HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20220914AGENDA
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION
COMMISSION
September 14, 2022
4:30 PM,
I.ROLL CALL
II.MINUTES
II.A Minutes - 8/10/22
III.PUBLIC COMMENTS
IV.COMMISSIONER MEMBER COMMENTS
V.DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
VI.PROJECT MONITORING
VI.A Historic Preservation Project Monitoring
VII.STAFF COMMENTS
VIII.CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT ISSUED
IX.CALL UP REPORTS
X.SUBMIT PUBLIC NOTICE FOR AGENDA ITEMS
WebEx Meeting Instructions
WEBEX MEETING INSTRUCTIONS
TO JOIN ONLINE:
Go to www.webex.com and click on "Join a Meeting"
Enter Meeting Number: 2556 909 3026
Enter Password: 81611
Click "Join Meeting"
-- OR --
JOIN BY PHONE
Call: 1-408-418-9388
Enter Meeting Number: 2556 909 3026
Enter Password: 81611
1
XI.OLD BUSINESS
XII.NEW BUSINESS
XII.A
422-434 E. Cooper Avenue –Substantial Amendment to Major Development,
PUBLIC HEARING
XIII.ADJOURN
XIV.NEXT RESOLUTION NUMBER
TYPICAL PROCEEDING FORMAT FOR ALL PUBLIC HEARINGS
(1 Hour, 10 Minutes for each Major Agenda Item)
1. Declaration of Conflicts of Interest (at beginning of agenda)
2. Presentation of proof of legal notice (at beginning of agenda)
3. Applicant presentation (20 minutes)
4. Board questions and clarifications of applicant (5 minutes)
5. Staff presentation (5 minutes)
6. Board questions and clarifications of staff (5 minutes)
7. Public comments (5 minutes total, or 3 minutes/ person or as determined by the Chair)
8. Close public comment portion of hearing
9. Applicant rebuttal/clarification (5 minutes)
10. Staff rebuttal/clarification (5 minutes)
End of fact finding. Chairperson identifies the issues to be discussed.
11. Deliberation by the commission and findings based on criteria commences. No further
input from applicant or staff unless invited by the Chair. Staff may ask to be recognized if
there is a factual error to be corrected. If the item is to be continued, the Chair may
provide a summary of areas to be restudied at their discretion, but the applicant is not to
re-start discussion of the case or the board’s direction. (20 minutes)
12. Motion
Updated: November 15, 2021
2
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 10TH, 2022
Ms. Johnson started by pointing out that they Commission did not have a Chair or Vice-Chair at the
meeting. She noted that the members present would need to select a Chairperson for the meeting. Mr.
Moyer was selected to be Chair.
Mr. Moyer opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission at 4:30pm.
Commissioners in attendance: Jodi Surfas, Peter Fornell, Roger Moyer, and Sheri Sanzone.
Staff present:
Natalie Feinberg Lopez, Principal Planner Historic Preservation
Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner
Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney
Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk
Risa Rushmore, Administrative Assistant II
MINUTES: Mr. Fornell motioned to approve the minutes from 7/27/22. Mr. Moyer seconded. Roll call
vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Sanzone, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; All in favor, motion passes.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: None.
COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS: None
DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: Ms. Sanzone said she was conflicted on the item tonight. She
will leave once normal business was complete and before the new business item.
PROJECT MONITORING: Ms. Feinberg Lopez noted a staff and monitor issue coming up for Lift 1 Lodge.
She would be in contact once a date is set.
STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Feinberg Lopez noted that there was a misprint in the newspaper. 215 E.
Hallam – Minor Review - was noticed for this meeting by mistake and has subsequently been noticed for
the 8/24 meeting.
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.
Ms. Sanzone left the meeting at 4:35pm
NEW BUSINESS:
233 W. Bleeker – Final Major Development, PUBLIC HEARING
Applicant Presentation: Sara Adams – Bendon Adams
3
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 10TH, 2022
Ms. Adams started her presentation by introducing Brandon Architects, Justin Yarnell the civil engineer
and Katherine Lam the owner. She then went over a brief history of the property and the conceptual
approval granted in February of 2022, that included a“relocation” to dig a basement, demolition of non-
historic additions, complete restoration of two landmarks, FAR bonus, and a variance for historic
conditions. She then went into the Final review proposals, starting with the landscape plan, including
the primary and secondary walkways, planting designs, and pathway lighting. She then went over the
stormwater mitigation plans and mentioned that time had been spent with PJ Murray from the City’s
Engineering department along with Ms. Yoon on the plans. She pointed out on the landscape plan
where the drywell would be located and noted that the drains that connect to the drywell have a sod
cover. She also briefly described the proposed fencing on the property.
Ms. Adams went on to describe the landscape plans as they relate to the historic carriage house. At the
conceptual review, HPC had given direction to work on the restoration efforts on the front façade and
come up with a subtle way to express the original function of the building. Using hi-res historical photos,
they decided that tire tracks would be the most subtle way to express that it was originally a carriage
house. She presented three options for the design of the tire tracks. She noted that there is no curb cut
allowed on N. 2nd St. so the tire tracks would never be used.
Ms. Adams then described the proposed materials and referenced the update that was sent to
commissioners removing the Hardie Plank from the entire project. She went over the proposed
materials for both the historic landmark and new addition. Talking about the windows on the project,
she noted that all the windows on the historic landmark are to be restored pursuant to the historic
photos and the approach for the windows on the addition was to subtly reference the historic landmark
in a simple way. She then highlighted the ridge vent details on the whole property. The proposed
lighting was then described. Ms. Adams closed by going over the restoration plans to bring the historic
landmark back to what it was and said the applicant team was completely amenable to all the conditions
of approval that Ms. Yoon has put together but requested that condition #4 be removed because there
is no longer Hardie board proposed in the application.
Mr. Fornell asked for some clarification of the applicants request to remove condition #4 and also more
information about condition #6. Ms. Adams provided an explanation of the removal of condition #4 and
went over more details of the ridge vent design from condition #6.
Ms. Surfas asked Ms. Adams if they were planning on any snow steps on the roof of the historic
landmark as they were a recommendation. Ms. Adams said there are no snow clips proposed on the
roof of the historic asset, but there are snow guards proposed for the new addition. They would work
with staff and monitor to add them if needed.
Mr. Moyer asked what the soffit overhang distance would be on the historic structure. Ms. Adams
referred to Brandon Architects to answer that question. Brandon Architects asked for some clarification
of Mr. Moyer’s question. Mr. Moyer said that traditionally Victorian structures had ample overhang and
this one seems to be minimal. He was wondering what the distance was, if they thought it was sufficient
and if it would be unreasonable to ask for a larger overhang. Brandon Architects said both the overhang
on the historic asset and new addition would be 18 inches and that they were satisfied that it, along
with the drainage plan, would protect the windows and siding. Mr. Moyer was also concerned about the
West side of the historic not having a gutter proposed and less of an overhang, combining to potentially
causing an issue with falling ice damaging the front porch below. Brandon Architects showed a historic
4
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 10TH, 2022
photo highlighting that the original overhangs were not that substantial and said they tried to the best
of their ability to match those in the proposed design. Mr. Moyer then asked if there was a modern
sconce proposed for the front porch of the historic asset. Ms. Adams said that modern sconces are
proposed for the whole project. Mr. Moyer said he would question the modern sconce on the historic
asset.
Staff Presentation:Sarah Yoon – Historic Preservation Planner
Ms. Yoon started by showing photos of the current conditions and details of the property. Then she
showed the Sanborn map of the lot and a historic photo from 1963 of the structure. She then touched
on the pieces of the staff memo. When it comes to the landscape plan, she mentioned that the applicant
has worked with city departments on the details of the drainage plan, specifically the drain cover detail
and that the cover details are consistent to what has been seen on other projects as a solution to help
disguise the grates. She reviewed the options presented for the carriage house path and stated that
staff was in favor of option #2. She went on to state that in terms of the overall landscape plan, staff
finds that it does meet design guidelines. She said that staff was in support of the changes made to the
front façade of the carriage house in response to the conditions of the conceptual approval. She then
reviewed the benefits requested, including the west side yard setback reduction of 2 feet and the 500
square foot Floor Area Bonus. Staff finds criteria has been met and is in support of these. Next, she
reviewed the staff recommendations for approval, noting that condition #4 is being requested to be
removed as staff finds it has been met.
Mr. Fornell asked about condition #7, relating to snow stops on the historic resource. He said that with
his experience in the development world, after looking at the roof, he was convinced that snow will slide
on the roof. He was concerned about the useful life of a gutter where snow slides off the roof.
Ms. Surfas asked for a refresher on the details of the side porch. Ms. Yoon reminded her that as part of
the discussions at conceptual review the original proposed railings and steps had been removed from
the design. The new proposal is to recreate the screened in porch seen in the 1955 image.
Mr. Moyer asked Ms. Yoon about the proposed modern light fixture on the front porch of the historic
asset. Ms. Yoon responded that when it comes to fixtures on historic resources staff just asks for
something simple.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
BOARD DISCUSSION:Mr. Moyer started by addressing the tire tracks at the carriage house and if
anyone was opposed to option #2. Mr. Fornell mentioned that he had normally seen HPC require paths
for autos where they were going to be functional. He asked if requiring one that would not be functional
was standard practice. He said he was satisfied with option #2 but would also be satisfied if there were
no tire tracks.
Ms. Surfas said she was questioning why they were there if there was no curb cut. She got the point but
wondered why they should be there if you were not going to use them. Mr. Moyer said just having them
might be an invitation for someone to pull a car up and thought in the landscape plan it may not be
necessary. He asked Ms. Yoon for her thoughts. Ms. Yoon said that including the tire tracks was a
direction given by HPC at conceptualto try to represent the original usage of the carriage house in a
5
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 10TH, 2022
subtle way. Ms. Yoon asked for clear direction from the members to either go with option #2 or no tire
tracks at all. Mr. Moyer, Mr. Fornell, and Ms. Surfas all were in favor of no tracks.
Mr. Moyer then brought up the ridge vent and all members were not opposed to it.
All members were ok with the removal of condition #4.
MOTION: Mr. Fornell motioned to approve Resolution #12 with the removal of condition #4 and #6. Ms.
Surfas seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes. 3-0, motion passes.
Mr. Fornell said he would be the monitor for this project.
ADJOURN: Mr. Fornell motioned to adjourn the regular meeting. Mr. Moyer seconded. All in favor;
motion passed.
____________________
Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk
6
HPC PROJECT MONITORS - projects in bold are permitted or under construction
G:\PLANNING\HPC\HPC\hpc project monitoring\PROJECT
MONITORING_20220826.doc
9/6/2022
Kara Thompson 931 Gibson
300 E. Hyman
201 E. Main
333 W. Bleeker
234 W. Francis
Skier’s Chalet Steakhouse
423 N. Second
135 E. Cooper
101 W. Main (Molly Gibson Lodge)
720 E. Hyman
304 E. Hopkins
930 King
312 W. Hyman
Jeff Halferty 208 E. Main
533 W. Hallam
110 W. Main, Hotel Aspen
105 E. Hallam
134 E. Bleeker
300 E. Hyman
434 E. Cooper, Bidwell
414-420 E. Cooper, Red Onion/JAS
517 E. Hopkins
Lift 1 corridor ski lift support structure
227 E. Bleeker
211 W. Hopkins
211 W. Main
204 S. Galena
215 E. Hallam
Roger Moyer 105 E. Hallam
300 W. Main
227 E. Main
110 Neale
517 E. Hopkins
Skier’s Chalet Lodge
202 E. Main
305-307 S. Mill, Grey Lady
320 E. Hyman (Wheeler Opera House, solar panels)
611 W. Main
Sheri Sanzone 110 W. Main, Hotel Aspen
920 E. Hyman
209 E. Bleeker
820 E. Cooper
125 W. Main
Skier’s Chalet Steakhouse
Skier’s Chalet Lodge
Lift One Park
423 N. Second
420 E. Hyman
121 W. Bleeker
Jodi Surfas 202 E. Main
305-307 S. Mill, Grey Lady
320 E. Hyman (Wheeler Opera House, solar panels)
611 W. Main
7
HPC PROJECT MONITORS - projects in bold are permitted or under construction
G:\PLANNING\HPC\HPC\hpc project monitoring\PROJECT
MONITORING_20220826.doc
9/6/2022
Peter Fornell 304 E. Hopkins
930 King
135 W. Francis
233 W. Bleeker
Barb Pitchford 121 W. Bleeker
312 W. Hyman
8
Page 1 of 3
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Amy Simon, Planning Director
MEETING DATE: September 14, 2022
RE: 422-434 E. Cooper Avenue–Substantial Amendment to Major Development,
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICANT /OWNER:
434 East Cooper Avenue, LLC
REPRESENTATIVE:
Chris Bendon, BendonAdams
LOCATION:
Street Address:
422-434 E. Cooper Avenue
Legal Description:
Lots Q, R, S and the westerly
20.65 feet of Lot P, Block 89, City
and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado
Parcel Identification Number:
PID #2737-182-16-011
CURRENT ZONING & USE:
Commercial Core, vacant site
PROPOSED ZONING & LAND USE:
Commercial Core. Property to be
developed with a two story building
with a full basement, devoted
entirely to commercial (retail and
restaurant) use.
SUMMARY:
The application is to amend the 2015 HPC approval
granted for a new building on the subject property.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that approval is either limited to
acceptable aspects of the proposed ground floor
amendments, or the project is continued for restudy to
clarify the storefront design and to eliminate the skylights
proposed for the roof as they do not meet the design
guidelines.
Site Locator Map: 422-434 E. Cooper
422-
434
9
Page 2 of 3
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
REQUEST OF HPC: The Applicant is requesting the following land use approval:
• Substantial Amendment to Major Development Approval pursuant to Land Use Code
Section 26.415.070.E.2. Associated review processes requiring evaluation are
Commercial Design Review and Growth Management.
The HPC is the final review authority, however, Commercial Design Review is subject to Call-up
Notice by City Council. (Additionally, the review is subject to notice of Call-up due to provisions of
another decision relevant to the project; Council Resolution #109, Series of 2016.)
BACKGROUND:
In September 2015, HPC granted this applicant Conceptual approval and Viewplane Exemption
for a new commercial structure at 434 E. Cooper Avenue, by a 3-2 vote. The approval was called
up for discussion by City Council but not remanded.
At the time of the HPC Conceptual approval, this applicant was also in the process of purchasing
the 9,000 square foot property to the west, which contained the Red Onion, Red Onion offices
and the former vintage poster shop. The purchase was completed and included a valid but then
soon to expire allowance for a redevelopment of that site, include a free-market penthouse no
longer permitted in the zone district. The applicant requested Council extend the Vested Rights
for the project, which led Council to negotiate an amendment that eliminated the free-market
residential unit from the project mix, reduced the scope of the Red Onion related development,
made the poster shop at 422 E. Cooper the circulation column for all development planned to the
east and west of it, and allowed an opportunity for the applicant to change the massing of the 434
E. Cooper development from what was accepted by HPC at Conceptual.
Though staff found the Final Major Development application for 422-434 E. Cooper to be
inconsistent with the architectural vocabulary and form of historic structures in the immediate area,
particularly due to the recessed upper floor on the proposed structure, HPC granted approval on
November 30, 2016. Minutes of the discussion are attached as Exhibit D. Notice of Call Up was
required as part of the Vested Rights extension. Council did Call the project up for detailed
discussion, but ultimately upheld the board’s decision.
The applicant had until May 4, 2020 to submit a complete building permit application, which they
did. The permit was issued on December 7, 2020 and demolition of the previous building and
construction of the foundation began. While the applicant has the right to seek this design
amendment, they must make meaningful progress on actual construction at least every six
months according to the provisions of the 2015 International Building Code or the permit, and the
2016 land use approval, will expire. Extensions are possible at the discretion of the Chief Building
Official. The next deadline to demonstrate progress is Oct. 18, 2022. This amendment does not
necessarily make an argument for progress on the permit, and approval will not restart any clock
on the applicant’s obligations to pursue project completion.
10
Page 3 of 3
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
STAFF COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATION:
The Municipal Code provides a process for making Insubstantial and Substantial Amendments to
a project approved by the Historic Preservation Commission. In addition to making the distinction
between insubstantial and substantial changes from an HPC perspective (defined in the code),
staff worked with the applicant before this submittal to ensure that the scope of the changes is
within what is permitted for a project that is vested in Municipal Code language that has since
been amended. There are a number of code provisions that were not in place at the time this
project was originally submitted for review in 2015, but which would apply to a new project today.
In order to approach HPC with this Substantial Amendment under the 2015 code (vs. losing the
approval and having to restart the review process under current standards), the applicant was
required to limit their proposal to a scope that does not change the inherent nature, use, massing,
character, dimensions, or design of the project or which changes these attributes in an
inconsequential manner.
Please see Exhibits A, B and C for staff findings on the review. Staff does not find that the relevant
design guidelines are sufficiently met and recommends that approval is either limited to
acceptable aspects of the proposed ground floor amendments, or the project is continued for
restudy to clarify the storefront design and to eliminate the skylights proposed for the roof.
A resolution with recommended conditions of approval is provided, should HPC choose to take
action on September 14th.
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution #__, Series of 2022
Exhibit A – Historic Preservation Design Guidelines /Staff Findings
Exhibit B – Commercial Design Guidelines/Staff Findings
Exhibit C – Growth Management/Staff Findings
Exhibit D – HPC minutes from Final Review in 2016
Exhibit E – Application
11
HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2022
Page 1 of 5
RESOLUTION #__, SERIES OF 2022
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
GRANTING A SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT TO MAJOR DEVELOPMENT
APPROVAL FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 422-434 E. COOPER AVENUE,
LOTS Q, R, S AND THE WESTERLY 20.65 FEET OF LOT P, BLOCK 89, CITY AND
TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO
PARCEL ID: 2737-182-16-011
WHEREAS, the applicant, 434 East Cooper Avenue, LLC, represented by BendonAdams, has
requested review of a Substantial Amendment to Major Development approval for the property
located at 422-434 E. Cooper Avenue, Lots Q, R, S and the westerly 20.65 feet of Lot P, Block
89, PID#2737-182-16-011, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is currently excavated, with a foundation for a new structure
partially in place. The property is located in the Commercial Core Historic District and therefore
redevelopment review is within the purview of the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC);
and
WHEREAS, the approval to be amended was granted through HPC Resolution #35, Series of
2016. The resulting Development Order provided Vested Rights through May 4, 2020. A timely
building permit was submitted and is currently in good standing, however the Vested Rights to
construct the project will only be sustained by active pursuit of project construction according to
the provisions of the 2015 International Building Code; and
WHEREAS, according to Municipal Code Section 26.304.070.A, amendments to vested
projects shall be considered either minor in scope or major in scope. Minor amendments shall
continue to be reviewed according to the land use code under which the plan was approved for
the period of statutory vested rights. The Community Development Department applied the code
language provided at Section 26.304.070A.4, and a Code Interpretation issued by the
Community Development Director on April 20, 2020 to determine that the scope of work
represented in this application qualifies as a Minor Amendment; and
WHEREAS, the approval to be amended included a Certificate of Appropriateness for Major
Development, Commercial Design Review and Growth Management. The Municipal Code in
place at the time of initial application for this project in May 2015 defines amendments to a
Historic Preservation Commission approval as Insubstantial or Substantial, and the application of
Section 26.415.070.E.2.a, which states that “all changes to approved plans that materially modify
the location, size, shape, materials, design, detailing or appearance of the building elements as
originally depicted” indicates that the subject application must be approved by the HPC as a
substantial amendment. Municipal Code Section 26.412.080.B similarly indicates that a
substantial amendment to the commercial design review previously granted by HPC is required;
and
WHEREAS, HPC is to review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence
presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City Historic
12
HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2022
Page 2 of 5
Preservation Design Guidelines and the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design
Standards and Guidelines. 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. Because the guidelines are referenced in the Municipal Code, but not codified, this
review is subject to current guidelines, not those in place in May 2015; and
WHEREAS, Community Development Department staff reviewed the application for
compliance with applicable review standards and recommended partial approval of the
application, with conditions; and
WHEREAS, HPC reviewed the project on September 14, 2022, considered the application, the
staff memo and public comments, and granted partial approval of the application, with
conditions, by a vote of __ to __.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
Section 1: Approvals
The Substantial Amendment is approved with the exception of the proposed changes to upper
floor design, which must adhere to the 2016 representations in their entirety. A revised set of
plans and elevations must be submitted and deemed by the Chair of HPC as the official record of
this approval prior to the signing of this resolution.
