolition and replacement of the existing non historic addition, and new historic
details garnered from historic photographs are being added for the proposed project validate what
the request for additional square footage approved for the new addition which is larger than the historic
resource. The gross historic square footage of the main Historic Residence is 747 Sq.Ft. The new proposed new
gross square footage for the addition is 1000 Sq.Ft. In total, there is only 116 Square feet of new square footage,
where 80% of that is being used for the lightwells.
10.5 On a corner lot, no portion of an addition to a one-story historic resource may be more than one
story tall, directly behind that resource, unless completely detached above grade by a distance of at
least 10 feet.
HPC may consider exceptions to this policy if two or more of the following are met:
• The connector element that links the new and old construction is a breezeway or transparent
corridor, well recessed from the street facing side(s) of the historic resource and the area of two
story construction that appears directly behind the one-story historic resource is minimal
• The footprint of the new addition is closely related to the footprint of the historic resource and the
proposed design is particularly sensitive to the scale and proportions of the historic resource
• The project involves the demolition and replacement of an older addition that is considered to have
been particularly detrimental to the historic resource
• The interior of the resource is fully utilized, containing the same number of usable floors as existed
Historically
Response: Not applicable
10.6 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time.
• An addition shall be distinguishable from the historic building and still be visually compatible with
historic features.
• A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material, or a
modern interpretation of a historic style are all techniques that may be considered to help define
a change from historic construction to new construction.
• Do not reference historic styles that have no basis in Aspen.
• Consider these three aspects of an addition; form, materials, and fenestration. An addition must
relate strongly to the historic resource in at least two of these elements. Departing from the
historic resource in one of these categories allows for creativity and a contemporary design
response.
• Note that on a corner lot, departing from the form of the historic resource may not be allowed.
• There is a spectrum of appropriate solutions to distinguishing new from old portions of a
development. Some resources of particularly high significance or integrity may not be the right
instance for a contrasting addition.
Response – The new addition is primarily a gable roof form with a flat roof one story connection between
the two story landmark and above the garage. The façade material is 3” wide horizontal cedar boards.
98
Form and materials relate strongly to the landmark. The new opening on the north elevation facing Bleeker
Street are vertically oriented and proportional to the historic double hung windows in the landmark. The
windows in the addition facing the interior and alley sides have a more modern shape and style to
differentiate new from historic architecture. The new addition is setback more than 53 feet from the front
(North façade) of the two-story landmark.
10.7 When planning an addition to a building in a historic district, preserve historic alignments on the street.
• Some roof lines and porch eaves on historic buildings may align at approximately the same height.
An addition cannot be placed in a location where these relationships would be altered or obscured.
Response – n/a.
10.8 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building.
• An addition that is lower than, or similar to the height of the primary building, is preferred.
Response – The addition’s highest gable point is lower than the height of the primary building. The
proposed location of the second floor is significantly setback and central to the lot in order to minimize the
massing as visually experienced from Bleeker Street.
10.9 If the addition is taller than a historic building, set it back from significant façades and use a
“connector” to link it to the historic building.
• Only a one-story connector is allowed.
• Usable space, including decks, is not allowed on top of connectors unless the connector has limited
visibility and the deck are shielded with a solid parapet wall.
• In all cases, the connector must attach to the historic resource underneath the eave.
• The connector shall be a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition and the primary building.
• Minimize the width of the connector. Ideally, it is n o more than a passage between the historic
resource and addition. The connector must reveal the original building corners. The connector
may not be as wide as the historic resource.
• Any street-facing doors installed in the connector must be minimized in height and width and
accessed by a secondary pathway. See guideline 4.1 for further information.
Response – n/a. The addition is not taller than the historic building. A single-story connecting element is
proposed between the two-story landmark and above the garage.
10.10 Place an addition at the rear of a primary building or set it back substantially from the front to
minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character
to remain prominent.
• Locating an addition at the front of a primary building is inappropriate.
• Additions to the side of a primary building are handled on a case-by-case basis and are approved
based on site specific constraints that restrict rear additions.
• Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not alter the
exterior mass of a building.
Response – The addition is located to the rear of the primary building and is significantly setback from the
front façade a distance of 53’ behind the Victorian and 96’ to the area where directly visible from Bleeker
Street. The proposed addition highlights the original footprint of the landmark and replaces non-historic
additions. A full basement exists and is proposed to be enlarged within the building envelope.