This approval shall cause issuance of a revised Development Order pursuant to Municipal Code
Section 26.304.070.B, but shall not effect a new expiration date of the Development Order, or in
any way re-instate the vested rights established by HPC Resolution #35, Series of 2016, which
have expired. In order to sustain the approval granted through HPC Resolution #35, Series of
2016, and the Development Order that provided Vested Rights through May 4, 2020, the
applicant must actively pursue and execute building permit 0055-2020-BCOM, meeting all
requirements for progress as described by the 2015 International Building Code. Should the
permit lapse, the entire approval, including this amendment, shall be invalid.
This amendment qualifies for, and is subject to the separate issuance of an administrative
approval for development within a view plane.
Design and placement of all exterior mechanical equipment requires review and approval by
staff and monitor prior to submittal of building permit.
In the building permit, the applicant must include air curtains or airlocks at all exterior entries as
required by design standards.
All conditions of HPC Resolution #35, Series of 2016, remain in effect, except as amended below
with elimination of conditions #13 and #14, which have since been satisfied:
1. The Transportation Impact Analysis is approved, subject to amendment at building permit
review to address the final calculation of new net leasable area generated by the combined
development at 422 and 434 E. Cooper Avenue. Any revisions to MMLOS and TDM
mitigation and/or net trips to be mitigated through a cash-in-lieu payment shall be approved
by the City of Aspen Engineering Department.
13
HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2022
Page 3 of 5
2. The Public Amenity requirement for 422 E. Cooper Avenue was approved through HPC
Resolution #26, Series of 2012, to be in the form of off-site improvements to the Pedestrian
Malls equal to the mitigation that would otherwise have been required on site. The off-site
improvements shall equal or exceed the value of a cash-in-lieu payment of $90,000,
calculated as $100 x 900 square feet (10% of the lot area). The improvements shall be
subject to review and approval by the City of Aspen Engineering Department and City of
Aspen Parks Department.
3. The Public Amenity requirement for 434 E. Cooper Avenue has been amended from a cash-
in-lieu payment to off-site improvements to the Galena Street right of way, subject to review
and approval by the City of Aspen Engineering Department and City of Aspen Parks
Department. The off-site improvements shall equal or exceed the value of a cash-in-lieu
payment of $90,000, calculated as $100 x 900 square feet (10% of the lot area).
4. HPC has approved the allocation of 7,507 square feet of net leasable area to 434 E. Cooper
subject to the provision of affordable housing credits to be provided and extinguished prior to
the issuance of a building permit.
5. The development approved for the 422 E. Cooper Avenue site appears to result in a credit for
employees generated. Any credit will be calculated at the time of building permit and may
be available to the property for a period not to exceed one year per Section 26.470.130 of the
Municipal Code. Reconstruction rights shall be limited to reconstruction on the same parcel
or on an adjacent parcel under the same ownership.
6. The development approved for the 422 E. Cooper Avenue site appears to reduce the overall
deficit of parking on that property, however this reduction in the existing deficit shall not
create a parking credit that can be applied to development at 434 E. Cooper Avenue or any
other property.
7. The development approved for the 434 E. Cooper Avenue site requires parking mitigation,
which will be in the form of a cash-in-lieu payment to be calculated at the time of building
permit.
8. The brick used for the project is not permitted to be a tumbled brick and the steel pilaster
caps are to be eliminated from the design.
9. Samples of all exterior materials for the development of 422 and 434 E. Cooper Avenue shall
be reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor.
10. “Chicken wire glass” has been accepted by HPC in concept for installation in the storefront
transoms and the multi-paned windows on the recessed upper floor. The exact placement of
this material requires review and approval by HPC staff and monitor.
11. The applicant must restudy the storefronts along Cooper Avenue to reduce the size of the
windows in the central bay, for review and approval by HPC staff and monitor.
14
HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2022
Page 4 of 5
12. The project shall be revised to remove all references to early 20th Century architectural styles,
particularly Art Deco and Art Moderne, to be reviewed and approved by HPC staff and
monitor.
13. The applicant shall submit a new package of drawings for review in which all information
presented on the elevations is consistent with the renderings presented at the Nov. 30th, 2016
HPC meeting, to be reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor.
14. Upon its effective date, this Resolution shall result in the immediate abandonment of the
previous approvals granted for the redevelopment of 422 E. Cooper Avenue per HPC
Resolution #26, Series of 2012 and HPC Resolution #2, Series of 2014. Specifically, the
applicant agrees to the following:
a) The removal of the free market residential unit from the vested development rights for
422 E. Cooper Avenue. The project will become 100% commercial.
b) The removal from the vested development rights of allowance for the third story. The
resulting building at 422 E. Cooper Avenue will be no more than 2 stories and have a
maximum height of 28 feet- excepting the accommodation of vertical circulation
elements for the coordinated project.
c) Housing mitigation, if new employees are generated, will be required and will be
recalculated at 60% of new net leasable square footage, utilizing affordable housing
credits.
Section 2: Material Representations
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the
development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation
presented before the Community Development Department, the Historic Preservation
Commission, or the Aspen City Council are hereby incorporated in such plan development
approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by
other specific conditions or an authorized authority.
Section 3: Existing Litigation
This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of
any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended
as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 4: Severability
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be
deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions thereof.
15
HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2022
Page 5 of 5
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 14th day of September,
2022.
Approved as to Form: Approved as to Content:
_
_________________ __________________________________
Katharine Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Kara Thompson, HPC Chair
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk
16
Page 1 of 2
Exhibit A
Historic Preservation Design Guidelines
Staff Findings
The following language was in effect at the time of the Conceptual application in May 2015 and
is applicable to this review.
26.415.070.E.2. Substantial amendments.
a) All changes to approved plans that materially modify the location, size, shape, materials,
design, detailing or appearance of the building elements as originally depicted must be approved
by the HPC as a substantial amendment.
e) Staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a report that analyzes the extent
of the changes relative to the approved plans and how the proposed revisions affect
the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use
Codes. This report will be transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the
proposed revisions and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or
approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation.
f) 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. 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.
Staff Finding: While guidelines adopted for HPC’s use in decision making are referenced in
the code, such as the above citation of the City Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, they
are a tool used in decision making are not codified such that their entire content are regulations
that must be met. HPC is required to apply the guidelines and use their discretion to make a
determination whether an application sufficiently conforms. This application is subject to review
under current guidelines since they are separate from the Municipal Code and subject to
revision.
New Historic Preservation Design Guidelines were adopted in 2016. The document states that
“These design guidelines are specifically for properties listed on the “Inventory of Historic Sites
and Structures,” inside and outside of the historic districts.” The subject property is not listed on
the Inventory, and therefore the current Historic Preservation Design Guidelines do not apply.
(Please note that the application presents and responds to some of these guidelines, but they
are not in fact relevant to the review.)
New guidelines for development in the Commercial Core were adopted in 2017 and will be used
in the evaluation of this application. Per the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design
Standards and Guidelines, “a property located within the Main Street Historic District or
Commercial Core Historic District, but not a designated landmark is subject to the applicable
Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Standards and Guidelines, but is not subject
17
Page 2 of 2
to the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines.” Staff evaluation of compliance with the
Commercial guidelines is provided at Exhibit B.
18
Exhibit B
Commercial Design Review
Staff Findings
The following language was in effect at the time of the Conceptual application in May 2015 and
is applicable to this review.
26.412.015. Adoption of commercial design guidelines.
Pursuant to the powers and authority conferred by the Charter of the City, there is hereby
adopted and incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth those standards contained in
the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines, as amended
by ordinance from time to time by the City Council. At least one (1) copy of the aforementioned
Guidelines shall be available for public inspection at the Community Development Department
during regular business hours.
Staff Response: The Commercial guidelines are referenced in the Municipal Code, but are
not codified and it is recognized that they will be amended periodically. As a result, this
application is to be reviewed according to the guidelines adopted in 2017.
26.412.050. Review Criteria.
An application for commercial design review may be approved, approved with conditions or
denied based on conformance with the following criteria:
A. The proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060,
Commercial design standards, or any deviation from the standards provides a more appealing
pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the
purpose of the particular standard. Unique site constraints can justify a deviation from the
standards. Compliance with Section 26.412.070, Suggested design elements, is not required
but may be used to justify a deviation from the standards.
26.412.070. Suggested design elements.
The following guidelines are building practices suggested by the City, but are not
mandatory. In many circumstances, compliance with these practices may not produce
the most desired development, and project designers should use their best judgment.
A. Signage. Signage should be integrated with the building to the extent possible.
Integrated signage areas already meeting the City's requirements for size, etc., may
minimize new tenant signage compliance issues. Common tenant listing areas also
serves a public way-finding function, especially for office uses. Signs should not block
design details of the building on which they are placed. Compliance with the City's sign
code is mandatory
B. Display windows. Display windows provide pedestrian interest and can
contribute to the success of the retail space. Providing windows that reveal inside
activity of the store can provide this pedestrian interest.
19
C. Lighting. Well-lit (meaning quality, not quantity) display windows along the first
floor create pedestrian interest after business hours. Dynamic lighting methods
designed to catch attention can cheapen the quality of the downtown retail environment.
Illuminating certain important building elements can provide an interesting effect.
Significant light trespass should be avoided. Illuminating the entire building should be
avoided. Compliance with the City's Outdoor lighting code, Section26.575.150 of
this Title, is mandatory.
Staff Response: Section 26.412.060 of the commercial design standards addresses Public
Amenity Space and Utility, delivery and trash service provisions, neither of which are to be
meaningfully amended from the previous approval. Regarding suggested design elements, at
this time, no detail regarding signage or lighting of display windows has been provided. The
project does include large ground floor display windows. Though the proportions of the windows
are to be amended, the overall concept remains as approved. Staff does not find that a deviation
from the Commercial design standards is justified by the applicant’s response to Section
26.412.060 or 26.412.070.
B. For proposed development converting an existing structure to commercial use, the
proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial design
standards, to the greatest extent practical. Changes to the façade of the building may be
required to comply with this Section.
Staff Response: This criterion is not applicable.
C. The application shall comply with the guidelines within the Commercial, Lodging and
Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines as determined by the appropriate
Commission. The guidelines set forth design review criteria, standards and guidelines that are
to be used in making determinations of appropriateness. The City shall determine when a
proposal is in compliance with the criteria, standards and guidelines. Although these criteria,
standards and guidelines are relatively comprehensive, there may be circumstances where
alternative ways of meeting the intent of the policy objectives might be identified. In such a
case, the City must determine that the intent of the guideline is still met, albeit through
alternative means.
Staff Response: This applicable information is provided below. In the chart, please note that
many standards indicated in yellow represent that there is no meaningful change from the
previous approval, not that the guideline is not applicable.
Staff finds that some of the revisions to the ground floor design are improvements, namely the
increased plate height and narrowing of storefront openings to create a more vertical proportion,
similar to surrounding historic structures. However, some guidelines are not met related to
ground floor entries, particularly 1.16, which does not support the very tall entry door facing
Galena Street near the alley, and 2.9 and 2.10, mandatory design standards that require
recessed entries as are typical of the historic downtown.
20
Staff does not support the proposed changes to the upper floor roof plane through the
installation of five skylights. Guidelines 2.3 and 2.4 call for strong continuity with the
predominantly flat roofed forms of the great majority of structures in the historic district,
particularly the landmarks. The skylights and the extent of horizontal and vertical light spill that
will be created is not consistent with the guidelines.
Staff recommends that either limited aspects of the ground floor amendments be
approved, or the project be continued for restudy to clarify the storefront design and
eliminate the skylights.
21
22
General
Site Planning and Streetscape
1.1 All projects shall provide a context study.
• The study should include the relationship to adjacent structures and streets through
photographs, streetscape elevations, historic maps, etc.
1.2 All projects shall respond to the traditional street grid.
23
• A building shall be oriented parallel to the street unless uncharacteristic of the area.
Refer to specific chapters for more information.
• Buildings on corners shall be parallel to both streets.
1.3 Landscape elements (both hardscape and softscape) should complement the
surrounding context, support the street scene, and enhance the architecture of
the building.
• This applies to landscape located both on-site and in the public right-of-way.
• High quality and durable materials should be used.
• Early in the design process, consider stormwater best management practices as an
integral part of the landscape design process.
1.4 Where there is open space on a site, reinforce the traditional transition from
public space, to semi-public space to private space.
• This may be achieved through a fence, a defined walkway, a front porch element,
covered walkway, or landscape.
1.5 Maintain alignment of building facades where appropriate.
• Consider the entire block of a neighborhood to determine appropriate building
placement. Carefully examine and respond to the variety of building alignments that
are present.
• Consider all four corners of an intersection and architectural context to determine
appropriate placement for buildings located on corners.
• Consider the appropriate location of street level Pedestrian Amenity when siting a new
building.
1.6 When a building facade is set back, define the property line. Review the context
of the block when selecting an appropriate technique. Examples include:
• A fence which is low in height and mostly transparent so as to maintain openness
along the street.
• Landscaping, though it may not block views of the architecture or a Pedestrian
Amenity space. Hedgerows over 42 inches are prohibited.
• Benches or other street furniture.
Alleyways
1.7 Develop alley facades to create visual interest.
• Use varied building setbacks and/or changes in material to reduce perceived scale.
1.8 Consider small alley commercial spaces, especially on corner lots or lots with
midblock access from the street (See Pedestrian Amenity Section PA4).
• Maximize visibility and access to alley commercial spaces with large windows and
setbacks.
• Minimize adverse impacts of adjacent service and parking areas through materials,
setbacks, and/or landscaping.
24
Parking
1.9 Minimize the visual impacts of parking.
• All on-site parking shall be accessed off an alley where one is available.
• Break up the massing of the alley facade, especially when garage doors are present.
• Consider the potential for future retail use accessed from alleys and the desire to
create a safe and attractive environment for cars and people.
• If no alley access exists, access should be from the shortest block length.
• Screen surface parking and avoid locating it at the front of a building. Landscaping and
fences are recommended.
• Consider a paving material change to define surface parking areas and to create
visual interest.
• Design any street-facing entry to underground parking to reduce visibility. Use high
quality materials for doors and ramps and integrate the parking area into the
architecture.
Building Mass, Height, and Scale
1.10 A new building should appear similar in scale and proportion with buildings on
the block.
1.11 A minimum building height difference of 2 feet from immediately adjacent
buildings is required.
• The height difference shall be a minimum of 15 feet wide.
• The height difference should reflect the range and variation in building height in the
block.
• This may be achieved through the use of a cornice, parapet or other architectural
articulation.
1.12 On lots larger than 6,000 square feet, break up building mass into smaller
modules.
• A street level front setback to accommodate Pedestrian Amenity in accordance with
the Pedestrian Amenity Guidelines may be an appropriate method to break up building
mass.
• Building setbacks, height variation, changes of material, and architectural details may
be appropriate techniques to vertically divide a building into modules.
1.13 Development adjacent to a historic landmark should respond to the historic
resource.
• A new building should not obscure historic features of the landmark.
• A new large building should avoid negative impacts on historic resources by stepping
down in scale toward a smaller landmark.
• Consider these three aspects of a new building adjacent to a landmark: form, materials
and fenestration.
• When choosing to relate to building form, use forms that are similar to the historic
resource.
25
• When choosing to relate to materials, use materials that appear similar in scale and
finish to those used historically on the site, and use building materials that contribute to
a traditional sense of pedestrian scale.
• When choosing to relate to fenestration, use windows and doors that are similar in
size, shape, and proportion to those of the historic resource.
Street Level Design
1.14 Commercial entrances shall be at the sidewalk level and oriented to the street.
• Finished floor and sidewalk level shall align for at least 1/2 the depth of the ground
floor where possible. If significant grade changes exist on property, then the project
will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
• All buildings shall have at least one clearly defined primary entrance facing the front lot
line, as defined in the Land Use Code. An entrance located within a chamfered corner
is an alternative. (See Commercial Core Historic District).
• If a building is located on a corner lot, two entrances shall be provided; a primary
entrance facing the longest block length and a secondary entrance facing the shortest
block length.
1.15 Incorporate an internal airlock or air curtain into first floor commercial space.
• An airlock or air curtain shall be integrated into the architecture.
• Adding a temporary exterior airlock of any material to an existing building not allowed.
1.16 Entries that are significantly taller or shorter than those seen historically or that
conflict with the established scale are highly discouraged.
• Transom windows above an entry are a traditional element that may be appropriate in
neighborhoods with 19th century commercial buildings.
• Entries should reflect the established range of sizes within the context of the block.
Analyze surrounding buildings to determine appropriate height for entry doors.
1.17 ATMs and vending machines visible from the street are prohibited.
Roofscape
1.18 The roofscape should be designed with the same attention as the elevations of
the building.
• Consolidate mechanical equipment, including solar panels, and screen from view.
• Locate mechanical equipment toward the alley, or rear of a building if there is no alley
access.
• Use varied roof forms or parapet heights to break up the roof plane mass and add
visual interest.
1.19 Use materials that complement the design of the building facade.
• Minimize the visual impact of elevator shafts and stairway corridors through material
selection and placement of elements.
26
1.20 Incorporate green roofs and low landscape elements into rooftop design where
feasible.
1.21 Minimize visibility of rooftops railings.
• Mostly transparent railings are preferred.
• Integrating the rooftop railing into the architecture as a parapet or other feature, may
be appropriate considering the neighborhood context and proposed building style.
• Set back the railing a distance that equals or exceeds the height of the railing.
Materials and Details
1.22 Complete and accurate identification of materials is required.
• Provide drawings that identify the palette of materials, specifications for the materials,
and location on the proposed building as part of the application.
• Physical material samples shall be presented to the review body. An onsite mock-up
prior to installation may be required.
1.23 Building materials shall have these features:
• Convey the quality and range of materials found in the current block context or seen
historically in the Character Area.
• Convey pedestrian scale.
• Enhance visual interest through texture, application, and/or dimension.
• Be non-reflective. Shiny or glossy materials are not appropriate as a primary material.
• Have proven durability and weathering characteristics within Aspen’s climate.
• A material with an integral color shall be a neutral color. Some variation is allowed for
secondary materials.
1.24 Introducing a new material, material application, or material finish to the existing
streetscape may be approved by HPC or P&Z if the following criteria are met:
• Innovative building design.
• Creative material application that positively contributes to the streetscape.
• Environmentally sustainable building practice.
• Proven durability.
1.25 Architecture that reflects corporate branding of the tenant is not permitted.
Lighting, Service, and Mechanical Areas
1.26 The design of light fixtures should be appropriate to the form, materials, scale,
and style of the building.
1.27 Trash and recycle service areas shall be co-located along an alleyway where one
exists, and screened from view with a fence or door.
• Screening fences shall be 6 feet high from grade (unless prohibited by the Land Use
Code), shall be of sound construction, and shall be no less than 90% opaque, unless
otherwise varied based on a recommendation from the Environmental Health
Department.
27
1.28 Design trash and recycle areas thoughtfully and within the style of the building,
with the goal of enhancing pedestrian and commercial uses along alleys.
1.29 Delivery areas shall be located along an alleyway where one exists.
• Shared facilities are highly encouraged.
1.30 Mechanical equipment, ducts, and vents shall be accommodated internally within
the building and/or co-located on the roof.
• Screen rooftop mechanical equipment and venting with a low fence or recess behind a
parapet wall to minimize visual impacts.
1.31 Minimize the visual impacts of utility connections and service boxes.
• Group and discreetly locate these features.
• Use screening and materials that compliment the architecture.
1.32 Transformer location and size are dictated by City and utility company standards
and codes.
• Place a transformer on an alley where possible.
• Provide screening for any non-alley location.
Commercial Core Historic District
Building Placement
2.1 Maintain the alignment of facades at the property line.
• Place as much of a building at the property line as possible to reinforce historic
development patterns.
• A minimum of 50% of the first floor building façade shall be at the property line. This
requirement may be varied by the Historic Preservation Commission based on historic
context or in order to accommodate Pedestrian Amenity (See Pedestrian Amenity
Chapter).
• A minimum of 70% of the first floor building facade shall be at the property line for
properties on a pedestrian mall.
2.2 Consider a 45-degree chamfer for corner lots where appropriate.
• Analyze all four corners of the intersection for compatibility.
• A primary entrance into the building should be through the chamfered corner.
Architecture
2.3 Development should be inspired by traditional late 19th-century commercial
buildings to reinforce continuity in architectural language within the Historic
District. Consider the following design elements: form, materials, and
fenestration. Pick two areas to relate strongly to the context.
28
• When relating to materials, use traditional application of materials commonly found in
the Historic District, such as wood, brick and stone, and use similar texture and color
to the historic context.
• When relating to fenestration, large vertical windows on the ground level and punched
vertical openings on upper levels, with a similar solid to void ratio, are appropriate.
• When relating to form, note that rectangular forms are predominant with limited
projecting or setback elements. Most roofs are flat, but some gables are present and
these may be a reference for new design.
Architecture
2.4 Respect adjacent iconic historic structures.
• Development near historic landmarks may use Pedestrian Amenity design as a
transition or buffer to highlight the importance of adjacent historic structures.
• Use simple architectural details, materials and massing that do not detract from nearby
historic landmarks.
2.5 The massing and proportions of a new building or addition should respond to
the historic context.
• Two-story buildings are encouraged. A two-story high one-story element should be
used with finesse and discretion.
• On larger buildings, stepping down to a one-story element within the composition is
appropriate and consistent with the historic pattern of the district.
• Building modules or individual features should generally be tall and narrow in
proportion.
2.6 One-story buildings on lots larger than 6,000 square feet are discouraged.
• This includes buildings that read as “one-story” from the street and have a significant
second floor setback.
• Evaluation of appropriateness should be based on existing context and how the
building fits into the streetscape. Impact on the Historic District, impact on adjacent
landmarks, and other restrictions such as viewplanes will also be considered.
2.7 Buildings on lots larger than 6,000 square feet should incorporate architectural
features that break up the mass.
2.8 Composition of the façade, including choices related to symmetry and
asymmetry, should reflect the close readings of patterns established by the 19th-
century structures.
• The pattern of building widths or bays within a building varies from 20 to 30 feet.
Variety is preferred.
• Provide historic precedent using historic maps and adjacent landmarks to determine
appropriate building width, height, and form. Photographs, dimensional drawings,
figure-ground diagrams, are all examples of tools that can be used to illustrate
precedent.
29
• Align architectural details and features with the surrounding context.
First Floor
2.9 Recessed entries are required.
• Set a primary entrance back from the front façade a minimum of 4 feet.
• Alternative options that define an entry and reinforce the rhythm of recessed
entryways may be considered.
• For corner lots, primary entries must face front lot line as determined by the Land Use
Code and/or be located in the chamfered corner where applicable.
2.10 Secondary recessed entrances are required for buildings on lots larger than
6,000 square feet, and on the secondary street for corner lots.
2.11 Maintain a floor to ceiling height of 12 to 15 feet for the first floor and 9 feet for
the second floor.
• The ability to vary this requirement shall be based on demonstration of historic
precedent amongst adjacent landmarks. Storefronts should be taller than the upper
floors.
• The floor to ceiling height of the first floor may be dropped to 9 feet after the first 25
feet of building depth from a street facing facade.
2.12 Maintain an architectural distinction between the street level and upper floors.
• Material changes, placement of fenestration, and architectural details may be
appropriate tools to differentiate between floors.
2.13 Street level commercial storefronts should be predominately transparent glass.
• Window design, including the presence or absence of mullions, has a significant
influence on architectural expression. Avoid windows which suggest historic styles or
building types that are not part of Aspen’s story.
Details and Materials
2.14 Architectural details should reinforce historic context and meet at least two of
the following qualities.
• Color or finish traditionally found downtown.
• Texture to create visual interest, especially for larger buildings.
• Traditional material: Brick, stone, metal and wood.
• Traditional application: for example, a running bond for masonry.
30
Page 1 of 2
Exhibit C
Growth Management
Staff Findings
The following language was in effect at the time of the original application in May 2015 and is
applicable to this review.
26.470.100. Calculations.
A. Employee generation and mitigation. Whenever employee housing or cash-in-lieu is
required to mitigate for employees generated by a development, there shall be an analysis
and credit for employee generation of the existing project, prior to redevelopment, and an
employee generation analysis of the proposed development. The employee mitigation
requirement shall be based upon the incremental employee generation difference between
the existing development and the proposed development.
1. Employee generation. The following employee generation rates are the result of the
Employee Generation Study, an analysis sponsored by the City during the fall and
winter of 2012 considering the actual employment requirements of over one hundred
(100) Aspen businesses. This study is available at the Community Development
Department. Employee generation is quantified as full-time equivalents (FTEs) per one
thousand (1,000) square feet of net leasable space or per lodge bedroom.
Zone
Employees Generated per 1,000
Square Feet of Net Leasable
Commercial Core (CC)
Commercial (C-1)
Neighborhood Commercial
(NC)
Commercial Lodge (CL) commercial
space Lodge (L) commercial space
Lodge Preservation (LP) commercial
space Lodge Overlay (LO) commercial
4.7
Mixed-Use (MU) 3.6
Service Commercial Industrial (S/C/I) 3.9
Public1 5.1
Lodge Preservation (LP) lodge units .3 per lodging
Lodge (L), Commercial Lodge (CL), Ski
Base (SKI) and other zone district lodge
.6 per lodging
bedroom 1 For the Public Zone, the study evaluated only office-type public uses, and
this
number should not be considered typical for other non-office public facilities.
Hence, each Essential Public Facility proposal shall be evaluated for actual
31
Page 2 of 2
This Employee Generation Rate Schedule shall be used to determine employee generation of
projects within the City. Each use within a mixed-use building shall require a separate
calculation to be added to the total for the project. For commercial net leasable space within
basement or upper floors, the rates quoted above shall be reduced by twenty-five percent
(25%) for the purpose of calculating total employee generation. This reduction shall not apply
to lodge units.
Staff Finding: The approved project was allowed to add 7,507 square feet of net leasable area
to 434 E. Cooper subject to the provision of affordable housing credits to be provided and
extinguished prior to the issuance of a building permit. The estimated number of new employees
generated by the development as of Final Review in 2016 was 29.78, requiring 60% mitigation
amounting to 17.87 employees.
This calculation is affected by the floor level of each building on which net leasable expansion is
occurring. Basements and upper levels are found to generate fewer employees than ground
floor, prime commercial space. The employee generation rates noted above are unchanged in
current code. The redistribution of net leasable space across the floors of the building as
represented in the proposed amendment still amounts to an increase of 7,507 square feet over
what previously existed on the site, but the new estimated number of employees requiring
mitigation based on the adjusted design is 30.44, requiring 60% mitigation amounting to 18.26
employees. This calculation will be finalized at building permit.
32
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 30, 2016
5
proposed fenestration changes. Even though it is more glass for the
applicant I feel that the prior submittal was more of a response to the Hotel
Jerome. We have wider window bays which I am OK with. I am OK with
the mullions suggested by the applicant. The south east corner is an
improvement and I can support the resolution as is. This is an excellent
project and is supportive of our guidelines and what we are trying to do from
a preservation standpoint. We talk about it as a public space but it is private
because of its interior relationship. All the urban standards that were talked
about at the last meeting are not applicable. The applicant has responded in
making this building a product of its own time. I also feel the rain screen is
appropriate and the absence of the brick in this application responds to the
restoration of the Aspen Times building. The proposed lighting is also
appropriate.
MOTION: John moved to approve resolution #34 as written, second by
Bob. Roll call vote: Jeffrey, yes; John, yes; Bob, yes; Jim, yes; Gretchen,
no; Willis, yes. Motion carried 5-1.
422 & 434 E. Cooper Ave. Final Major Development; Final
Commercial Design Review, Substantial Amendment, Growth
Management, Public Hearing cont’d from Oct. 26th
Amy said staff is not recommending approval for the project. The design in
the packet is not what was presented conceptually. The second floor is
pulled back from the street and a few other things that have departed from
the previous conversation. We don’t feel the massing is appropriate for the
site nor has there been an analysis why this would be a good direction. HPC
didn’t ask for this type of change of pushing it back from the street. If this
were to go forward we feel the surrounding buildings should be looked at
and understand how this fits in the composition of the downtown. This is an
important site and a high traffic intersection. Staff feels that a more
substantial building is warranted here with at least more of the second floor
at the street level at the front lot line. The massing is the primary reason we
are not recommending approval at this time. With regard to fenestration we
would like to see more studies about how the width of the storefronts and
heights of the storefronts relate to the historic buildings downtown. We
didn’t see the elevations until yesterday and we haven’t had time to analyze
them. The board talked at length about the bilateral symmetry where the
two facades on Galena and Cooper were basically identical and the board
thought that was inappropriate. There has been restudy of that and now
33
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 30, 2016
6
there is a wide storefront proposed on Cooper Ave. and that extended
storefront is taking the project in a different direction. We appreciate the
restudy of the materiality of the building and switching to the use of bricks
which is a better fit downtown. The detailing of the brick work may need
some study. The project no longer has an entry into the corner element
which we think is not characteristic. The project includes a portion of the
Red Onion property to the west, the former poster chop which will primarily
become circulation to serve the Bidwell building. The front of the poster
shop will be preserved and a second floor will be added and it is very quiet
in its detailing which we support. There is some confusion on the renderings
which needs clarified. There are a few mitigation issues that HPC needs to
talk about, the TIA analysis. We feel it is somewhat double dipping where
the applicant has the TIA with some streetscape improvements but they also
would like to claim that for public amenity and that is a concern by staff. In
terms of the calculation of growth management mitigation, parking there is
an idea in the application that a credit that is generated on the Red Onion site
should benefit the Bidwell site and staff does not support that because they
are two separately owned properties. The Bidwell site will create the need
for more affordable housing and the Red Onion site will have a credit as the
result of this project and we don’t feel they should be carried across the lot
line.
Chris Bendon, bendonadams consulting
Mark Hunt, owner, Dwayne Romero
Chris said the Red Onion annex building has an existing approval for a three
story building, pent house and a small commercial space on the ground
floor. We went to city council to ask them to extend the vested rights to
allow us to come up with a different plan. They extended the vested rights
and we have to be in for building permit around May 1, 2017. We need to
make a decision quickly whether that project goes forward as the penthouse
or if we can do something with it. Council was excited about us doing a two
story building and staying under the 28 foot height limit and getting rid of
the penthouse. Chris thanked the HPC for doing a special meeting.
Chris said at the last meeting we had a two story building that was right up
to the street and it was a bold building with strong corner expression. We
heard that it was too bold and was trying to be something that it isn’t. It was
stated that it was massive and the symmetry was off and the building was
too “muscular”. We did a lot of rethinking as to how to approach this
34
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 30, 2016
7
property and building. We took several steps back and looked at the block
historically. Looking down Galena St. you see one story expressions and
larger two story expressions and three stories. We came up with the concept
where there is a combination of one story, two story elements. Everything is
reduced by one floor. It is a one and two story building with a second floor
deck and an elevator going to the second floor. We simplified the building
throughout and tried to make it a background building while still trying to
make the sure the corner is treated well. The facades are mixed up to
address the bi-lateral symmetry. The building is now much calmer. On the
existing street there are one and two stories. The third floor is completely
gone and now a one story plus a deck with a two story mix with an elevator
that goes to the second floor.
Mark Hunt said at the last meeting we spend a lot of time with materials. In
order for that building to work it had to be a 25 foot building. There is a
significant grade change on this site and to hold the property line with a two
story building we were getting very pinched on the second floor down to a 7
foot ceiling. When we looked at changing the materials the second floor
read very horizontally and it looked like a mistake. We then decided to
focus on the ground floor and the importance of the corner. We took some
inspiration from the buildings around town including the original building.
The material selection is brick and we have very simple openings. It is
simple and elegant and very textural, like tone on tone. We will also
incorporate some of the old Bidwell brick back into the new building. The
brick will change on the alley and we will finish it with the original brick.
The columns will be brick/stone with shadows. We are trying to have fun
with the windows. Through the transom windows we will add ultra clear
non-reflective glass and randomly we will throw in a panel of chicken wire
glass so the light hits it differently and adds a lot of interest. On the overall
building we tried to create a two story element in certain portions and bring
the building down. There is a wraparound deck upstairs. The columns will
be capped with a metal cap. To the top of the columns including the parapet
wall is 21 feet. We would like to see curved glass for the store front on the
corner and we can discuss that.
Chris said we have 4, 5,6,7, 9 feet widths on the bay windows. We do have
a sense of urgency in incorporating the Red Onion annex into the project.
The building is now calmer and quieter but still holds the corner. On staff’s
analysis the land use code does allow for growth management and parking
credits to be applied to adjacent buildings under the same ownership.
35
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 30, 2016
8
Dwayne Romero pointed out when he was on council they saw three
different applications for this site and one was 2 ½ stories taller than what
you see today. All of them had free market residential in them. Heights are
very important today and this application responds to that. This application
moves a few more feet out of the view plane. You have the opportunity to
push this application forward. The Bidwell project was always put into
context with what was going on across the street at the Paradise Bakery.
Time is of the essence and we would like this to progress.
Willis said this is conceptual and final.
Amy said we have issues with the sudden change in massing and this will go
to council for a call-up because council has not yet seen the massing.
John said he has been in support of the previous iteration. 22 feet in height
was presented at the last meeting and I was in favor of that. This is an
improvement. I realize it doesn’t fall in the normal guidelines of what we do
for conceptual and final but the mass is actually being reduced and the view
planes are being reduced. I do like the glass chicken wire as it brings messy
vitality back. The building is subdued by the historic buildings that
surround it. The design is sympathetic to the Paradise building. The
applicant has put in a lot of work and I am surprised that they could turn this
around so quickly. I do think there will be differentiation between the two
sides of the street especially with on side being the pedestrian mall and the
other a street. I am in favor of this project and would love to see it move
forward.
John recused himself.
Bob asked about the use of the upper deck.
Mark said most likely it will be a restaurant.
Chairperson, Willis Pember opened the public hearing.
Toni Kronberg said with the moratorium we wouldn’t be in the moratorium
right now if the public had been able to have their three minutes of time.
City council will be thrilled with this new rendition. This is a prominent
corner in Aspen. The fact that you rounded the building helps and you
36
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 30, 2016
9
reduced the building height. This past week council said they want to see
more nooks and crannies utilized. Right now Aspen is going through a
character defining with the land use moratorium. The one thing on the
design is that it is too symmetrical on both sides. We want people to not
walk by but to walk in the stores. Maybe flip flop the design so that you
have an open courtyard and have the building mass on the top.
Chairperson, Willis Pember closed the public hearing.
Jim said he understands the commentary about the first rendition being
overpowering and I agree that it was. The changes have thoroughly
addressed that concern. The building relates well to the street and to the
Paradise Bakery building. The brick and general character of the building fit
in well with the street. The brick relates to the Elks Building on the next
corner. I like the idea of the entry not being on the corner. The design is
good and I have no problem with it.
Bob said this is a great improvement. I do understand where staff is coming
from. I am looking at this as compared to the previous presentation and it is
an improvement in mass, materials and I like the idea of getting rid of the
entry on the corner and making it more of a focal point. I like the idea of a
restaurant on the upper level at that location. It is an overall improvement
and change for the better. When you look at the street level there is a lot of
building there in general and the materials are a great improvement. I also
support the previous comments made by fellow commissioners.
Jeffrey thanked the applicant for making the improvements. The comments
from the prior meeting have been addressed. The vertical columns help the
two facades read well. The mass and scale meet our guidelines and the
material palate is much more simplified and uniformed to the site. The
chambered corner is an improvement and the recessed top deck is nicely
orchestrated and the brick detailing adds some nice shadow lines. As far as
the land use code allowing credits from one site to the other I can support.
Architecturally the proportions and scale, materials are nicely executed. The
lighting proposed here is very simple and meets our guidelines.
Gretchen said she opposed the last building because it was a replica of the
Brand building. I really commend you for completely changing the design.
With the changes it allows our historic fabric to be the important buildings in
town. This is a huge improvement and I would not want to see the process
37
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 30, 2016
10
get in the way of progress for this project. The applicant has really studied it
and analyzed it and have taken our comments and come to the right solution.
The curved part of the building addresses the square and reinforces the
importance of the building. The information kiosk could be moved over.
Some of the caps on the columns could be refined a little and I like the
concept of the metal and glass. I could support the application today. I am
also in favor of Red Onion annex design and its incorporation into the
project.
Gretchen thanked the applicant for really studying the site and understanding
what is necessary for this corner.
Willis suggested the applicant show the other intersections of the corners as
they go forward. The caps on the pilasters are somewhat deco architecture.
The curves are enough to suggest deco. On the Cooper Street elevation the
glass sizes to the right and left of the entrance seem enormous. The corbel
detailing is a little aggressive. The tumbled brick is a little cheesy looking.
It is kind of “off limits” in terms of using masonry in downtown. We are not
supportive of tumbled brick. Tumbled brick is not in the spirit of separating
new form old.
Bob said one thing the applicant has done is listen to our input and you went
back and really studied it and thought about it and that is commendable.
Amy said there has been a lot of late delivered information and I have never
seen the brick samples before or we would have said we have a policy
against faux aged brick. I feel like there are a lot of loose ends. There are
policy issues that have not been discussed and whether you are accepting
their TIA analysis and they have asked for the public amenity to be off site
where it has been approved for cash-in-lieu. I am not sure how to deal with
some of those things that are very up in the air. There are elevations that
don’t match each other.
Gretchen said generally they had a lot to address from the last meeting and
we need to cut them some slack and work this out. We never all agree and
all of us agree on this application. I would like to see the board, staff and
monitor do what we can to let this project move forward. No one on the
board has any issue with the cash-in-lieu or the TIA.
38
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 30, 2016
11
Amy said staff has issues with the TIA and we have had limited discussion
about it.
Jim echoed Gretchen’s position. I respect the good faith of the applicant and
am satisfied between the applicant, staff and monitor we can resolve the
issues.
Gretchen, Jim and Jeffrey said they are OK with what is being proposed on
the GMQS. Gretchen said we could have dual monitors.
Chris said we can get good documentation for staff and monitor to develop
good documentation of the decision and making sure there isn’t conflicting
information. Having a decision allows Mark to switch his team from a
construction set on the Red Onion annex building to this project going
forward.
Amy said we don’t know if HPC is accepting the TIA, streetscape
improvements, GMQS and allowing a credit which is not a typical method
from one property to another. You are also requiring less affordable housing
than what is needed.
Gretchen said we can vote and then the resolution can be written the way we
are voting. We are all in agreement that we want this to go forward.
Jim said we could move the fundamental approval with the discussion and
the minutes that are taken today then staff can prepare a resolution and the
chair can review the resolution. We could have dual monitors.
Bob said we are dealing with design, mass and scale and the other issues
have been recommended.
Willis asked for a straw poll on the design and then the resolution can be
approved at the next meeting.
Gretchen said she doesn’t want another meeting on this.
Jeffrey said he doesn’t want to burden staff but at the same time the
applicant has responded. I agree that we need to be consistent with our
approvals. We could vote on the architecture and improvements.
39
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 30, 2016
12
Willis said we have domain over these things but they haven’t been vetted
properly.
Gretchen said they presented it to us the way they want it. Jim said he is in
agreement. Staff can write the resolution as we approve it.
Jim pointed out that sometimes we are on different sides of staff. They have
the information to craft a resolution.
Amy identified the issues: applicant has received approval for cash-in-lieu
for public amenity and they would now like to instead do streetscape
improvements. That is not staff’s recommendation and they are also asking
for that as part of their TIA.
Willis said staff is denying streetscape improvement because the mall
improvement process is underway and cash-in-lieu should go there.