10.11 Roof forms shall be compatible with the historic building.
• A simple roof form that does not compete with the historic building is appropriate.
• On Aspen Victorian properties, a flat roof may only be used on an addition to a gable roofed
structure if the addition is entirely one story in height, or if the flat roofed areas are limited, but
the addition is primarily a pitched roof.
Response – A simple gable roof, common to additions throughout historic Aspen, is the primary form
proposed. A flat roof connecting element is proposed as secondary roof form to link the garage and the
main landmark.
10.12 Design an addition to a historic structure that does not destroy or obscure historically important
architectural features.
• Loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices, and eave lines must be avoided.
99
Response – n/a. The addition does not obscure historically important features, but rather highlights and
restores character defining features.
10.13 When constructing a rooftop addition, keep the mass and scale subordinate to that of the historic
building.
Response – n/a.
10.14 Set a rooftop addition back from the street facing façades to preserve the original profile of the
historic resource.
• Set the addition back from street facing façades a distance approximately equal to its height.
Response – n/a.
10.15 The roof form of a rooftop addition must be in character with the historic building. Response –
n/a.
100
26.415.110.C. Variations:
Dimensional variations are allowed for projects involving designated properties to create
development that is more consistent with the character of the historic property or district than what
would be required by the underlying zoning's dimensional standards.
1. The HPC may grant variances of the Land Use Code for designated properties to allow:
a) Development in the side, rear and front setbacks;
b) Development that does not meet the minimum distance requirements between buildings;
c) Up to five percent (5%) additional site coverage;
d) Less public amenity than required for the on-site relocation of commercial historic properties.
2. In granting a variance, the HPC must make a finding that such a variance:
a) Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district; and/or
b) Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character
of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district.
Response: Variations Requested:
1.5’ Rear North Yard Setback Variance for Living space
above.
2.West Side Yard Setback: Varies from 1'-0" to 3'-0"
3.East Side Yard Setback: Varies form 0'=0" to 1'-0"
4.Combined Side Yard Setback: Vaires
101
26.415.110 F. Floor Area Bonus.
1. In selected circumstances, the HPC may grant up to five hundred additional square feet of
allowable floor area for projects involving designated historic properties. The potential bonus is
determined by net lot area such that a 3,000 – 5,999 square foot lot is eligible for a maximum of two
hundred fifty square foot floor area bonus, a 6,000-8,999 square foot lot is eligible for a maximum of
a three hundred and seventy-five square foot floor area bonus and a 9,000 square foot or larger lot is
eligible for a maximum of a 500 square foot floor area bonus. Floor area bonuses are cumulative.
More than one bonus may be approved up to the maximum amount allowed for the lot. If a property
is subdivided, the maximum bonus will be based on the original lot size, though the bonus may be
allocated amongst the newly created parcels to the extent permitted.
On any lot where a historic property is permitted a duplex density while a non-historic property is
not, the increased allowable floor area that results from the density will be deducted from the
maximum bonus that the property may receive.
To be considered for the bonus, it must be demonstrated that the project meets all of the following
criteria:
a) The historic building is the key element of the property, and the primary entry into the
structure, and the addition is incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of
the historic building; and
Response:
1. The historic residence is the primary entrance into the property. The new addition is
60’-0” back from the front most wall of the historic residence.
2.The new addition creates a smaller footprint on the site and reduces the
nonconformity of the building for setbacks and parking.
3.A required second parking space 8’-6” x 18’-6” is added to the rear of the property off
the Alley where one does not exist now. 2 parking spaces are required per Zoning and
this code has been now met.
4.The existing addition on the historic residence is 1’-0” off of the West property line.
The new addition proposed will be 3’-2” off the property line.
Note:
The historic residence to the West (134 Hopkins) has been approved to build a double
foundation. A corner of that foundation is 1’-3” off the property line between the two
buil dings. With the increased setback for our new proposed building, the construction
of the neighbors’ foundation can be completed, with cooperation from Mike Berg hoff,
(owner of 132 Hopkins). The construction of that double basement will require access
on to his property. Without this setback change on the 132 property in this application,
the double foundation for 134 Hopkins cannot be constructed.
5. The proposed addition conforms to the 5’-0” setback at the alley, where today it
the setback is non-conforming at less than 5’-0”.