Amy said the issues are the TIA, public amenity, growth management and
parking. The issue on public amenity the applicant has previously said they
would provide cash-in-lieu and they now would like to do streetscape
improvements which they are also providing in their TIA.
Chris said our opinion is that it is not double dipping. Engineering has some
desire to see changes on Galena Street. We also feel Galena Street is
important and would like to see improvements.
Gretchen said developers should have the ability to do some of their own
streetscape and not give it all to the city. Jim agreed.
Mark pointed out that we are taking this building down by 20 plus feet and
opening it up to the mall and there is so much beautification based on what
we are doing. We have lost significant square footage and we are getting rid
of free market and you can come back and say but we want this and we want
that and pay for our sewer and pay for out plumbing and electric. It is not
just the mall.
Jim said it is the economic exchange for the concessions that you have made
is why you would seek improvement on Galena Street.
40
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 30, 2016
13
Gretchen said you have given the community a better building and we
appreciate the time and effort you have put into it. I am in agreement for
what they want.
Amy said they are creating a credit on the adjacent property and want to use
it and reduce the employee housing on the primary site. It is taking away
affordable housing.
Chris said the code allows for a credit to be used on the same parcel or an
adjacent parcel under the same ownership. Actually it is the same project.
We can talk this through with staff.
Jim said we can adopt the resolution and if it isn’t allowed it isn’t allowed.
That would also be true with the growth management and parking.
Draft resolution:
Amy said HPC wants staff and monitor to work with the applicant on the
architecture. TIA would be accepted. Public amenity for the 434 parcel
would be permitted as off-site improvement and anything not accomplished
would be cash-in-lieu. The issue of growth management and parking credit
generated on the Red Onion site can be transferred to the 434 site would
need further determination by the community development director.
Willis added the additional conditions:
Detailing and final brick material to be determined by staff and monitor.
No tumbled brick. Steel pilaster caps should be eliminated. Historic
references to architecture that was never developed need purged. Restudy
the scale of the Cooper Avenue side storefront around the entry to be looked
at with staff and monitor. Use of chicken wire glass is approved. Match up
the renderings and elevations. There will need to be a call -up by city council
because it is a change to mass and scale.
Jim True said HPC is passing a resolution that has been outlined subject to
the drafting of the resolution by staff, city attorney and the chair.
MOTION: Jim moved to approve the drafting of resolution #35, 2016,
second by Bob. Roll call vote: Jeffrey, yes; Bob, yes; Jim, yes; Gretchen,
yes; Willis, yes. Motion carried 5-0.
41
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 30, 2016
14
MOTION: Willis moved to adjourn, second by Jeffrey. All in favor, motion
carried.
Meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m.
Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
42
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 26, 2016
9
Amy said it doesn’t seem that the board is going to come to a unified
decision and we could continue to November 9th.
Sarah said we looked long and hard at this project to find the appropriate
material for an addition that is in between two historic resources. One is
masonry and one is wood. It is our belief as urban designs and architects
that this building from a materiality standpoint did not want to have a
masonry presence. It wants to have wood that responds more to the Aspen
Times. We didn’t want the Aspen Times building to be on its own island in
a sea of masonry. We feel very strongly that the material should be wood.
I’m happy to look at the color of that and look at the detailing. In terms of
detailing we thought it important to respond to the context and to the cornice
lines that are on both buildings, two corner boards and two lentils. The
things that you see are common vocabularies through this compound.
Humbly that is our opinion that wood is the appropriate material. If there
are concerns about the detailing we can work with staff and monitor. We
have read the guidelines and we believe in them.
Amy said if this project is going to be continued this option proposed and a
restudy should come back so that the board that is here can evaluate it. It
seems like it is a two two vote.
John said he would encourage the applicant to follow the guidelines and
encourage you not to make a sea of brick.
MOTION: Willis made the motion to continue the application to November
9th second by Gretchen.
Roll call vote: Willis, yes; Gretchen, yes, Jeffrey, yes, John, no. Passed 3-1.
422 and 434 E. Cooper Ave. – Final Major Development, Final
Commercial Design Review, Substantial Amendment, Growth
Management, Public Hearing
Jim said the proof of publication has been provided. –Exhibit I
Amy said a year ago conceptual approval was granted for the redevelopment
of 434 E. Cooper (Bidwell bldg.). HPC looked at scale and massing,
Wheeler view plane, trash, parking and public amenity. The project was
43
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 26, 2016
10
approved by a 3-2 vote. There were conditions to be addressed at final. The
board asked that the project be re-designed so that there was a 45 degree
chambered at the corner of the building instead of rounded corner. The
recommended that there should be some kind of hierarchy or differentiation
between the facades facing Cooper and Hyman and that there be a storefront
on Cooper. Another condition was to provide a more detailed
Transportation impact analysis for this review. The board did address that
parking and public amenity would be addressed entirely through cash -in-
lieu. The applicant has acquired the neighboring property, the Red Onion
which is a 9,000 square foot lot that includes the Red Onion restaurant and
some office space and the building that is adjacent to the Bidwell building.
When the applicant purchased the property they inherited an approval to turn
the building next door into a three story building with new free market units.
Under the current code you are not allowed free markets and the height
would not be approved. Instead of building it the applicant met with city
council and negotiated an arrangement that will be addressed tonight which
is a redesign of the poster shop and bringing it into this corner project as a
circulation space for this building. There will be a retail shop but most of it
will be an elevator to service the adjacent building. Council put a few
conditions on the vested rights extension. Council would prefer that the free
market be gone and they wanted the height reduced. The applicant has
proposed cash- in –lieu which HPC had accepted but now they would like to
do some improvements along Galena Street to improve the street scape.
Staff does not support that because we have a full remodel of the pedestrian
mall coming in the future. Another issue is the trash area and previously you
saw a 300 square foot area but now it is 200 square feet which is OK but the
applicant needs to change the doorway and add an overhead door in order to
meet the Environmental Health requirements. The public amenity issue
needs to be resolved.
Amy said at the last meeting HPC requested that the corner be a 45 degree
chamfered corner. The applicant does not prefer that, they would prefer the
rounded corner. There is only one building in downtown that has a rounded
corner and that is the Elks building. It has the rounded corner because there
is a rounded dome. Staff finds that the rounded corner is out of character
and we would prefer HPC stick to the 45 degree chamfered. HPC has asked
for a one story expression at the entry and this has come up with the
numerous buildings that you have been reviewing. We think that has not
been achieved here partly because the corner element is two stories of a
material that is different than the rest of the building. It reads as a different
44
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 26, 2016
11
element and does not carry the stone course in the middle of it and it reads
that it does not have a two story expression. Staff is recommending a
restudy. HPC also asked for study of the hierarchy in a couple of manners.
The board asked for the Cooper Ave. and Galena Street facades to be
differentiated from each other. Willis referred to it as bilateral symmetry,
like a butterfly, both wings are identical and that is not what you find
downtown. An example would be one side would have more glazing and
the other side more of a solid wall. At the previous meeting the corner had a
void in it with a lofted space as you walked into the building. It is a two
story in portions of the building. That has been expanded in this proposal.
There is limited amount of second floor and more area that is open for two
floors. Staff feels if there isn’t a venue for the entire second floor we could
have seen a drop in height. We also feel it draws life away from the façade
by pulling the floors on the upper story back. The second floor should come
up to the windows and create a void in the middle or do something else.
Amy said the next issue of concern is the use of stone and a steel window
system. Most of the buildings downtown were built from 1885 to 1993.
They are primarily brick buildings, the Brand bldg., Wheeler and
Cohenhaven bldg. We do not support introducing more stone buildings. We
feel those three that exist are the pinnacle of important development in
Aspen. Aside from those 3 brick buildings at the time of the silver crash
most of the town had wood buildings. We are also concerned about the
amount of glazing and the cornice is perforated with greenery. As far as the
windows, steel might be appropriate but the three historic windows have
wood windows. There is a certain modesty that is not historically reflected
in this building. Another issue is that the upper floor windows are slightly
recessed and not in the same plane as the ground floor windows and in front
of them there are planter boxes that are not characteristic downtown. On the
rooftop, the railing almost comes to the parapet wall and we feel there is too
much visibility of the railing and activity that might take place on the roof
top and it could be pulled back slightly.
Amy said touching on the poster shop building next door, council said the
remodel of that building should be no more than two stories and 28 feet tall
except for elements that had to do with circulation. There are actually three
floors and there are elements that exceed 28 feet that are not just about
circulation, mechanical equipment and vestibule lobby space. Restudy is
needed there. We are also concerned that the materials for the poster shop
project now mimic what is happening on the corner and they don’t address
45
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 26, 2016
12
the Red Onion historic structure. The exterior lighting has sconces on every
corner which need restudied. Lastly, the applicant is required to address
affordable housing. There are 14 employees generated. The applicant is
choosing to provide affordable housing credits which represent units that are
built elsewhere in town. In the memo we suggest that is not the only
appropriate solution. Some housing could be accommodated in the corner
building. After conversations with the attorney’s office they are meeting the
growth management requirements and we would recommend HPC accept
the credits after the architectural issues are resolved. Amy reiterated that the
poster shop would have retail on the first floor half way back and then two
or three stories of stair cases and an elevator to access the adjacent building.
Mark Hunt, owner
Dwayne Romero, represented the ownership
Chris Bendon, bendonadams
Chris said the existing building has been through numerous approvals.
Council determined that the building was not historic. The conceptual
approval had three retail spaces on Galena St. The Red Onion building is an
addition to the project. Because the access was through the front the project
became compromised regarding the commercial space. The pent house was
5,000 square feet. We went to council and they asked us to work with HPC
and the approvals expire May 15, 2017. Council gave direction to
incorporate the Red Onion poster building into the 434 E. Cooper building.
Part of the rationale is that each building has their own trash and vertical
circulation and elevators etc. The idea would be to have one set of trash and
vertical circulation and elevators. We would then extend the commercial
footprint of the 434 building so that there is more vitality on Galena and
Cooper streets. On the plans today there is a full basement, four tenants
accessed primarily off Galena Street. There is also an entry off Cooper
Street and an entry off the Red Onion poster building. At conceptual it was
brought up to have a greater differentiation in hierarchy between the ground
floor and the upper floor. The bottom floor windows have more of a
residential feel. Overall the memo from staff says the building needs to be
more traditional. We can fix the trash door. We can revise the TIA. We
can also have the lighting reviewed by staff and monitor.
Mark Hunt said the building sits on a prominent corner, a high end luxury
corner. Mark said they were given clear direction early on from Planning
with a list of things they wanted for this corner. One was that it had to be
46
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 26, 2016
13
two stories, no residential, and architecture was to reflect the architecture of
today and not to replicate or copy any of the buildings from the past. We
went back and looked at historic assets and pulled out historic pieces. We
focused on three elements, stone, steel and glass and doing those things very
well. We did not try and replicate. Buildings were designed a lot different
in the past. Residential is no longer allowed downtown. We softened the
building by the curved corner. When you go from a three bay to a four bay
it gets closer to the punched openings. A lot of the corner building grids are
closer to 20 than thirty feet wide. We took the simple elements and added
the curve. It is very difficult on this building to build a two story building,
make it proud and hold the corner and try to fit the design criteria that is
involved. There is a three foot grade change on this site. Looking down the
mall it is a 25 foot high building and by the time you get to the alley it is 28
feet. With our requirements for our store fronts we end up with an 8 foot
floor height which is not generous on the second floor. If we went down
two feet we would have a six foot ceiling which doesn’t meet code. The
iron planter boxes were to soften the building up but we could get rid of
them. One of the things that has been missed in the new buildings in town is
texture. I’m a big fan of texture and shadows and using light and adding
depth to some of the buildings that we are building. I feel this building fits
in and is not competing with the Wheeler or the Ute City Banque. We feel
the design celebrates the facades.
Dwayne Romero said we have a time clock on the Red Onion annex
building. The previous design is in the view plan and now the building will
serve as a circulation device for the broader proposed project. Ganging up
and consolidating circulation is a plus and the alley utilization is a win. We
are trying to get guidance to move forward.
MOTION: John made the motion to extend the meeting 30 minutes; second
by Jeffrey. All in favor, motion carried.
Mark showed a new elevation of the Red Onion annex side. The height was
lowered to 28 feet and allows for the stair corridor and elevator shaft to
access the roof top deck. There is a vegetated screen in the front. The
building will not compete with the Red Onion or the 434 building.
John said the alley is livening up which is commendable.
Chairperson, Willis Pember opened the public hearing.
47
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 26, 2016
14
Tom Youder, Kemo Sabe
I am a tenant in the building for 24 years and over the past 4 years I have
gotten to know and admire Mark and his team. He is very accommodating.
Diana Shore said she works for Kemo Sabe and has been to several meetings
and she likes the changes and the corner works well. It is a difficult corner.
Willis said it is a one material with a two story expressing on the front which
is a scale issue and that needs addressed. The one story entry technically is
achieved but there is still a very large volume. The front being at a 45
degree or round is not a huge issue. It is really the question of the scale.
The masonry would have come across the second floor and that is a missed
opportunity to explore. You need a retail expression but maybe there could
be more wall on Cooper to break the structural grid. That is what is creating
the lack of hierarchy between Cooper and Galena Street. Regarding the
cornice and flower boxes those are all details.
Chris said we want a good pedestrian experience and a proper retail
expression on both streets. Are you looking for one street to have a little
more solid effect.
Gretchen said Willis is talking about the relentless monotony of the building.
It comes across as a very large building on a corner that doesn’t have that
kind of scale. You have somewhat a break down in scale with the windows.
It is the monotony that it is the same on two sides. There is no breakdown of
the cornice or roof. If you look at the older buildings downtown they treat
the sides differently. It competes with the specimen buildings in Aspen such
as the Brand building. The front entry with the two story element which we
are trying to get away from creates visual mass even though it is two stories.
Gretchen said she agrees with staff about the sandstone as it makes the
building look too important. We need something that is pedestrian friendly
and has a scale breakdown that doesn’t repeat itself or compete with the
important buildings in town.
Willis pointed out that the neighboring Red Onion annex is cleverly
incorporated with this building.
Gretchen said the symmetry is too grand for the Bidwell building.
48
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 26, 2016
15
Jeffrey said he would agree with some of the comments but the applicant has
done an excellent job breaking up the pattern and using the rhythms and
conforming to our commercial design standards. Maybe change the rhythm
of the fenestration. The building is modest in scale. The perspective is at
eye level and seems large but it is small scale. The element of the two story
entry piece is prominent and we saw that on the Boogies structure and
maybe there can be some simplification to change that. I know what it is
like to be in retail and you want as much glass as you can and to just put
wall on the building might not be appropriate. We have commercial design
standards that talk about storefront glazing. There is strong architecture on
this building and they have kept under the height limits and are respective of
the grade change.
John said the hierarchy is very confusing because both street facades are
important and this corner deserves prominence. A 25 foot tall building is
not a big building. I don’t feel the community would feel that the height is
too tall. I like the rhythm and it is not monotonous. I like the way the
building wraps around the alley. The sandstone would be one negative I
have toward this project. The curve is appropriate. Maybe if the stone was a
different color it might be less mimicking of our prominent buildings. I
would like to see this building move ahead.
Willis pointed out that Cooper is a pedestrian mall and Galena is a street and
you can drive down it. They both are important but they behave very
differently.
Gretchen said maybe use a different brick with some sandstone detailing.
Chris said maybe it is a combination of sandstone but use it as a base course,
more detailing and use smooth stone or brick.
Gretchen said that would improve the building and you would have the
ability to have different facades on each street. The upper railing also need
to be set back from the front façade of the building significantly. Visual
activity on the roof detracts from our core buildings.
Chris said we are under a certain code and will respect those codes. There
are a variety of opinions about roof top activity. There is also an
attractiveness of seeing life and activity on top.
49
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 26, 2016
16
John said subjectively he likes the roof top activity.
Willis said the detailing issues such as planter boxes and cornice can be
handled by a subsequent final review. The big issue is the materiality and
the lack of difference between Cooper Ave. and Galena Street and the
double scale entry.
Mark said the vertical expression to the cornice is trying to read through.
The examples that Amy put in the packet, the shortest building was 35 feet
tall in a town that has a strong verticality. It hard to do verticality in a 25
foot tall building. If we are going to change the materials and fill the top
with brick it will be worse. You will have your store front then there will
be a horizontal line that brings the height down. If the committee wants to
get away from verticality and away from the stone I would strongly
recommend that you allow us at least on portions of this building make it a
one story building which is what we asked to do two years ago. Those
changes would make the building read as horizontal. Are you open to
having a one story element on this building? We have designed a building
that is shorter than the one that is standing there today and its being read as it
is huge.
Willis said there are subtle ways that store fronts turn the corner. They have
a horizontal expression. I wouldn’t advocate a one story building.
Gretchen agreed that a one story would not be appropriate. Maybe do
something that is more traditional in shape. The Independence Building and
the Elks Building have strong horizontal bands.
John pointed out that there are only four people here tonight. Both frontages
on this building are prominent. The comparable building would be the Elks
building because it is on the same orientation and pays homage on the
Galena Street side.
Jeffrey said we don’t design but we need to give proper direction. We talked
about the corner 45 vs round, bilateral symmetry, annex building, glass and
steel, cornice detailing, planter boxes and use of the alley. The
representations of the facades respond to the height and entry. We need to
make sure the building has proper context.
50
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 26, 2016
17
Amy pointed out that we don’t want any of the historic buildings copied.
Our issue is that there are too many things going on that depart from the
patterns downtown and we would like to see certain elements strengthened.
Amy discussed the issues:
The chamfered corner was discussed and the board is a little more open in
possibly wrapping the material around the upper level. The first floor have a
different character than what is above it. The hierarchy and having
something different on the two sides whether it be rhythm or how the
columns are expressed needs reviewed. The stone the way it is expressed is
a concern. Upper floor windows with railings need looked at.
MOTION: Jeffrey moved to continue the 422 and 434 E. Cooper Ave. to
November 30th, 2016, NOON, a special meeting; second by Gretchen. All in
favor, motion carried 4-0.
MOTION: Jeffrey moved to adjourn; second by Willis. All in favor, motion
carried.
Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
51
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
July 1, 2022
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
c/o Ms. Amy Simon
Planning Director
City of Aspen
RE: 434 East Cooper Avenue Substantial Amendment Application
Dear Commission and Ms. Simon:
Please accept our application for a Substantial Amendment for minor changes to the 434 East Cooper
Avenue project. The property is located within the Commercial Core Historic District and is not a
contributing historic resource. HPC granted approval for a new two-story commercial building with a
basement in 2016, via HPC Resolution No. 35, 2016. This project received a development order on May 4,
2017 with an expiration date of May 4, 2020. A building permit was submitted and accepted by the City of
Aspen and the project is currently under construction.
As noted in the pre-application summary (Exhibit C) the design changes qualify as a minor amendment to
an approved site-specific development plan pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.304.070.a.1. Review of
this project is subject to the Code in place in April 2012; however, current design guidelines are applicable
to the project (Exhibit A.1).
The revised design utilizes the same amount of net leasable commercial area. Due to a changed distribution
of this area per floor, slight changes to the employee housing mitigation result. These changes are detailed
in Exhibit A.2. The applicant will provide the required affordable housing credits, as adjusted, at the time
of permit issuance.
A viewplane exemption for the proposed skylight and reduction of height for the 422 East Cooper building
located within the Wheeler Opera House view plane will be submitted for administrative review and
approval separate from this HPC application as directed by the pre-application summary.
Background 1
In 2006 HPC and City Council granted demolition approval for the “Bidwell Building” located at 434 East
Cooper Avenue. HPC granted conceptual commercial design approval, and viewplane exemption in 2015
for the construction of a new two story commercial building. In 2016 final commercial design and growth
1 Please reference Exhibit J for approval documents.
52
434 E Cooper
HPC Substantial Amendment
Page 2 of 3
management was granted by HPC for 434 East Cooper Avenue, and a substantial amendment2 to 422 East
Cooper Avenue was granted. 422 East Cooper Avenue was incorporated into the 434 East Cooper Avenue
project to serve primarily as circulation and alley access for 434 and circulation for the Red Onion/JAS
project that was approved in 2019.
In 2020, Community Development approved an administrative lot line adjustment to merge 422 East
Cooper with 434 East Cooper by shifting the lot line to the west and creating two parcels – Parcel A which
includes the historic red onion and its addition to the west, and Parcel B which includes 434 and 422 East
Cooper. The lot line adjustment increased the size of the 434 property; however, growth management for
434 as a 9,000 sf lot remained consistent with the 2016 HPC approval. In March 2022 Community
Development granted a Notice of Approval for a tenant finish at the Red Onion restaurant to address the
impact of internal changes on net leasable for the Red Onion/JAS project.
Net leasable calculations for the 422 building are to be applied to the Red Onion/JAS project. An
amendment to the Red Onion/JAS project, to account for internal changes and revised net leasable figures,
is forthcoming under separate cover.
Proposal
RH (formerly Restoration Hardware) is the proposed tenant for the entire 434 East Cooper building and are
calling the project The Gallery on Galena. Interior changes to remove demising walls reflect the use of this
building by a singular tenant – the project is not subject to second tier commercial requirements. Exterior
changes for HPC’s consideration include minor updates to windows and the removal of doors facing Galena
Street. Slight changes to height and proportions from the 2016 approval better relate to the surrounding
historic properties as addressed in Exhibit A.1. There is no change to the approved pedestrian amenity.
Growth Management is addressed in Exhibit A.2 of this application. There is no increase in net leasable
square footage on the 434 East Cooper Avenue parcel in its original configuration as a 9,000 sf lot. Net
leasable calculations for the 422 building are applied to the Red Onion/JAS project as requested by the
Planning Department.
The rooftop is proposed to have new skylights that add visual interest and sophistication to this prominent
corner building. Five skylights are proposed to enhance the interior space through natural light and to add
interest to the upper floor of the new building. One of the skylights is operable while the other four are
fixed. The large central skylights is over 28 feet height limit which may be permitted if the skylight is the
minimum required by building code to be functional, weatherproof, and code compliant. As demonstrated
in the drawing set the skylight is 29 feet tall and is required to have a 12:2 roof pitch and an 8” minimum
curb per the manufacturer’s specifications. As such, we respectfully request a height exemption for this
skylight to be one foot over the 28 feet height limit. The rest of the skylights meet the height limit of 28
feet.
2 422 East Cooper was approved for a mixed used development that included a large penthouse on the second and
third floors of the redeveloped building.
53
434 E Cooper
HPC Substantial Amendment
Page 3 of 3
A small piece of the southwest corner of the building is within the midground of the Wheeler Opera House
view plane. Proposed changes in this triangular area are not visible from the Wheeler Opera House as it is
already blocked by existing buildings (some of which are historic landmarks) and will be processed as
separate administrative view plane exemption after the project is approved by HPC. Exhibit K includes view
plane analysis.
Pursuant to conversations with the City, all growth
management, net leasable calculations, and employee housing
obligations continue to be based on the prior lotting of the two
adjacent parcels. No changes to the net leasable area of the
434 building are proposed. An amendment to the adjacent
Red Onion/JAS complex will address changes within the 422 e.
Cooper portion of the project.
Please contact me with any questions. Thank you for working
with the development team over the past few months to get
this project into the minor amendment category. We look
forward to presenting this project to HPC and to keeping the
construction on track.
Kind Regards,
Chris Bendon, AICP
Exhibits:
A – Review Criteria
A.1 HP Design Guidelines and Commercial Design Standards
A.2 Growth Management
B – Land Use application.
C – Pre-application summary.
D – Signed fee agreement.
E – Proof of ownership.
F – Authorization to represent.
G – HOA form.
H – Vicinity map.
I – List of owners within 300’.
J – Past HPC approvals
J.1 HPC Resolution 26-2015 conceptual approval
J.2 HPC Resolution 25-2016 final approval
J.3 Development Order
J.4 Notice of Approval for lot line adjustment
J.5 Lot line adjustment plat
K – Plans, Elevations and Renderings.
54
Exhibit A
Substantial Amendment Design Review
Exhibit A –Substantial Amendment Review
26.415.070. Development involving designated historic property or property within a historic district.
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.
2. Substantial amendments.
a) All changes to approved plans that materially modify the location, size, shape, materials,
design, detailing or appearance of the building elements as originally depicted must be approved
by the HPC as a substantial amendment.
f) 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. 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.
Response: Applicable Historic Preservation Design Guidelines are addressed below:
Historic Preservation DG Chapter 1: Streetscape
1.1 All projects shall respect the historic development pattern or context of the block, neighborhood or
district.
1.2 Preserve the system and character of historic streets, alleys, and ditches.
1.3 Remove driveways or parking areas accessed directly from the street if they were not part of the
original development of the site.
1.4 Design a new driveway or improve a n 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.
1.9 Landscape development on AspenModern landmarks shall be addressed on a case by case basis.
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.
1.12 Provide an appropriate context for historic structures. See diagram.
1.13 Additions of plant material to the landscape that could interfere with or block views of historic
structures are inappropriate.
1.14 Minimize the visual impacts of landscape lighting.
55
Exhibit A
Substantial Amendment Design Review
1.15 Preserve original fences.
1.16 When possible, replicate a missing historic fence based on photographic evidence.
1.17 No fence in the front yard is often the most appropriate solution.
1.18 When building an entirely new fence, use materials that are appropriate to the building type and
style.
1.19 A new fence should have a transparent quality, allowing views into the yard from the street.
1.20 Any fence taller than 42” should be designed so that it avoids blocking public views of important
features of a designated building.
1.21 Preserve original retaining walls
1.22 When a new retaining wall is necessary, its height and visibility should be minimized.
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.
1.24 Preserve historically significant landscapes with few or no alterations.
1.25 New development on these sites should respect the historic design of the landscape and its built
features.
1.26 Preserve the historic circulation system.
1.27 Preserve and maintain significant landscaping on site.
Response – There is no change to the building footprint proposed in this amendment.
Historic Preservation DG Chapter 11: New Buildings on Landmark Properties
11.1 Orient the new building to the street.
Response – Orientation of the building is not proposed to change.
11.2 In a residential context, clearly define the primary entrance to a new building by using a front porch.
Response – n/a.
11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale and proportion with the historic buildings on a
parcel.
Response – The two story building massing remains the same as approved – the ground floor is built to
the property line and the second floor is setback from the edge of building. The ends of the building are
bookended with two story masses that reflect traditional commercial buildings in the historic district.
Storefront proportion changes are addressed below in the Commercial Core Historic District section.
11.4 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building.
Response – The front elevations relate to surrounding historic buildings within the district. Changes are
addressed below in the Commercial Core Historic District section.
11.5 The intent of the historic landmark lot split is to remove most of the development potential from the
historic resource and place it in the new structure(s).
Response – n/a.
56
Exhibit A
Substantial Amendment Design Review
Historic Preservation DG Chapter 12: Accessibility, Architectural Lighting, Mechanical
Equipment, Service Areas and Signage
11.6 Design a new structure to be recognized as a product of its time.
• Consider these three aspects of a new building; form, materials, and fenestration. A project 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.
• When choosing to relate to building form, use forms that are similar to the historic resource.
• When choosing to relate to materials, use materials that appear similar in scale and finish to those
used historically on the site and use building materials that contribute to a traditional sense of
human scale
• When choosing to relate to fenestration, use windows and doors that are similar in size and shape
to those of the historic resource.
Response – The form, materials and fenestration relate to surrounding historic commercial buildings. The
proposed architectural changes include skylights, storefront changes, and some architectural details. While
these changes are subtle and minor, they clearly express this building as a product of its own time that
relates to the historic district but does not compete with the historic buildings.
11.7 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged.
• This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings.
• Overall, details shall be modest in character.
Response – The revised 434 building appropriately relates to the historic district without appearing to be a
historic building. The addition of the glass skylights further distinguishes 434 as new construction.
12.1 Address accessibility compliance requirements while preserving character defining features of
historic buildings and districts.
• All new construction must comply completely with the International Building Code (IBC) for
accessibility. Special provisions for historic buildings exist in the law that allow some flexibility
when designing solutions which meet accessibility standards.
Response – As a new building all accessibility requirements are met.
12.2 Original light fixtures must be maintained. When there is evidence as to the appearance of original
fixtures that are no longer present, a replication is appropriate.
Response – n/a.
12.3 Exterior light fixtures should be simple in character.
• The design of a new fixture should be appropriate in form, finish, and scale with the structure.
57
Exhibit A
Substantial Amendment Design Review
• New fixtures should not reflect a different period of history than that of the affected building, or
be associated with a different architectural style.
• Lighting should be placed in a manner that is consistent with the period of the building, and should
not provide a level of illumination that is out of character.
• One light adjacent to each entry is appropriate on an Aspen Victorian residential structure. A
recessed fixture, surface mounted light, pendant or sconce will be considered if suited to the
building type or style.
• On commercial structures and AspenModern properties, recessed lights and concealed lights are
often most appropriate.
Response – No change to lighting is proposed at this time.
12.4 Minimize the visual impacts of utilitarian areas, such as mechanical equipment and trash storage.
• Place mechanical equipment on the ground where it can be screened.
• Mechanical equipment may only be mounted on a building on an alley façade.
• Rooftop mechanical equipment or vents must be grouped together to minimize their visual
impact. Where rooftop units are visible, it may be appropriate to provide screening with materials
that are compatible with those of the building itself. Use the smallest, low profile units available
for the purpose.
• Window air conditioning units are not allowed.
• Minimize the visual impacts of utility connections and service boxes. Group them in a discrete
location. Use pedestals when possible, rather than mounting on a historic building.
• Paint mechanical equipment in a neutral color to minimize their appearance by blending with
their backgrounds
• In general, mechanical equipment should be vented through the roof, rather than a wall, in a
manner that has the least visual impact possible.
• Avoid surface mounted conduit on historic structures.
Response – No significant change to mechanical and trash storage proposed as part of this amendment.
Trash is internal to the building and accessible from the alley. Mechanical rooms are internal to the
building as shown on the floor plans.
12.5 Awnings must be functional.
• An awning must project at least 3 feet, and not more than 5 feet from the building façade.
• An awning may only be installed at a door or window and must fit within the limits of the door or
window opening.
• Awnings are inappropriate on AspenModern properties unless historic evidence shows otherwise.
Response – n/a
12.6 Signs should not obscure or damage historic building fabric.
12.7 Sign lighting must be subtle and concealed.
12.8 Locate signs to be subordinate to the building design.
12.9 Preserve historic signs.
58
Exhibit A
Substantial Amendment Design Review
Response – Signage is not proposed at this time. A sign permit will be submitted for any signage proposed
for this building.
Commercial Design Guidelines and Standards: General Chapter 1
1.1 All projects shall provide a context study.
• The study should include the relationship to adjacent structures and streets through
photographs, streetscape elevations, historic maps, etc.
1.2 All projects shall respond to the traditional street grid.
• A building shall be oriented parallel to the street unless uncharacteristic of the area. Refer to
specific chapters for more information.
• Buildings on corners shall be parallel to both streets.
1.3 Landscape elements (both hardscape and softscape) should complement the surrounding context,
support the street scene, and enhance the architecture of the building.
• This applies to landscape located both on-site and in the public right-of-way.
• High quality and durable materials should be used.
• Early in the design process, consider stormwater best management practices as an integral part
of the landscape design process.
1.4 Where there is open space on a site, reinforce the traditional transition from public space, to semi-
public space to private space.
• This may be achieved through a fence, a defined walkway, a front porch element, covered
walkway, or landscape.
1.5 Maintain alignment of building facades where appropriate.
• Consider the entire block of a neighborhood to determine appropriate building placement.
Carefully examine and respond to the variety of building alignments that are present.
• Consider all four corners of an intersection and architectural context to determine appropriate
placement for buildings located on corners.
• Consider the appropriate location of street level Pedestrian Amenity when siting a new
building.
1.6 When a building facade is set back, define the property line. Review the context of the block when
selecting an appropriate technique. Examples include:
• A fence which is low in height and mostly transparent so as to maintain openness along the
street.
• Landscaping, though it may not block views of the architecture or a Pedestrian Amenity space.
Hedgerows over 42 inches are prohibited.
• Benches or other street furniture
Response – The approved building footprint is not proposed to change.
59
Exhibit A
Substantial Amendment Design Review
Alleyways
1.7 Develop alley facades to create visual interest.
• Use varied building setbacks and/or changes in material to reduce perceived scale
1.8 Consider small alley commercial spaces, especially on corner lots or lots with midblock access from the
street (See Pedestrian Amenity Section PA4).
• Maximize visibility and access to alley commercial spaces with large windows and setbacks.
• Minimize adverse impacts of adjacent service and parking areas through materials, setbacks,
and/or landscaping.
Response – No significant changes to the alley elevation are proposed. An exit door is proposed to be
recessed and the trash/utility area is shifted to the west.
Parking
1.9 Minimize the visual impacts of parking.
• All on-site parking shall be accessed off an alley where one is available.
• Break up the massing of the alley facade, especially when garage doors are present.
• Consider the potential for future retail use accessed from alleys and the desire to create a safe
and attractive environment for cars and people.
• If no alley access exists, access should be from the shortest block length.
• Screen surface parking and avoid locating it at the front of a building. Landscaping and fences
are recommended.
• Consider a paving material change to define surface parking areas and to create visual interest.
• Design any street-facing entry to underground parking to reduce visibility. Use high quality
materials for doors and ramps and integrate the parking area into the architecture.
Response – No change to parking is proposed.
Building Mass, Height, and Scale
1.10 A new building should appear similar in scale and proportion with buildings on the block.
1.11 A minimum building height difference of 2 feet from immediately adjacent buildings is required.
• The height difference shall be a minimum of 15 feet wide.
• The height difference should reflect the range and variation in building height in the block.
• This may be achieved through the use of a cornice, parapet or other architectural articulation.
1.12 On lots larger than 6,000 square feet, break up building mass into smaller modules.
• A street level front setback to accommodate Pedestrian Amenity in accordance with the
Pedestrian Amenity Guidelines may be an appropriate method to break up building mass.
• Building setbacks, height variation, changes of material, and architectural details may be
appropriate techniques to vertically divide a building into modules
1.13 Development adjacent to a historic landmark should respond to the historic resource.
• A new building should not obscure historic features of the landmark.
• A new large building should avoid negative impacts on historic resources by stepping down in
scale toward a smaller landmark.
60
Exhibit A
Substantial Amendment Design Review
• Consider these three aspects of a new building adjacent to a landmark: form, materials and
fenestration.
• When choosing to relate to building form, use forms that are similar to the historic resource.
• When choosing to relate to materials, use materials that appear similar in scale and finish to
those used historically on the site, and use building materials that contribute to a traditional
sense of pedestrian scale.
• When choosing to relate to fenestration, use windows and doors that are similar in size, shape,
and proportion to those of the historic resource.
Response – The proposed building relates strongly to building form and material. The flat roof building is
typical of 19th century commercial vernacular in downtown Aspen. The setback second floor distinguishes
this building as a product of its own time. Brick is a predominate building material downtown and relates
to historic buildings in the area and references the original brick material of the Tomkin’s Hardware store
that was located at 434 East Cooper until 1965 (see below).
Figure 3: Tomkins Hardware store before the roof collapsed in 1965.
Photograph courtesy Aspen Historical Society.
Figure 3: Aspen Grove Building across the alley on Galena Street.
Photograph courtesy Aspen Historical Society.
Figure 3 & 4: HPC approved corner elevation (left) and proposed amendment (right)
61
Exhibit A
Substantial Amendment Design Review
Street Level Design
1.14 Commercial entrances shall be at the sidewalk level and oriented to the street.
• Finished floor and sidewalk level shall align for at least 1/2 the depth of the ground floor where
possible. If significant grade changes exist on property, then the project will be reviewed on a
case-by-case basis.
• All buildings shall have at least one clearly defined primary entrance facing the front lot line, as
defined in the Land Use Code. An entrance located within a chamfered corner is an alternative.
(See Commercial Core Historic District).
• If a building is located on a corner lot, two entrances shall be provided; a primary entrance
facing the longest block length and a secondary entrance facing the shortest block length.
1.15 Incorporate an internal airlock or air curtain into first floor commercial space.
• An airlock or air curtain shall be integrated into the architecture.
• Adding a temporary exterior airlock of any material to an existing building not allowed.
1.16 Entries that are significantly taller or shorter than those seen historically or that conflict with the
established scale are highly discouraged.
• Transom windows above an entry are a traditional element that may be appropriate in
neighborhoods with 19th century commercial buildings.
• Entries should reflect the established range of sizes within the context of the block. Analyze
surrounding buildings to determine appropriate height for entry doors.
1.17 ATMs and vending machines visible from the street are prohibited.
Response – All applicable design guidelines are met - please refer to the Commercial Core Historic District
guidelines below regarding street level design specific to the historic district. ATMs and vending machines
are not proposed at this time. Temporary external airlocks are not proposed as this time.
Roofscape
1.18 The roofscape should be designed with the same attention as the elevations of the building.
• Consolidate mechanical equipment, including solar panels, and screen from view.
• Locate mechanical equipment toward the alley, or rear of a building if there is no alley access.
• Use varied roof forms or parapet heights to break up the roof plane mass and add visual
interest.
1.19 Use materials that complement the design of the building facade.
• Minimize the visual impact of elevator shafts and stairway corridors through material selection
and placement of elements.
1.20 Incorporate green roofs and low landscape elements into rooftop design where feasible.
1.21 Minimize visibility of rooftops railings.
• Mostly transparent railings are preferred.
• Integrating the rooftop railing into the architecture as a parapet or other feature, may be
appropriate considering the neighborhood context and proposed building style.
• Set back the railing a distance that equals or exceeds the height of the railing.
62
Exhibit A
Substantial Amendment Design Review
Response – Preliminary mechanical equipment and venting locations are shown on the roof plan. Outdoor
dining is proposed on the deck accessed from the second floor commercial space. Rooftop railings at 434
and 422 are transparent and integrated into parapets. The second floor setback is slightly reduced in the
proposed amendment - a 20 feet setback to building wall and 16 feet setback to the canopy was approved
in 2016. The proposed amendment provides a 15’11” setback to the building wall and 10’4” setback to the
canopy. Skylights are proposed to break up the flat roof and to add visual interest.
Materials and Details
1.22 Complete and accurate identification of materials is required.
• Provide drawings that identify the palette of materials, specifications for the materials, and
location on the proposed building as part of the application.
• Physical material samples shall be presented to the review body. An onsite mock-up prior to
installation may be required.
1.23 Building materials shall have these features:
* Convey the quality and range of materials found in the current block context or seen historically
in the Character Area.
• Convey pedestrian scale.
• Enhance visual interest through texture, application, and/or dimension.
• Be non-reflective. Shiny or glossy materials are not appropriate as a primary material.
• Have proven durability and weathering characteristics within Aspen’s climate.
• A material with an integral color shall be a neutral color. Some variation is allowed for
secondary materials.
Figure 4: Proposed second floor setback.
63
Exhibit A
Substantial Amendment Design Review
1.24 Introducing a new material, material application, or material finish to the existing streetscape may be
approved by HPC or P&Z if the following criteria are met:
• Innovative building design.
• Creative material application that positively contributes to the streetscape.
• Environmentally sustainable building practice.
• Proven durability.
1.25 Architecture that reflects corporate branding of the tenant is not permitted.
Response – Building materials are not proposed to change as part of this amendment. Brick is the primary
material with metal windows and glazing. The proposed building and materials are not indicative of
tenant specific branding. Materials are addressed further below in the specific commercial core design
guidelines section.
Lighting, Service and Mechanical Areas
1.26 The design of light fixtures should be appropriate to the form, materials, scale, and style of the
building.
1.27 Trash and recycle service areas shall be co-located along an alleyway where one exists, and screened
from view with a fence or door.
• Screening fences shall be 6 feet high from grade (unless prohibited by the Land Use Code), shall
be of sound construction, and shall be no less than 90% opaque, unless otherwise varied based
on a recommendation from the Environmental Health Department.
1.28 Design trash and recycle areas thoughtfully and within the style of the building, with the goal of
enhancing pedestrian and commercial uses along alleys.