6. The existing historic home is a simple miner’s cabin which was likely a three-room
miner’s cabin. As the historic photo reveals, there are three doors off of the long side
loaded porch, and one gable spanning the entire length south to north from the front
of the building to the rear for a length of 46’-0“ .The proposed addition to the rear of
102
the historic photo, includes a 10’-0” link to a two-story addition with one gable
spanning south to north and a flat roof below the gable. The design of the building
forms are simple to reflect the simplicity of the historic building’s form. The form of
the gable element on the addition is the same width 14’-0” and maintains the same
12/12 roof slope of the historic residence.
The existing addition has 4 dormers and a large sloping roof scale with the gable
spanning east to west. This is inconsistent with the Historic residence. The proposed
addition relates to the mass and scale of the simple miner’s cabin by emulating the
same gable form and simplicity of footprint and form.
b) If applicable, historically significant site and landscape features from the period of
significant of the historic building are preserved; and the applicant is undertaking multiple
significant restoration actions, including but not limited to, re-opening an enclosed porch,
reinstalling doors and windows in original openings that have been enclosed, removing paint
or other non-original finishes, or removing elements which are covering original materials or
features; and
Using the historic photo, the applicant is electing to restore the house to it original
window and door design. The residence has been remod eled a few times, without regard
for the historical openings. This project will accomplish the rehabilitation of the original
design of the building as follows:
1.The Front south-facing door on the porch will be restored to be the door into the house.
Round knob door hardware will be added.
2.On the East side of the building on the front porch, two double hung windows will be
added as shown on the photograph.
3.On the East side of the building on the front porch, two doors will be added to the
East wall as shown. These doors will be fixed in place.
4.The double hung windows on the East wall of the residence will be removed and two
single double hung windows will be added. Their location will correspond with existing
historical window on the west side of the building at the living area where the fireplace
was and is today.
5. The fireplace detail is evident in the historic photo and that detail will be replicated with
old brick and metal detailing with a stove pipe. ( A stovepipe flue is added to the new
addition to emulate the old stovepipe).
6.A non-orthogonal upper window on the North gable end of the building will be replaced
with two double hung windows to match the proposed new double-hung windows being
added to the house.
7.The west historic window and the south historic window will remain.
8.A double hung window was added to the East wall at the front of the building and it will
remain.
9.The porch and porch detail will be removed during the relocation and restored for re-
attaching.
103
10.The shingles on the South and North gable ends are not historic as per the photo. The
shingles will be removed and matching siding will be milled to match the historic siding
and installed.
11.The base of the building is currently a 12” board. The base will be removed and siding
will be installed to the finish grade as per the historic photo.
12.All histor ic roofs will have wood shingles.
c) The project retains a historic outbuilding, if one is present, as a free-standing structure
above grade; and
Response: Not applicable.
2. Granting of additional allowable floor area is not a matter of right but is contingent upon the
sole discretion of the HPC and the Commission’s assessments of the merits of the proposed project
and its ability to demonstrate exemplary historic preservation practices.
3. The decision to grant a floor area bonus for major development projects will occur as part of
the approval of a Conceptual Development Plan, pursuant to Subsection 26.415.070.D.
4. Floor area bonuses are only available for single family, duplex, or 100% affordable housing
development. A property shall receive no more than 500 square feet in total. The award of a bonus is
project specific. At such a time that more than 40% of an addition to a historic resource that was
constructed as part of a project which previously received a floor area bonus is demolished, the bonus
may be retained only if the property redevelopment is found to meet the requirements of this
Section.
Response: The applicant is requesting a 98 Sq.Ft. bonus. The existing residence is 1,722
Sq.Ft. In 2007, an agreement with the City of Aspen 2007 was recorded that confirmed
the Floor area for 132 at 1702 (current calculations are 1,722 Sq.Ft.) and allowing for a
98 Sq,.Ft. floor area bonus for a total of 1,820 Sq.Ft. 134 Hopkins received the 116
square foot bonus in 2017.
5. Separate from the floor area bonus described above, on a lot that contains a historic resource,
HPC may exempt wall exposed by a light well that is larger than the minimum required for egress
from the calculation of subgrade floor area only if the light well is internalized such that it is entirely recessed
behind the vertical plane established by the portion of the building facades closest to any
street, the light well is screened from view from the street by building walls or fences, and any
addition that is made to the affected resource simultaneous or after the construction of the light well
is entirely one story.
Response: Not applicable.
104
26.415.090.C Relocation:
Relocation for a building, structure or object will be approved if it is determined that it meets any one of the
following standards:
1. It is considered a noncontributing element of a historic district and its relocation will not affect the
character of the historic district; or
2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on which it is
located
and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the Historic District or property; or
3. The owner has obtained a certificate of economic hardship; or
4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given the
character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not adversely affect the
integrity of the Historic District in which it was originally located or diminish the historic,
architectural
or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated properties; and
Additionally, for approval to relocate all of the following criteria must be met:
1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding the
physical impacts of relocation;
2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and
3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and
preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary financial
security.
Additionally, for approval to relocate all of the following criteria must be met:
1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding the
physical impacts of relocation;
2.An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and
3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and
preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary financial
security.
Response: The historic home was moved to the current site on Hopkin Avenue in 1988 from the East
side of Aspen. At the time of the move the house was placed on a 60 x 100-foot lot sharing the lot with
another Historic home. The front of the re-located house was oriented to Hopkin s Street as it was also
likely oriented originally on the East side of town. In 1988, the house was placed about 12’-10” from the
South property line ( adjacent to Hopkins Ave.), 5’-0” from the East side property line (5’-0” required
setback) and about and about 7’-8” from the existing historic residence to the west. The lot split in
occurred in 2004.
4.Response: The relocation is going to be 12’-8” to the South, to be adjacent to the approved setback
10’-0” setback for the historic resource to the west. This setback is consistent to most historic
properties in Aspen. The relocation will maintain the 5’-0“ setback on the East and allow for a 5’-0”
setback at the alley (5’ required). The relocation is an acceptable preservation method and retains the
integrity of the building.
1.Response: The building is capable of withstanding the impacts of relocation. See attached.
2.N/A. The receiving site is the same site.
3. A plan reviewed and approved by the Structural Enginneing firm Anderson Structural Engineering outlining
the safe relocation is attached. Financial Security will be provided for insurance.
105
106
107
108
Residential Design Standards
Administrative Review
Section 26.410.020.B. of the Land Use Code requires an Administrative Review for compliance with the Residential Design Standards (RDS) for
all residential projects, unless otherwise exempted pursuant to Section 26.410.010.C.
All residential projects affecting the exterior of the building shall submit for RDS Administrative Review prior to building permit submittal. If
exterior work is proposed, and the scope of work meets one of the exemptions listed above, staff shall provide a signed exemption form to be
included in the building permit application.
Review Process:
The Community Development Department staff shall review an application for applicability and compliance with Chapter 26.410, Residential
Design Standards. If the application complies with all applicable standards as written, a signed Checklist and stamped plan set shall be provided
to the applicant to be included with building permit submission.
If the application does not comply with one or more applicable standards, an unsigned Checklist and redlined plan set shall be emailed to the
applicant including comments from staff on which standard(s) the application does not comply with and a description of why the standard(s) is
not compliant. The applicant shall be provided the opportunity to revise and resubmit the design in response to the comments. Staff will keep an
application open for 30 days from the date an unsigned Checklist is emailed to the applicant. If after such time no revisions are submitted, the
application will expire.
Application for RDS Administrative Review:
An application for RDS Administrative Review that DOES NOT require Alternative Compliance (see Page 2) shall be submitted to the Community
Development front desk on a USB drive or emailed to planneroftheday@gmail.com. Applicants will be notified of received application by email
and if additional documents are required. Certain application requirements may be waived by staff depending on the scope of work.
An application for RDS Administrative Review shall include the following documents in digital format:
• Site improvement survey certified by a registered land surveyor (no older than one year from submittal date)
• Proposed Site plan (scaled 24”x36”)
• Proposed Floor plans (scaled 24”x36”)
• Proposed Elevations (scaled 24”x36”)
• Existing Elevations if a remodel (scaled 24”x36”)
• Complete scope of work noting all exterior areas affected by the proposed project
• Complete RDS applicant checklist (attached) addressing how each standard is met with sheet references for each standard
Page 1 of 2 109
Alternative Compliance or Variation:
Pursuant to 26.410.020.C, projects that do not meet the criteria for Administrative Review or Alternative Compliance (as determined by staff)
may be reviewed by the Planning & Zoning Commission, or HPC if appropriate, at the applicant’s request. An applicant may choose to apply
directly for a Variation from the Planning & Zoning Commission or Historic Preservation Commission, pursuant to Chapter 26.410.020.C.