1.29 Delivery areas shall be located along an alleyway where one exists.
• Shared facilities are highly encouraged.
1.30 Mechanical equipment, ducts, and vents shall be accommodated internally within the building and/or
co-located on the roof.
• Screen rooftop mechanical equipment and venting with a low fence or recess behind a parapet
wall to minimize visual impacts.
1.31 Minimize the visual impacts of utility connections and service boxes.
• Group and discreetly locate these features.
• Use screening and materials that compliment the architecture.
1.32 Transformer location and size are dictated by City and utility company standards and codes.
• Place a transformer on an alley where possible.
• Provide screening for any non-alley location.
Response – Lighting will be addressed with staff and monitor. The trash and recycle area is accessed off
the alley. It is shifted slightly from the 2016 approved location as shown in the drawing set. The
transformer for this project is located offsite.
Remodel
1.33 – 1.37 - n/a.
64
Exhibit A
Substantial Amendment Design Review
Commercial Core Historic District Guidelines and Standards
2.1 Maintain the alignment of
facades at the property line.
Response – No change to the
alignment of facades at the property
line from the 2016 approval.
2.2 Consider a 45-degree chamfer for
corner lots where appropriate.
Response – The 2016 approved 45
degree corner is proposed to be an
entrance which is better aligned with
traditional corner entries found on
Aspen’s commercial corner buildings.
Architectural detailing above the
new door defines the corner entry
and add visual interest similar to
surrounding historic buildings.
2.3 Development should be inspired
by traditional late 19th-century
commercial buildings to reinforce
continuity in architectura l language
within the Historic District. Consider
the following design elements: form,
materials, and fenestration. Pick two
areas to relate strongly to the
context.
Response – Form and material
directly relate to the historic district.
Brick is the primary building material
at the ground level. Steel framed
glazing is proposed for the setback
second floor and skylights to
differentiate this building as new
construction. The buildings located
at the junction of the alley and
Galena Street breaks up the
proposed building with traditional
two story commercial architecture
with punched openings and a simple
cornice on the second floor of the
building closest to the alley.
Figure 6: Cowenhoven Building showing a chamfer corner. Note the brick cornice and
detailing.
Figure 6: Corner of Cooper and Galena Streets. Note the brick detailing at the cornice level of
Tomkins Lumber (corner) and range of one and two story buildings. Photograph courtesy of
Aspen Historical Society.
65
Exhibit A
Substantial Amendment Design Review
2.4 Respect adjacent iconic historic structures.
Response – Adjacent historic structures are respected – the 422 building adjacent to the red onion remains
in its original appearance with a setback second floor that reveals the corner of the Red Onion.
2.5 The massing and proportions of a new building or addition should respond to the historic context.
Response – Massing is not significantly changed in the proposed amendment. Storefront widths are smaller
than the 2016 approval and recessed entries facing Galena Street are removed.
Figure 7: 2016 approved ground floor plan. Figure 8: 2022 proposed ground floor plan.
Figure 9: Proposed Cooper Avenue elevation showing smaller modules than approved in 2016.
66
Exhibit A
Substantial Amendment Design Review
2.6 One story buildings on lots larger than 6,000 sf are discouraged.
Response – The building is two stories.
2.7 Buildings on lots larger than 6,000 sf should
incorporate architectural features that break up the
mass.
Response – The building uses brick columns,
skylights, storefronts and different architecture at
each “bookend” of the property to break up the
mass of this large lot.
2.8 Composition of the façade, including choices
related to symmetry and asymmetry, should reflect
the close readings of patterns established by the
19th century structures.
• The pattern of building widths or bays
within a building varies from 20 to 30 feet.
Variety is preferred.
• Provide historic precedent using historic
maps and adjacent landmarks to determine
appropriate building width, height, and
form. Photographs, dimensional drawings,
figure-ground diagrams, are all examples of
tools
Response – The composition of the façade is similar to that found in 19th century commercial buildings
located on a corner in downtown Aspen. The Independence Building is an example of the traditional style of
commercial architecture. Tall metal storefronts and strong columns between storefronts are proposed at
434 East Cooper, similar to the ground floor of Independence Building but not an imitation.
2.9 Recessed entries are required.
• Set a primary entrance back from the front façade a minimum of 4 feet.
• Alternative options that define an entry and reinforce the rhythm of recessed entryways may be
considered.
• For corner lots, primary entries must face front lot line as determined by the Land Use Code and/or
be located in the chamfered corner where applicable.
Response – This corner lot has the primary entry through the chamfer corner. Recessed entryways along
Galena and Cooper Street are removed in the proposed amendment. Traditional storefront rhythm is
reinforced through the smaller modules proposed along both elevations (see figures 7 – 9).
2.10 Secondary recessed entrances are required for buildings on lots larger than 6,000 square feet, and on
the secondary street for corner lots.
Response – Secondary entrances are proposed at the ends of the building with the main entry through the
corner.
2.11 Maintain a floor to ceiling height of 12 to 15 feet for the first floor and 9 feet for the second floor.
Figure 10: Independence Building in the 1930s. Note the tall metal
storefronts and stone columns on the ground level, and punched openings
on the upper floors. The primarily brick building has strong horizontal lines
created through stone coursing.
67
Exhibit A
Substantial Amendment Design Review
• The ability to vary this requirement shall be based on demonstration of historic precedent amongst
adjacent landmarks. Storefronts should be taller than the upper floors.
• The floor to ceiling height of the first floor may be dropped to 9 feet after the first 25 feet of
building depth from a street facing façade.
Response – First floor height is raised over a foot to 14’4” as measured from the corner of the building. The
second floor height is shorter than the storefronts.
2.12 Maintain an architectural distinction between the street level and upper floors.
• Material chang es, placement of fenestration, and architectural details may be appropriate tools to
differentiate between floors.
Response – There is a clear distinction between the street level and upper floor through the second floor
setback and change in material from brick to glass.
2.13 Street level commercial storefronts
should be predominately transparent glass.
• Window design, including the
presence or absence of mullions, has
a significant influence on
architectural expression. Avoid
windows which suggest historic
styles or building types that are not
part of Aspen’s story.
Response – The proposed commercial
storefronts are similar to the 2016 approval
and are metal with large transparent sections
of glass. Detailing is similar to traditional
storefronts but remains a product of its own
time.
Figure 11: Traditional commercial storefront in Aspen.
Figure 12: Proposed Cooper Avenue storefront.
68
Exhibit A
Substantial Amendment Design Review
2.14 Architectural details should reinforce historic context and meet at least two of the following qualities.
• Color or finish traditionally found downtown.
• Texture to create visual interest, especially for larger buildings.
• Traditional material: brick, stone, metal and wood.
• Traditional application: for example, a running bond for masonry.
Response – Traditional materials (brick with metal details) are applied using techniques that create texture
above the storefront, similar to historic commercial buildings in Aspen.
Figure 13: Proposed Galena Street storefront.
Figure 14: Example of brick detailing along Galena Street.
69
Exhibit A.2
Growth Management
The redesigned project proposes to maintain net leasable area designed and approved in the previous 2016
iteration of the 434 E. Cooper project. The portion of the project that was originally the 9,000 square foot
434 property is maintained at 22,343 square feet of net leasable area as per the 2016 approvals. While the
internal layout is modified, the sum total of commercial net leasable space within the 434 area is the same,
utilizing the commercial allotment of 7,507 square feet of net leasable area granted in HPC Resolution No.
35, 2016.
Per direction from the City of Aspen, the net leasable allocation and mitigation requirements for the portion
of the project known as 422 E. Cooper will be presented for review in the context of the Red Onion/JAS
complex at 418-420 E. Cooper (aka Parcel A of the boundary adjustment plat reception #670864)). Changes
to the net leasable area within the 422 portion of the project will likely be balanced with changes in net
leasable area within the remainder of the Red Onion/JAS complex.
For the purposes of this review, the net leasable and employee housing mitigation analysis is isolated to
the original 9,000 square foot parcel on which the 434 E. Cooper building lies. While the 422 e. Cooper
building is now part of the 434 property as a result of a lot line adjustment, the original lotting continues
to be used for the purposes of growth management, net leasable, and employee housing aspects of the
project as per the NOA for the Boundary Line Adjustment (reception #670863).1
To the extent the City wishes to adjust the methodology for calculating these aspects of the project, the
applicant is amenable to parsing net leasable and employee housing obligations between the two adjacent
properties through different means.
26.470.040.6 Remodeling or replacement after demolition of existing commercial or lodge development.
Remodeling or replacement after demolition of existing commercial or hotel/lodge buildings and portions
thereof shall be exempt from the provisions of growth management, provided that no additional net
leasable square footage or lodge units are created and there is no change in use. If redevelopment involves
an expansion of net leasable square footage or lodge units, only the replacement of existing development
shall be exempt. Existing, prior to demolition, net leasable square footage and lodge units shall be
documented by the City Zoning Officer prior to demolition. Also see definition of net leasable commercial
and office space, Section 26.104.100.
26.470.130.D Reconstruction limitations. Reconstruction rights shall be limited to reconstruction on the
same parcel or on an adjacent parcel under the same ownership.
Response – The approval granted pursuant to HPC Resolution No. 35, 2016, enabled reconstruction
of the existing (now demolished) 14,836 square feet of commercial net leasable area situated on
the 434 property. The approval aallotted 7,507 square feet of additional commercial net leasable
area to be added to the property for a total of 22,343 square feet of net leasable area. The
proposed design in this application utilizes the same 22,343 square feet of commercial net leasable
1 A 2022 NOA for Red Onion tenant finish was approved by Community Development. This NOA is attached as
exhibit J.6 and shows a different methodology to calculating growth management.
70
Page 2 of 4
434 E. Cooper Revised Design
area granted in 2016. An increase in employees generated based on the proposed reconfiguration
of floor levels is addressed below under Section 26.470.070.6.
26.470.070.6 Expansion or new commercial development. The expansion of an existing commercial
building or commercial portion of a mixed use building or the development of a new commercial building or
commercial portion of a mixed use building shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the
Planning and Zoning Commission based on general requirements outlined in Section 26.470.050.
26.470.050.B General Requirements: All development applications for growth management review shall
comply with the following standards. The reviewing body shall approve, approve with conditions or deny
and application for growth management review based on the following generally applicable criteria and the
review criteria applicable to the specific type of development:
1. Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the proposed
development, pursuant to Subsection 26.470.030.D. Applications for multi-year allotments, pursuant to
Paragraph 26.470.090.1 shall not be required to meet this standard.
Response – The approval granted pursuant to HPC Resolution No 35, 2016, allowed for the
reconstruction of the existing 14,836 square feet of net leasable area plus 7,507 square feet of
additional net leasable area to be added to the property. At the time, the applicant requested that
minor adjustments to the net leasable calculation realized during building permit review be
approved administratively. The net leasable totals remain the same – a total of 22,343 square feet
– although the distribution per floor has changed. A new allocation of net leasable area is not
necessary but a recalculation of employee generation is needed. This calculation is provided below.
2. The proposed development is compatible with land uses in the surrounding area, as well as with
any applicable adopted regulatory master plan.
Response – As previously determined in the original approval, the commercial development is
compatible with the surrounding commercial uses in the area and meets the Land Use Code
requirements. There are no adopted regulatory master plans affecting the downtown area or the
Commercial Core Zone District.
3. The development conforms to the requirements and limitations of the zone district.
Response – The development conforms to the Commercial Core Zone District and Historic District
requirements as demonstrated in the project description, application, and proposed plans. This
amendment is submitted under the land use code in effect upon the original submission in April
2012..
4. The proposed development is consistent with the Conceptual Historic Preservation Commission
approval, the Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval and the Planned Development – Project
Review approval, as applicable.
Response – The design modifications are consistent with the Conceptual approval granted
pursuant to HPC Resolution No. 26, Series of 2015, and the Final approval granted pursuant to the
HPC Resolution No. 35, Series of 2016. The modifications are subject to review and approval by
71
Page 3 of 4
434 E. Cooper Revised Design
the HPC as a substantial amendment to a major development approval. Those standards are
addressed within Exhibit A.1.
5. Unless otherwise specified in this Chapter, sixty percent (60%) of the employees generated by the
additional commercial or lodge development, according to Subsection 26.470.100.A, Employee generation
rates, are mitigated through the provision of affordable housing. The employee generation mitigation plan
shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing, at Category 4 rate as defined
in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide
mitigation units at a lower category designation. If an applicant chooses to use a Certificate of Affordable
Housing Credit as mitigation, pursuant to Chapter 26.540, such Certificate shall be extinguished pursuant
to Chapter 26.540.90 Criteria for Administrative Extinguishment of the Certificate.
Response – The approval granted pursuant to HPC Resolution No. 35, 2016, authorized the
provision of affordable housing credits to satisfy employee housing requirements. Mitigation was
allowed to be satisfied with Category 4 credits, due upon building permit issuance.
The modifications proposed in this amendment application utilize the same amount of net leasable
area but do affect the mitigation calculation. This is because the net leasable distribution by floor
has changed, causing a slight increase in employee generation. The calculation below
demonstrates the change in employee generation and the required mitigation. The applicant will
provide the adjusted number of Category 4 affordable housing credits upon building permit
issuance. The employee generation rates and the mitigation requirement are based on the 2012
land use code.
“Existing” 434 Property:
basement level – 4,853sf @ 3.53 FTEs/1,000 = 17.13 FTEs
ground level – 5,065sf @ 4.7 FTEs/1,000 = 23.81 FTEs
upper level – 4,918sf @ 3.53 FTEs/1,000 = 17.36 FTEs
Total NL – 14,836sf 58.30 FTEs
Approved 434 Property – Adding 7,507sf of Net Leasable Area:
basement level – 8,625sf @ 3.53 FTEs/1,000 = 30.45 FTEs
ground level – 7,868sf @ 4.7 FTEs/1,000 = 36.98 FTEs
upper level – 5,850sf @ 3.53 FTEs/1,000 = 20.65 FTEs
Total NL – 22,343sf 88.08 FTEs
Proposed 434 Property:
basement level – 8,308sf @ 3.53 FTEs/1,000 = 29.33 FTEs
ground level – 8,438sf @ 4.7 FTEs/1,000 = 39.66 FTEs
upper level – 5,597sf @ 3.53 FTEs/1,000 = 19.76 FTEs
Total NL – 22,343sf 88.74 FTEs
The modified design represents a net employee generation increase of 30.44 as compared to the
“existing” building (which has been demolished). Due to the distribution of net leasable within the
building, a 0.66 FTE increase occurred as compared to the approved project even though the net
leasable area did not change.
72
Page 4 of 4
434 E. Cooper Revised Design
The 2012 Land Use Code required employee housing mitigation based on 60% of the net new
employees generated by a development. The applicant will provide housing mitigation at the 60%
requirement, 18.26 FTEs at a Category 4 rate.
88.74 FTEs – 58.30 FTEs = 30.44 FTEs @ 60% = 18.26 FTEs
The applicant requests that minor adjustments to the net leasable calculation and the mitigation
requirement realized during continued building permit review be approved administratively.
Please note that net leasable figures and mitigation requirements for the portion of the project
located on the 422 e. Cooper site are to be calculated within the context of the Red Onion and JAS
complex to the west of this property (aka Parcel A of the boundary adjustment plat). This is to
remain consistent with the original lotting of the parcels. An amendment to the Red Onion / JAS
project, limited to internal layouts, is forthcoming and will include the net leasable area within the
422 e. Cooper site.
6. Affordable housing net livable area, for which the finished floor level is at or above natural or
finished grade, whichever is higher, shall be provided in an amount equal to at least thirty percent (30%) of
the additional free-market residential net livable area, for which the finished floor level is at or above natural
or finished grade, whichever is higher.
Affordable housing shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing, and be
restricted to a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as
amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. Affordable
housing units that are being provided absent a requirement ("voluntary units") may be deed-restricted at
any level of affordability, including residential occupied. If an applicant chooses to use a Certificate of
Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation, pursuant to Chapter 26.540, such Certificate shall be extinguished
pursuant to Chapter 26.540.90 Criteria for Administrative Extinguishment of the Certificate, utilizing the
calculations in Section 26.470.100 Employee/Square Footage Conversion.
Response – Not applicable, there are no residential units planned.
7. The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure, or such additional
demand is mitigated through improvement proposed as part of the project. Public infrastructure includes,
but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment, energy and communication utilities, drainage control,
fire and police protection, solid waste disposal, parking and road and transit services.
Response – The proposed commercial building replaces an existing commercial building that is
already served. The applicant commits to mitigating any additional demands on the public
infrastructure as required by City Codes.
73
CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
City of Aspen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5090 April 2020
LAND USE APPLICATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTIVATIVE:
Description: Existing and Proposed Conditions
Review: Administrative or Board Review
Required Land Use Review(s):
Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) required fields:
Net Leasable square footage Lodge Pillows Free Market dwelling units
Affordable Housing dwelling units Essential Public Facility square footage
Have you included the following? FEES DUE: $
Pre-Application Conference Summary
Signed Fee Agreement
HOA Compliance form
All items listed in checklist on PreApplication Conference Summary
Name:
Address:
Phone#: email:
Address:
Phone #: email:
Name:
Project Name and Address:
Parcel ID # (REQUIRED)
The Gallery on Galena, 434 East Cooper Avenue
2737-182-16-011
434 East Cooper Avenue LLC
516 East Hyman Avenue, Aspen CO 81611
312-479-2050 mhunt@mdevco.com
BendonAdams
300 S. Spring Street., #202, Aspen CO 81611
970-925-2855 chris@bendonadams.com
434 East Cooper Avenue is under construction to build a two story above grade commercial building with a
basement. An amendment to the project approvals is requested.
74
City C970
CITY OF ASPEN
PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PLANNER: Amy Simon, amy.simon@aspen.gov
DATE: June 23, 2022
PROJECT: 422-434 E. Cooper Avenue
REPRESENTATIVE: Sara Adams, BendonAdams, sara@bendonadams.com
REQUEST: Substantial Amendment to a Major Development Approval, Mountain
Viewplane Exemption
DESCRIPTION: 434 E. Cooper Avenue received Final HPC Major Development approval for a
full redevelopment of the site in November, 2016. Vested Rights for the project expired on May
4, 2020, but the approval was sustained by the submittal of a complete building permit by that
date.
Soon after permit submittal, code compliance challenges arose in part because the main
circulation for the 434 E. Cooper project was to be located on the adjacent property, owned by
the same entity. In 2020, the issue was resolved through an Administrative approval granted for
a Boundary Adjustment which drew 422 E. Cooper and the circulation column into the subject
parcel, now know as 422-434 E. Cooper Avenue.
Permit review and construction evolved into a phased plan. At this point, the foundation is partially
complete but no further work is underway. The tenant for the development has been approaching
Community Development for some time about making amendments to the design, but the scope
has been viewed by the City as being too great a departure from the 2016 approval to re-enter the
land use process.
A reduced scope provided at the end of May 2022 has been preliminarily reviewed and determined
to qualify for HPC review as a Substantial Amendment to a Major Development approval. The
amendment has been generally represented to be changes to fenestration, and the addition of a
skylight on the roof. Staff has understood there to be a very small increase in floor area; less than
100 square feet. The application for Substantial Amendment must bear in mind not to change the
inherent nature, use, massing, character, dimensions or design of the project in a consequential
manner. All aspects of the revision must meet dimensional limits, including a demonstration that
the skylight design is typical of industry standards and meets minimum Building Code standards
such that it qualifies for a height exemption. It is also expected that the proposed net leasable
area will be very consistent with the prior approval, with approximately 7,507 square feet of new
net leasable associated with Lots Q,R, and S, the original parcel.
Exhibit C
75
A portion of the subject property is within the foreground of the Wheeler Opera House viewplane.
Development within the viewplane may be permissible if Land Use Code Section 26.435.050.E
is met such that the Community Development Director may issue a Viewplane Exemption. This
topic should be addressed in the application, but review will be a separate action, since it is not
in HPC’s purview. The criteria require development in the viewplane to be the minimum height
necessary, or invisible to the naked eye from the view plane’s point of origin. Surveys, photographs,
mock-ups, and similar evidence supporting a positive finding on the criteria will be useful.
This application is somewhat unique in that the amendment has been requested after the expiration
of Vested Rights. Review will be conducted under the Land Use Code in place at the time of the
development application in April 2012, however that will not extend to the design guidelines, which
are referenced, but not codified in the code and which have been replaced since 2012. Current
guidelines will be applied for this review. Additionally, approval will not generate a new
Development Order or re-establishment of Vested Rights. The applicant must be aware that, even
during pursuit of this amendment, meaningful construction activity and progress every six months
must continue in keeping with the Municipal Code building regulations in order for the 2016
approval to remain valid.
This review is a one-step hearing, meaning that all details of the proposal will be presented to
HPC in one application. Staff will evaluate the project and make a recommendation to HPC,
and HPC will make a decision to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the proposal.
Below are links to relevant documents and a list of information needed to submit an application.
Relevant Land Use Code Section(s):
26.304 Common Development Review Procedures
26.415.070.E Amendments, Insubstantial and Substantial
26.435.050.E Mountain Viewplane Review, Administrative
26.575.020 Calculations and Measurements
For your convenience – links to the Design Guidelines and Land Use Code are below. The
archived version of the applicable 2012 Land Use regulations will be emailed separately.
Commercial Design Guidelines and Standards
Historic Preservation Land Use Application Packet
Review by: Staff for completeness and recommendation
HPC for decision
Public Hearing: Yes.
Neighborhood Outreach: No.
Referrals: Staff will seek referral comments from the Building Department,
Zoning 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.)
Referral Agencies Fee: $0.
Total Deposit: $1,950.
76
Please email the following as one pdf to amy.simon@aspen.gov. The fee will be requested
after the application is deemed complete.
Completed Land Use Application and signed fee agreement.
Pre-application Conference Summary (this document).
Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to
occur, consisting of a current (no older than 6 months) certificate from a title insurance
company, an ownership and encumbrance report, or attorney licensed to practice in the
State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages,
judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and
demonstrating the owner’s right to apply for the Development Application.
Applicant’s name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant that
states the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act
on behalf of the applicant.
HOA Compliance form.
An 8 1/2” by 11” vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen.
List of adjacent property owners within 300’ for public hearing.
Site improvement survey including topography and vegetation showing the current
status, certified by a registered land surveyor, licensed in the state of Colorado. The
survey must also represent the projection of the Wheeler Opera House view plane
across the property.
A written and graphic explanation of the proposal and how it complies with the review
standards and design guidelines relevant to the application.
An accurate representation of all exterior building materials and finishes to be used in
the development. Please include relevant cut-sheets for review.
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.
77
1,950 6
78
54989627.1
730 East Durant Avenue, Suite 200, Aspen, CO 81611
Telephone: 970.925.6300 shermanhoward.com
Curtis B. Sanders
Sherman & Howard L.L.C.
Direct Dial Number: 970.300.0114
E-mail: csanders@shermanhoward.com
June 16, 2022
City of Aspen
Community Development Department
427 Rio Grande Place
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: 434 East Cooper Avenue, LLC; Certificate of Ownership
Dear Sir or Madam:
I am an attorney licensed by the State of Colorado to practice law.
This letter shall confirm and certify that 434 East Cooper Avenue, LLC, a Colorado
limited liability company, is the owner of certain improved real property located at 434 East
Cooper Avenue, Aspen, Colorado 81611, and legally described as Lots Q, R and S, and the
Easterly 20.65 feet of Lot P, Block 89, City and Townsite of Aspen, as amended by Boundary
Line Adjustment Plat recorded November 24, 2020 at Reception No. 670864 and Affidavit of
Scrivener's Error recorded June 22, 2021 at Reception No. 677922, County of Pitkin, State of
Colorado (the "Subject Property"), subject only to the following matters of record:
1. Reservations and exceptions as set forth in the Deeds from the City of Aspen recorded
in Book 59 at Page 10, Book 59 at Page 330, Book 59 at Page 520 and Book 79 at Page 11,
2. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in Decree for Perpetual
Easement to the City of Aspen and The Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Company
recorded November 23, 1976 in Book 320 at Page 183 and rerecorded February 1, 1977 in Book
324 at Page 171.
3. Terms, conditions, provisions, obligations and all matters as set forth in Resolution of
the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission recorded July 14, 2006 as Reception No. 526456 as
Resolution No. 14, Series of 2006 and July 30, 2007 as Reception No. 540467 as Resolution No.
20, Series of 2007 and October 15, 2009 as Reception No. 563656 as Resolution No. 18, Series
of 2009.
4. Terms, conditions, provisions, obligations and all matters as set forth in Resolution of
the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission recorded October 23, 2007 as Reception No.
543401 as Resolution No. 26, Series of 2007.
79
2
54989627.1
5. Terms, conditions, provisions, obligations and all matters as set forth in Resolution of
the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission recorded September 17, 2009 as Reception No.
562834 as Resolution No. 14, Series of 2009.
6. Terms, conditions, provisions, obligations and all matters as set forth in Resolution of
the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission recorded January 8, 2013 as Reception No. 595907
as Resolution No. 33, Series of 2012.
7. Terms, conditions, provisions, obligations and all matters as set forth in Resolution of
the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission recorded December 20, 2013 as Reception No.
606719 as Resolution No. 36, Series of 2013.
8. Deed of Trust, Assignment of Leases and Rents, Security Agreement and Fixture
Filing given by 434 East Cooper Avenue, LLC in favor of Deutsche Bank AG, New York
Branch dated as of May 19, 2022 and recorded May 25, 2022 as Reception No. 687787.
9. Assignment of Leases and Rents given by 434 East Cooper Avenue, LLC in favor of
Deutsche Bank AG, New York Branch dated as of May 19, 2022 and recorded May 25, 2022 as
Reception No. 687788.
10. UCC Financing Statement given by 434 East Cooper Avenue, LLC in favor of
Deutsche Bank AG, New York Branch recorded May 25, 2022 as Reception No. 687789.
8. Temporary Construction Easement Agreement recorded November 23, 2020 at
Reception No. 670776.
9. Notice of Approval recorded November 24, 2020 at Reception No. 670863.
10. Boundary Line Adjustment Plat recorded November 24, 2020 at Reception No.
670864.
11. Affidavit of Scrivener's Error in connection therewith recorded June 22, 2021 at
Reception No. 677922.
12. Notice of Approval recorded February 17, 2021 at Reception No. 673653.
This letter shall further confirm that as the owner of the Subject Property, 434 East
Cooper Avenue, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, has the right and authority to file
and pursue land use applications, variance requests, and other requests with the City of Aspen
with respect to the Subject Property, and that Mark Hunt, as President 434 East Cooper Avenue,
LLC, is authorized to execute and deliver all documents on its behalf.
Sincerely,
80
3
54989627.1
Curtis B. Sanders
81
82
83
PUB
L
L
P
P
L
L
P
CL
PUB SCI
R/MF
C-1
L
P
C
CC
CL
C
L
L
L L
R/MF
R/MF
L
C
AH
R-15 L
NC
CL
CLPUBR/MF
AH
P
R/MF
P
MU
PUB
PUB
MU
MU
R/MF
MU
R-6
R-6
CC
P
MU PUB
PUB
MU CCMU
S MONARCH STS GARMISCH STS MONARCH STS MILL STE HOP
K
I
N
S
A
V
E
S GALENA STS MILL STN MILL STS MONARCH STE COO
P
E
R
A
V
ES ASPEN STE HYM
A
N
A
V
E
E HOP
K
I
N
S
A
V
E
E MAIN
S
T
N GALENA STS GARMISCH STE MAI
N
S
T
S GALENA STE MAIN
S
TN MONARCH STE MAI
N
S
T
S ASPEN STE HOP
K
I
N
S
A
V
EN GARMISCH STS ASPEN STS ASPEN STE HYM
A
N
A
V
E
E HYM
A
N
A
V
E
E HOP
K
I
N
S
A
V
E
E COO
P
E
R
A
V
ES ORIGINAL STS SPRING STE DUR
A
N
T
A
V
ES ORIGINAL STS ORIGINAL STE COO
P
E
R
A
V
E
DEAN
S
T
E DUR
A
N
T
A
V
ES MILL STE SN
A
R
K
S
T
E DURA
N
T
A
V
E
S MONARCH STS ASPEN STS GALENA STE DUR
A
N
T
A
V
E
E COO
P
E
R
A
V
E
GILBE
R
T
S
T
E DUR
A
N
T
A
V
ES ASPEN STASPEN MTN CUTOFF RDS HUNTER STDEAN
S
T
DEAN
S
T
E JUAN
I
T
A
S
T S HUNTER STE DURA
N
T
A
V
E
S ASPEN STDEAN
S
T S ORIGINAL STS SPRING STS SPRING STE
M
A
I
N
S
T
E MAIN
S
T
S HUNTER STN SPRING STS HUNTER STE HYM
A
N
A
V
E
E HOP
K
I
N
S
A
V
E
E HYM
A
N
A
V
E
E HOP
K
I
N
S
A
V
E
E HYM
A
N
A
V
EFOUNDERS PLE MAIN
S
TRIO GRANDE PLE HOP
K
I
N
S
A
V
E
JUAN S
TS GARMISCH STS 1ST STW MAI
N
S
T
E COO
P
E
R
A
V
E
W HYM
A
N
A
V
E
W HOP
K
I
N
S
A
V
E
S GARMISCH STDate: 6/16/2022
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 2022 City of Aspen GIS
0 0.05 0.10.03
mi
When printed at 8.5"x11"
4
Legend
City of Aspen
Parcels
Zoning
R-3 High Density Residential
AH Affordable Housing
R/MF Residential/Multi-Family
R/MFA Residential/Multi-Family
R-6 Medium Density Residential
R-15 Moderate Density
Residential
R-15-A Moderate Density
Residential
R-15B Moderate Density
Residential
R-30 Low Density Residential
RR Rural Residential
L Lodge
CL Commercial Lodge
CC Commercial Core
C-1 Commercial
SCI Service Commercial
Industrial
NC Neighborhood Commercial
MU Mixed Use
SKI Ski Area Base
C Conservation
OS Open Space
P Park
WP Wildlife Preservation
A Academic
PUB Public
not zoned
Roads Zoomed In
Scale: 1:4,780
434 East Cooper
Vicinity Map
Exhibit H
84
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. The
information maintained by the County may not be complete as to
mineral estate ownership and that information should be
determined by separate legal and property analysis.
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: 273718216011 on 06/16/2022
Instructions:
Disclaimer:
http://www.pitkinmapsandmore.com
Exhibit I
85
305-7 MILL STREET LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
625 E MAIN ST UNIT 102B #401
315 E HYMAN AVE HOLDINGS LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
625 E MAIN ST UNIT 102B #401
315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE HOLDINGS LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
516 E HYMAN AVE
400 BUILDING LLC
BOCA RATON, FL 33432-3933
306 N PLAZA REAL
400 EAST HYMAN LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
400 E HYMAN AVE # A202
400 HYMAN LLC
ASPEN, CO 816112118
1010 E HYMAN AVE
400 HYMAN LLC
RIFLE, CO 816500351
PO BOX 351
401 HYMAN AVENUE LLC
SCOTTSDALE, AZ 852558712
25189 N 108TH WY
403 SOUTH GALENA LLC
MIAMI, FL 33127
244-250 NW 35TH ST
407 HYMAN LLC
GLENWOOD SPRINGS , CO 81601
51027 HWY 6 & 24 #100
410 AH LLC
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 4068
411 EAST HYMAN AVENUE LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
625 E MAIN ST UNIT 102B #401
413 EAST HYMAN AVENUE LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
625 E MAIN ST UNIT 102B #401
414 422 EAST COOPER AVENUE LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
625 E MAIN ST UNIT 102B #401
415 EAST HYMAN AVE LLC
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 4068
419 AH LLC
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 4068
419 EAST HYMAN AVENUE LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
625 E MAIN ST UNIT 102B #401
426 EAST HYMAN AVE LLC
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 4068
447 EAST COOPER AVE HOLDINGS LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
400 E MAIN ST
450 S GALENA ST INVESTORS LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
450 S GALENA ST #202
514 AH LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
514 E HYMAN AVE
516 EAST HYMAN AVENUE LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
625 E MAIN ST UNIT 102B #401
AGM INVESTMENTS LLC
AUSTIN, TX 78704
1511 NICKERSON ST
AGRUSA LISA ANN
ESTERO, FL 33928
4761 W BAY BLVD #1704
AJAX MTN ASSOCIATES LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
520 E DURANT ST #207
ASPEN CLARKS REAL ESTATE LLC
AUSTIN, TX 78704
1711 S CONGRESS AVE #200
ASPEN CORE CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
535 E HYMAN AVE
ASPEN GOLDEN HORN LLC
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212
9420 WILSHIRE BLVD 4TH FL
ASPEN GROVE ASSOCIATES LLP
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601
51027 HWY 6 &24 #100
ASPEN HYMAN 409 LLC
CENTENNIAL , CO 80112
9615 E COUNTY LINE RD #B396
86
ASPEN OFFICE PARTNERSHIP LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
520 E COOPER AVE #C7
ASPEN OFFICE PARTNERSHIP LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
625 E MAIN ST #102-B-233
ASPEN RETREAT LLC
SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85251
6536 E GAINSBOROUGH
ASPENHOF CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
600 E HOPKINS AVE #203
ASPENHOF CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
520 E COOPER AVE
AV STEIN LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
601 E HYMAN AVE
BARNETT FYRWALD HOLDINGS INC
LITTLE ROCK, AR 722022017
2222 COTTONDALE LN #200
BLACK HAWK ASPEN LLC
LEICESTERSHIRE LE12 8TF ENGLAND,
ROECLIFFE COTTAGE JOE MOORES LN
WOODHOUSE EAVES
BOWMAN CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
531 E COOPER AVE
BPOE ASPEN LODGE #224
ASPEN, CO 81611
510 E HYMAN AVE 3RD FL
BPOE CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
510 E HYMAN AVE THIRD FLOOR
BPS ASPEN HOLDINGS LLC
SEARCY , AR 72145
PO BOX 1009
BRAJOVIC MILOS & KATHRYN
ASPEN, CO 81611
404 S GALENA ST #206
CALDWELL EDWARD B
NASHVILLE, TN 37215
4216 WALLACE LN
CALDWELL EDWARD BARRICK
NASHVILLE, TN 37215
4216 WALLACE LN
CALDWELL PAIGE T
NASHVILLE, TN 37215
4216 WALLACE LN
CARLSON BRUCE E TRUST
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 3587
CITY OF ASPEN
ASPEN, CO 81611
427 RIO GRANDE PL
COBLE JANE H
NASHVILLE, TN 37218
5033 OLD HICKORY BLVD
COOPER STREET CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
508 E COOPER AVE
COOPER STREET DEVELOPMENT LLC
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 8485
COTTONWOOD VENTURES I LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
419 E HYMAN AVE
COTTONWOOD VENTURES II LLC
DALLAS, TX 75367
PO BOX 670709
COX ANTHONY E LIVING TRUST
CAPITOLA, CA 95010
1260 41ST AVE #O
DCGB LLC
NEW YORK, NY 10019
610 WEST 52 ST
DOLE MARGARET M
ASPEN, CO 816111989
400 E HYMAN AVE #302
DOWNTOWN 420 LLC
CALABASAS, CA 91302
23622 CALABASAS RD #200
DURANT GALENA CONDOS
ASPEN, CO 81611
COMMON AREA
500 E DURANT AVE
DUVIKE CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
420 E HYMAN AVE
F & M VENTURES LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
415 E HYMAN AVE
87
FITZ SSM 520 LLC
CARBONDALE, CO 81623
333 LIONS RIDGE RD
FOOTLOOSE MOCCASIN MAKERS INC
CANON CITY , CO 812129484
44 SILVERADO CT
FORD ANN MICHIE
ASPEN, CO 816111820
404 S GALENA ST
FORD MICHIE
ASPEN, CO 81611
404 S GALENA ST
G & K LAND CO LLC
CARBONDALE, CO 81623
0167 WILLOW LN
GALENA COOPER LLC
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 8485
GELD LLC
ASPEN, CO 81612-1247
PO BOX 1247
GERARDOT J REVOCABLE TRUST
FORT WAYNE, IN 46804
5526 HOPKINTON DR
GOLDEN HORN BUILDING CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
COMMON AREA
400 E COOPER AVE
GONE WEST LLC
LITTLE ROCK, AR 72221
PO BOX 22297
GORSUCH COOPER LLC
VAIL, CO 81657
263 E GORE CREEK DR
HUDSON KAREN DAY
ASPEN, CO 81611
409 E COOPER AVE APT 3
IM & AY LLC
DALLAS, TX 75252
17774 PRESTON RD
IM & AY LLC
TYLER, TX 75703
100 INDEPENDENCE PL #400
INDEPENDENCE BUILDING CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
404 S GALENA ST
INDEPENDENCE PARTNERS
ASPEN, CO 81611
602 E COOPER AVE #202
JENNE LLP
AUSTIN, TX 78703
1510 WINDSOR RD
KANTZER TAYLOR FAM TRST #1
MANHATTAN BEACH, CA 90266
216 SEVENTEENTH ST
LCT LP
NASHVILLE, TN 37202
PO BOX 24382
MAIERSPERGER RENELL
ASPEN, CO 81611
404 S GALENA
MARCUS DURANT GALENA LLC
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 1709
MEYER CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
403 S GALENA
MOCKINGBIRD INTERESTS ASPEN LLC
DALLAS, TX 75205
47 HIGHLAND PARK VILLAGE #208
MP INDEPENDENCE ASPEN LLC
KANSAS CITY, MO 64108
1908 MAIN ST
MTN ENTERPRISES 80B
EAGLE, CO 816315739
PO BOX 5739
NJ STEIN LLC
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 8485
NZC CO LLC
DARIEN, CT 06820
865 HOLLOW TREE CT
ORG PROPERTIES LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
205 S MILL ST #301A
PARAGON BUILDING CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
COMMON AREA
419 E HYMAN AVE
PARAGON PENTHOUSE LLC
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212
9950 SANTA MONICA BLVD
88
PARK PLACE CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
COMMON AREA
408 S MILL ST
PEYTON MARI
ASPEN, CO 81611
409 E COOPER #4
PITKIN CENTER CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
COMMON AREA
E HYMAN AVE
PITKIN CENTER CONDO OWNERS ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
517 W NORTH ST
PROVINE CATHERINE ANNE
WASHINGTON, DC 200073131
2902 O ST NW
QUALITY HOUSING GROUP I LLC
BETHESDA, MD 20814
7735 OLD GEORGETOWN RD #301
RANKMORE KEVIN L & JASMINE
WELLINGTON NSW 2820 AUSTRALIA,
PO BOX 168
RG COOPER ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
601 E HYMAN AVE
RHOADES CHRISTINE A LYON LIV TRUST
LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651
644 GRIFFITH WY
ROARING FORK CONDOS ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
COMMON AREA
415 E HYMAN AVE
ROSS BARBARA REV TRUST
KILAUEA, HI 96754
4720 WAILAPA RD
ROSS ROGER A REV TRUST
KILAUEA, HI 96754
4720 WAILAPA RD
RUTLEDGE REYNIE
SEARCY, AR 72145
PO BOX 1009
SAGE STONE PROPERTIES LLC
SAN ANTONIO, TX 78230
12727 CRANES MILL
SALT PARKS WEST LLC
SARATOGA SPRINGS , NY 12866
268 BROADWAY STE 101B
SAN ANTONIO SAGE STONE PROP LLC
SAN ANTONIO, TX 78230
12727 CRANES MILL
SCHROEDER FAMILY TRUST
ORINDA, CA 94563
4 GREENWOOD CT
SCHROEDER FAMILY TRUST
ORINDA, CA 94563
4 GREENWOOD CT
SCHULTZE DANIEL G
ASPEN, CO 81611
404 S GALENA ST #210
SEVEN CONTINENTS LLC
GLENCOE, IL 60022
521 LONGWOOD AVE
SILVER SLAM COMMERCIAL LLC
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 1373
SINGLE ASSET LLC
RANCHO SANTA FE, CA 92067
PO BOX 735
STEIN BUILDING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 8485
STEPHENS ROSS DAVID
ASPEN , CO 81611
730 E DURANT AVE
TDCBD LLC
DALLAS, TX 75201
2100 ROSS AVE #550
TELLURIDE PARTNERS LLC
TELLURIDE, CO 81435
PO BOX 859
TENNESSEE THREE
NASHVILLE, TN 37202
PO BOX 24382
THOR 534 EAST COOPER AVENUE LLC
NEW YORK, NY 10018-4074
25 W 39TH ST # 11
TOM THUMB BUILDING CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
400 E HYMAN AVE
VALLEY INVESTMENTS LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
602 E COOPER #202
89
WENDELIN ASSOC
PITTSFORD , NY 14534
1173 PITTSFORD VICTOR RD #250
WHEELER BLOCK BUILDING LLC
COLUMBIA, MO 65203
211 N STADIUM BLVD STE 201
WHEELER SQUARE CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
315 E HYMAN AVE #305
WHITE RIVER HOLDINGS LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
415 E HYMAN AVE # 401
WJM508 LLC
NEW YORK, NY 10022
126 E 56TH ST 28TH FL
WOLF LAURENCE G CAPITAL MGT TRUST
FERNDALE, MI 48220
22750 WOODWARD AVE # 204
WOODS FAMILY LP
ASPEN, CO 81611
514 TWINING FLATS RD
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
THE GALLERY ON
GALENA
MOUNTAIN HOUSE
PRO P 03.18P R O 3 . 2 1
Exhibit K
116
LOWER LEVEL RETAIL 'C'
MECH. RM.