A pre-application summary will be required for an Alternative Compliance or Variation request.
Application for Alternative Compliance or Variation:
An application for Alternative Compliance or a Variation will require a pre-application summary provided by Community Development staff,
and shall be submitted as a Land Use Application. Required application submittal items shall be outlined in the pre-application summary.
Page 2 of 2
Residential Design Standards
Administrative Review
110
Residential Design Standards
Administrative Compliance Review Applicant Checklist - Single Family and Duplex
Standard Complies Alternative
Compliance N/A Sheet #(s)/Notes
B.1.Articulation of Building Mass
(Non-flexible)
B.2.Building Orientation
(Flexible)
B.3.Build-to Requirement
(Flexible)
B.4.One Story Element
(Flexible)
C.1.Garage Access
(Non-flexible)
C.2.Garage Placement
(Non-flexible)
C.3.Garage Dimensions
(Flexible)
Instructions: Please fill out the checklist below, marking whether the proposed design complies with the applicable standard as written or is requesting Alternative Compliance (only
permitted for Flexible standards). Also include the sheet #(s) demonstrating the applicable standard. If a standard does not apply, please mark N/A and include in the Notes section why
it does not apply. If Alternative Compliance is requested for a Flexible standard, include in the Notes section how the proposed design meets the intent of the standard(s). Additional
sheets/graphics may be attached.
Disclaimer: This application is only valid for the attached design. If any element of the design subject to Residential Design Standards changes prior to or during building permit review, the
applicant shall be required to apply for a new Administrative Compliance Review.
Address:
Parcel ID:
Zone District/PD:
Representative:
Email:
Phone:
Page 1 of 2 111
Standard Complies Alternative
Compliance N/A Sheet #(s)/Notes
C.4.Garage Door Design
(Flexible)
D.1.Entry Connection
(Non-flexible)
D.2.Door Height
(Flexible)
D.3.Entry Porch
(Flexible)
E.1.Principle Window
(Flexible)
E.2.Window Placement
(Flexible)
E.3.Nonorthogonal Window Limit
(Flexible)
E.4.Lightwell/Stairwell Location
(Flexible)
E.5.Materials
(Flexible)
Disclaimer: This application is only valid for the attached design. If any element of the design subject to Residential Design Standards changes prior to or during building permit review, the
applicant shall be required to apply for a new Administrative Compliance Review.
Page 2 of 2
Residential Design Standards
Administrative Compliance Review Applicant Checklist - Single Family and Duplex
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
GRETCHEN GREENWOOD ARCHITECT, INC.
166 Surrey Street
Carbondale, CO. 81623
O: 970-948-2081
g r eenwood@ggaaspen.com
www. g greenwoodarchitects.com
Engineering comments for the conceptual review were as follows:
1. Provide a conceptual utility plan. What new utilities are needed and what existing
service lines will remain to serve the property? Consideration for utilities should be taken
with trees and above ground features.
Civil Engineering Response from Chris Hale: A Con ceptual Utility Plan is attached. A
final Utility Plan will be developed for the Final Development approval.
2. What transformer serves the property and does the existing transformer have capacity
for the increased use? Will this property require a new transformer? Work with the City
Electric Department to determine available capacity. A Load Calc Form will be required
at time of building permit.
Quinn Garvik Contractor Response: We will work with the Utility Dep artment, when
the utility loads have been calculated. They are not available at this Conceptual Approval
Stage .
Civil Engineering Response From Chris Hale: See the E-Mail Response f rom Ron
Christian from the Utility Department to Chris Hale, the Civil En gineer for 132 Hopkins
below:
Hey Chris, your existing service comes out of a secondary pedestal that is on the North
side of the alley. The pedestal is fed from a single -phase transformer that is on the South
side of the alley appr 200’ to the east of your property. We do not allow new services to
come out of the secondary pedestals any longer. We stopped allowing this over 20 years
ago. The only way it would be allowed is if you are going to reuse the existing cable that
currently comes out of that pedestal. I am sure that is all direct buried and because of the
age of the cable it would probably be in the best interests of the owner to put in a new
secondary service that is in conduit. If you did want to put it a larger service I would have
to verify that we have room in the existing transformer for the new service. If not you
would be required to install a new transformer on your site. Another potential option
would be to come out of the 3-phase transformer that is in that alley. Let me know if you
want to meet on site to discuss. Thanks, Ron
3. The property is not in a sidewalk deferred zone. A sidewalk will need to be installed or
a sidewalk agreement signed to install a sidewalk at a later date. Applicant may need to
coordinate design with Engine ering & Parks Departments to minimize tree impacts.
138
Gretchen Greenwood Architect Response : A sidewalk agreement can be signed. We
would be happy to coordinate a design for a sidewalk, with the Park ’s Dept. input.
Aspen Tree Service has assessed the heal th of the tree and determined that the tree is
healthy and not experiencing rot or decay. Aspen Tree Service does recommend
removing ma in stems f rom the tree. I can forward you a copy of the report if nece ssary.
In the spring when the ground and sn ow thaws, Hydro Excavation will con duct a
pneumatic surface excavation to determine the extent and location of the tree roots, which
will be after the conceptual hearing in March, and before our final hearing which is to be
determined. It will be at tha t time that we can discuss a sidewalk location with Pa rks.
4. Applicant will be required to follow the requirements of a major development within
the Urban Runoff Management Plan. The conceptual HPC plan shows the reuse or re
installation of a drywell to account for stormwater requirements. It does not appear the
drywell could be reinstalled without negative impacts to the existing tree. Verify with
Parks Dept excavation for the drywell would be permitted within five feet of the tree
trunk or verify the existing drywell meets todays stormwater requirements.
Civ il Engineering Response from Chris Hale : The Urban Runoff Management Plan
will be developed for this property after the Conceptual Approval is completed and the
footprint of the building and design parameters have been established and approved.
Chris Hale has added to the drywell note to coordinate with Parks if we need to replace
the drywell. There is 10’ between the tree and drywell as shown. Hopefully we don’t
need to replace the drywell but it’s adequacy (or not) … that determination is better made
in sprin g.
Gretchen Greenwood Architect Respo nse : The drywell was designed by Dave Powell,
a Civil Engineer and installed in 2011, so it is relatively n ew and functioning for the
property. The footprint of the new project is slightly smaller tha n what is existing. See
attached diagram. I have bee n unable to locate the engineering plans for this 2011
drywell in the City of Aspen records search. When the ground tha ws we will access the
d rywell and create as-builts drawings.
Quinn Garvik Contractor Response: Garvik Construction was the Contractor in 2011
for the installation of the Drywell an d Foundation repair and is currently the Contractor
for this new project. Ple ase see Quin n’s letter regarding the 2 011 drywell installation
regarding below grade conditions.
These items need to be addressed for Engineering to support the project as it moves to the
HPC conceptual hearing.
Thanks,
Hailey Guglielmo Senior Project Manager | Engineering
(C): 9 70.309.0771
139
www.cityofaspen.com
140
PO BOX 2257 BASLAT, CO 81621
T 970-744-9477 U WWW.GARVIKCONSTRUCTION.COM
Garvik Construction, Inc.
1/27/2022
132 West Hopkins
Aspen, Co 81611
To Whom it May Concern:
Garvik Construction Inc. was the Contractor for the foundation work that was
performed in 2011 for the residence at 134 ½ W. Hopkins, now known as 132
W. Hopkins. We successfully installed a new drywell in the front yard, located
between the house and the Centennial Cottonwood tree on the south west
corner of the property. In our exploration of the substructure, we conducted
Hydro Excavation to locate possible root restrictions in our intended plan. We
didn’t uncover any roots that were believed to be “Critical Roots” in our
exploration, confirmed by Aspen Parks Department and the City Forester, and
the drywell was successfully installed. We also laid back the soil in a 1:1 slope
around the perimeter of the foundation on the front of the house and did not
find any roots there either. Please see the attached Engineering plans that were
used to successfully repair the foundation and install the new Drywell.
I hope this clarifies what we knew in 2011 and what we can assume for the
upcoming project being planned at 132 W. Hopkins.
Sincerely,
Quinn Garvik
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148