STAIR #1
ELEV.
STAIR #2
MECH. RM.
CORRIDOR
LOWER LEVEL RETAIL 'B'
LOWER LEVEL RETAIL 'A'
LOWER LEVEL RETAIL 'D'RETAIL TENANT 'D'
RETAIL TENANT 'C'
RETAIL TENANT 'A'
RETAIL TENANT 'E'
RETAIL TENANT 'B'
CORRIDORELEV.
STAIR #1
STAIR #2ELEC.TRASH AND UTILITY
UP
UP
UP
UP
DN
DN
DN
DN
TENANT 'F'
STAIR #1
ELEV.
STAIR #2MECH. RM.LOBBY
OUTDOOR TERRACE
20'-6"16'-0"16'-0"
20'-6"21'-9"78'-3"110'-6"14'-3"110'-6"21'-9"78'-3"21'-9"3'-8"18'-1"3'-8"18'-1"3'-8"18'-1"3'-8"9'-4"20'-6"3'-9"15'-7"3'-8"34'-9"3'-8"15'-7"3'-8"8'-10"6"100'-0"110'-6"
MEMBRANE ROOF
ELEV
OUTDOOR TERRACE
16'-0"16'-0"21'-9"78'-3"110'-6"14'-3"20'-0"20'-0"
20'-6"90'-0"100'-0"TENANT 'A'
ELEV
STAIR
JAS
LOBBY
ELEV
ELEV
STAIR
STAIR
CORRIDOR
MECH
PUMP100'-0"109'-8"
TENANT 'A'
ELEV
STAIR
JAS
LOBBY
ELEV
ELEV
STAIR
STAIR
CORRIDOR
TRASH
300 SF
MECH
100'-0"110'-8"27'-7"9"3'-9"14'-4"3'-9"18'-10"3'-9"14'-4"3'-9"9'-5"19'-9"18'-7"
9"
3'-9"15'-0"2'-4"19'-6"3'-9"14'-4"3'-9"9'-5"
OPEN TO BELOW
OUTDOOR TERRACE
TENANT 'A'
ELEV
STAIR
JAS
LOBBY
ELEV
ELEV
STAIR
STAIR
CORRIDOR
15'-11"100'-0"110'-8"27'-7"72'-5"15'-11"11'-4"422-434 E. COOPER
ASPEN, CO
NTS
422−434 FLOOR PLANS − APPROVED
LOWER LEVEL GROUND FLOOR SECOND FLOOR
NTS
422−434 FLOOR PLANS − PROPOSED
LOWER LEVEL GROUND FLOOR SECOND FLOOR ROOF
WHEELER
VIEWPLAN
F
ELEV
ELEV
ELEV OPERABLE SKYLIGHTSKYLIGHT
SKYLIGHT
SKYLIGHT
FIREWALL PER CODE
37'-2"11'-11"21'-5"16'-8"17'-6"7'-0"17'-11"12'-5"
10'-4"10'-4"110'-8"100'-0"27'-7"72'-5"10'-11"
27.97 27' - 11 1/2"
29.00 29' - 0"
27.97 27' - 11 1/2"
27.97 27' - 11 1/2"
SKYLIGHT
27.45 27' - 5 1/2"
WHEELER VIEW PLAN
2" / 1'-0"
MINIMUM RECOMMENDED
SLOPE AND CURB FOR
WEATHER/DRAINAGEROOF
117
16.30 16' - 3 1/2"
11.50 11' - 6"
27.33 27' - 4"29.67 29' - 8"
CANOPY
T.O. SKYLIGHT T.O. MASONRY
28.00 28' - 0"
18.17 18' - 2"
WHEELER VIEW PLAN
WHEELER VIEW PLAN
T.O. ELEVATOR
T.O. MASONRY
14.33 14' - 4"
2ND FLOOR
11.83 11' - 10"
T.O. STOREFRONT
0.00 0' - 0"
PROJECT 0'-0" = 7925.8
Scale:3/32" = 1'-0"
422-434 E. COOPER VIEW PLANE SECTION
ASPEN, CO
NTS1VIEW PLAN SECTION
3/32" = 1'-0"
118
/(9(/
/(9(/
72&251,&(
72&251,&(
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
352326('6287+(/(9$7,210$<
352326('($67(/(9$7,210$<
Scale:As indicated
422-434 E. COOPER06/15/22 FAR -APPROVED VS PROPOSED
ASPEN, CO
T.O. PARAPET
+18'-2"
T.O. SKYLIGHT
+29'-0"
T.O. SKYLIGHT
+29'-0"
T.O. PARAPET
+18'-10"
T.O. CANOPY
+24'-4"
T.O. CANOPY
+24'-4"
T.O. PARAPET
+26'-10"
T.O. SKYLIGHT
T.O. PARAPET (EXT'G)
+14'-11"
T.O. STOREFRONT
+11'-10"
T.O. STOREFRONT
+11'-10"
27'-11 1/2"
212
212
T.O. SKYLIGHT
27'-11 1/2"
8" MINIMUM CURB
HEIGHT PER MFG.
8" MINIMUM CURB
HEIGHT PER MFG.
MIN SLOPE
PER MFG.
MIN SLOPE
PER MFG.
119
4 12
15'-11"
$33529('6287+(/(9$7,21
20'-0"20'-0"
3
Scale:As indicated
422-434 E. COOPER06/15/22 FAR -APPROVED VS PROPOSED
ASPEN, CO
T.O. SKYLIGHT
+29'-0"T.O. CANOPY
+24'-4"T.O. PARAPET
+26'-10"
T.O. SKYLIGHT
T.O. PARAPET (EXT'G)
+14'-11"
2/(9(/
/(9(/
72&251,&(
The skylight has been further reduced by 14% from
05/05/2022 version and is further differentiated
from the now flat roof design.
The roof has been revised to have a continuous flat
roof around the perimeter to match previously
approved design.
The second floor has been revised to match the
rectilinear mass that was previously approved.
Please refer to plan comparison highlighting the
shape of the building perimeter in red.
Eliminated the south tower massing. Please refer to
plan and elevations comparisons.
DESIGN UPDATE SUMMARY
1
3
4
272&251,&(
0
/(9(/
2/(9(/
3
2
T.O. PARAPET
+17'-0"
T.O. STOREFRONT
11'-0"
T
T.O. PARAPET
+18'-2"
T.O. STOREFRONT
+11'-10"
NOTE: PROPOSED DRAWINGS SHOW EXISTING HISTORIC MASNORY AND FENESTRATION TO REMAIN.
27'-11 1/2"
120
1 2
15'-11"
20'-0"
4
3
Scale:As indicated
422-434 E. COOPER06/15/22 FAR -APPROVED VS PROPOSED
ASPEN, CO
T.O. SKYLIGHT
+29'-0"
T.O. PARAPET
+18'-2"
T.O. CANOPY
+24'-4"
T.O. SKYLIGHT
T.O. STOREFRONT
+11'-10"
The skylight has been further reduced by 14% from
05/05/2022 version and is further differentiated
from the now flat roof design.
The roof has been revised to have a continuous flat
roof around the perimeter to match previously
approved design.
The second floor has been revised to match the
rectilinear mass that was previously approved.
Please refer to plan comparison highlighting the
shape of the building perimeter in red.
Eliminated the south tower massing. Please refer to
plan and elevations comparisons.
DESIGN UPDATE SUMMARY
1
3
4
2
/(9(/
/(9(/
72&251,&(
72&251,&(
0
/(9(/
2/(9(/
3
2
T.O. PARAPET
+17'-0"
T.O. STOREFRONT
11'-0"
T
27'-11 1/2"
121
Scale:3/32" = 1'-0"
422-434 E. COOPER06/27/22
HPC-5
Unnamed
ASPEN, CO
SOUTH GRADE0' - 0"
SECOND FLOOR
16' - 2"
LOWER PARAPET20' - 0"ADJACENT BUILDINGELEVATOR OVERRUN BEYOND
TRANSFORMER
PAINTED UNIT MASONRY, TYP.10' - 0"8' - 0"8' - 0"
OVERHEAD
SECTIONAL DOOR, TYP.
UPPER PARAPET25' - 0"
HAND MOLDED
MODULAR BRICK, TYP.
STONE CORNICE
BRICK DETAILING, TYP.
CLEAR INSULATED
GLASS, TYP.
STONE
BASE, TYP.
CUSTOM STEEL
WINDOW FRAMES, TYP.
MASONRY
CHIMNEY
EXPOSED STEEL LINTEL, TYP.
T.O. SKYLIGHT
+29'-0"T.O. STOREFRONT+11'-10"T.O. STOREFRONT
+11'-10"
/(9(/
/(9(/
72&251,&(
ADJACENT BUILDINGT.O. SKYLIGHT
$33529('NORTH(/(9$7,21
352326('NORTH (/(9$7,210$<
APPROVED NORTH ELEVATION - 2016
27'-11 1/2"
T.O. SKYLIGHT
27'-11 1/2"
122
R H U P D AT E S I N R E S P O N S E T O 0 5 /0 5 /2 0 2 2 C ALL
1. C ITY O F A S P E N C O MM E N T: "W hil e t h e g l a ss over t h e c ons e rv a t ory is m ovin g in t h e dire c t i on of b e in g c onsi d e r e d a s k yli g ht r a th e r t h a n a roof t h a t e x c e e d s
a llo w e d h e i g h t li m i t s, it is b ord e rlin e on th a t dis t in c t i on in th e a ss e s sm e nt o f s t a f f a n d r e m a ins a sig ni f i c a n t d e p a r ture from t h e fl a t roo f a p prov e d by H P C ".
(P er A my S im on E m a il fro m 0 5 /0 5 /2 0 2 2)
R H R E S P O N S E : Th e s k yli g ht h a s b e e n furt h e r r e duc e d by 1 4 % from 0 5 /0 5 /2 0 2 2 v e rsio n a nd i s furt h e r dif f e re n ti a t e d fro m th e no w f l a t roof d e sign.
2. C ITY O F A S P E N C O M M E N T: R oo f s truc tur e shoul d c l os e ly a li g n w ith th e pr e vious ly a p prove d d e si gn t o b e c onsi d e r e d a minor a m e n d m e nt .
R H R E S P O N S E : Th e ro of h a s b e e n revis e d t o h a ve a c on tinuous fl a t roo f a round t h e p e rim e t e r t o m a t c h pr e viously a p prove d d e sign.
4 . C ITY O F A S P E N C O M M E NT: Th e sou th t o w e r m a s sin g di d n't e xis t in t h e a p prova l. C on tinu e d stu dy t o mor e c los e ly re fl e c t H P C a p prov a l i s n e e d e d
R H R E S P O N S E : E limin a t e d t h e sout h t o w er m a ssin g . P l e a s e r e f e r t o pl a n a nd e l e va tio ns c o m p a ris ons.
3 . C ITY O F A S P E N C O M M E NT: "Th e o c t a g on a l form o f c ons e rva t ory ar e si g nifi c a nt d e p a rt ure s fro m t h e a p p rove d p roj e c t .
C on t inu e d s t udy o f t h e up p e r floor t o m or e c lo s e ly re fl e c t th e H P C a p prov a l is n e e d e d ." (P e r A my S i m on E m a il from 0 5 /0 5 /2 0 2 2)
R H R E S P O N S E : Th e s e c on d floor h a s b e e n re vis e d t o m a t c h t h e r e c tilin e ar m a ss th a t w a s previ ously a p prov e d.
P l e a s e r e f e r t o pl a n c om p a riso n hi g hli g h t in g th e sh a p e o f t h e buil d in g p e rim e t e r in re d .
Scale:As indicated
422-434 E. COOPER06/15/22 FAR -APPROVED VS PROPOSED
ASPEN, CO 123
PROPOSED SKYLIGHT AREA: 1,104 SF
(FURTHER REDUCED BY 14% FROM 05/05/2022 MEETING)
Scale:As indicated
422-434 E. COOPER06/15/22 FAR -APPROVED VS PROPOSED
ASPEN, CO
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DESIGN PROPOSED PERIMETER DESIGN
124
TENANT 'A'
ELEV
STAIR
JAS
LOBBY
ELEV
ELEV
STAIR
STAIR
CORRIDOR
MECH
PUMPTENANT 'A'
ELEV
STAIR
JAS
LOBBY
ELEV
ELEV
STAIR
STAIR
CORRIDOR
TRASH
300 SF
MECH
OPEN TO BELOW
OUTDOOR TERRACE
TENANT 'A'
ELEV
STAIR
JAS
LOBBY
ELEV
ELEV
STAIR
STAIR
CORRIDOR
422-434 E. COOPER FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS
NAME APPROVED
LOWER LEVEL
GROUND FLOOR
N/A
7,341 SF
N/A
2ND FLOOR
OUTDOOR TERRACE
17,841 SFTOTAL
10,500 SF
ZONING: (CC) COMMERCIAL CORE
NET LOT AREA: 11,091 SF (110.91' X 100')
ZONING ALLOWANCE
(2:1) 22,182 SF (2 X 11,091 SF)
PROPOSED F.A.R. 17,841 SF / 11,091 SF = (1.61:1)
ZONING INFO AND CALCS -422-434
AREA TOWARD F.A.R.
FLOOR AREA RATIO (F.A.R.) LEGEND
422-434 E. COOPER FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS
NAME
LOWER LEVEL
GROUND FLOOR
N/A
7,268 SF
N/A
2ND FLOOR
OUTDOOR TERRACE
17,598 SFTOTAL
10,330 SF
ZONING: (CC) COMMERCIAL CORE
NET LOT AREA: 11,091 SF (110.91' X 100')
ZONING ALLOWANCE
(2:1) 22,182 SF (2 X 11,091 SF)
PROPOSED F.A.R. 17,598 SF / 11,091 SF = (1.59:1)
ZONING INFO AND CALCS -422-434
AREA TOWARD F.A.R.
FLOOR AREA RATIO (F.A.R.) LEGEND
LOWER LEVEL RETAIL 'C'
MECH. RM.
STAIR #1
ELEV.
STAIR #2
MECH. RM.
CORRIDOR
LOWER LEVEL RETAIL 'B'
LOWER LEVEL RETAIL 'A'
LOWER LEVEL RETAIL 'D'RETAIL TENANT 'D'
RETAIL TENANT 'C'
RETAIL TENANT 'A'
RETAIL TENANT 'E'
RETAIL TENANT 'B'
CORRIDORELEV.
STAIR #1
STAIR #2ELEC.TRASH AND UTILITY
UP
UP
UP
UP
DN
DN
DN
DN
ROOF AREA
TENANT 'F'
STAIR #1
ELEV.
STAIR #2MECH. RM.LOBBY
OUTDOOR TERRACE
422-434 E. COOPER
ASPEN, CO
NTS
422−434 FAR (HPC) APPROVED
3/16" = 1’−0"
422−434 FAR (HPC) PROPOSED
LOWER LEVEL
LOWER LEVEL GROUND FLOOR
GROUND FLOOR SECOND FLOOR
SECOND FLOOR
PROPOSED
125
LOWER LEVEL RETAIL 'C'MECH. RM.STAIR #1ELEV.STAIR #2MECH. RM.CORRIDORLOWER LEVEL RETAIL 'B'LOWER LEVEL RETAIL 'A'LOWER LEVEL RETAIL 'D'RETAIL TENANT 'D'RETAIL TENANT 'C'RETAIL TENANT 'A'RETAIL TENANT 'E'RETAIL TENANT 'B'CORRIDORELEV.STAIR #1STAIR #2ELEC.TRASH AND UTILITYUPUPUPUPDNDNDNDNROOF AREATENANT 'F'STAIR #1ELEV.STAIR #2MECH. RM.LOBBYOUTDOOR TERRACETENANT 'A'ELEVSTAIRJASLOBBYELEVELEVSTAIRSTAIRCORRIDORTRASH300 SFMECHTENANT 'A'ELEVSTAIRELEVELEVSTAIRSTAIRCORRIDORMECHPUMPOPEN TO BELOWOUTDOOR TERRACETENANT 'A'ELEVSTAIRJASLOBBYELEVELEVSTAIRSTAIRCORRIDORFLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS434 E. COOPERLOWER LEVELGROUND FLOOR8,625 SF5,850 SF2ND FLOOR22,343 SFTOTAL7,868 SFAREA TOWARD 434 N.L.NET LEASABLE (N.L.) LEGEND422 E. COOPERAREA TOWARD 422 N.L.400 SF486 SF56 SF942 SFFLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS434 E. COOPERLOWER LEVELGROUND FLOOR8,308 SF5,597 SF2ND FLOOR22,343 SFTOTAL8,438 SFAREA TOWARD 434 N.L.NET LEASABLE (N.L.) LEGEND422 E. COOPERAREA TOWARD 422 N.L.846 SF54 SF281 SF1,181 SF422-434 E. COOPERASPEN, COLOWER LEVEL LOWER LEVEL GROUND FLOORGROUND FLOORSECOND FLOORSECOND FLOORNTS422−434 NL (HPC) APPROVEDNTS422−434 NL (HPC) PROPOSED126
422-434 E. COOPER
ASPEN, CO 127
VIEW AT CORNER OF COOPER & GALENA
APPROVED HPC CURRENT PROPOSAL - MAY 20, 2022
Scale:As indicated
422-434 E. COOPER06/15/22 FAR -APPROVED VS PROPOSED
ASPEN, CO 128
VIEW FROM GALENA
APPROVED HPC CURRENT PROPOSAL - MAY 20, 2022
Scale:As indicated
422-434 E. COOPER06/15/22 FAR -APPROVED VS PROPOSED
ASPEN, CO 129
VIEW FROM COOPER
APPROVED HPC CURRENT PROPOSAL - MAY 20, 2022
Scale:As indicated
422-434 E. COOPER06/15/22 FAR -APPROVED VS PROPOSED
ASPEN, CO 130
Scale:As indicated
422-434 E. COOPER06/15/22 FAR -APPROVED VS PROPOSED
ASPEN, CO
Exterior
Materials
Basis of Design: Bellapart Steel Skylight
131
Scale:As indicated
422-434 E. COOPER06/15/22 FAR -APPROVED VS PROPOSED
ASPEN, CO
Exterior
Materials
Basis of Design: Secco Sistemi Steel Windows
132
Scale:As indicated
422-434 E. COOPER06/15/22 FAR -APPROVED VS PROPOSED
ASPEN, CO
Example Image2
modif.architecture 1200 westlake street suite 200 chicago,il 60607
Exterior
Material
Basis of Design: GlenGery HMOS Face Brick
Color: Trevanion
133
J. Bart Johnson
970.544.4602
johnson@wcrlegal.com
September 13, 2022
Via E-Mail
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
c/o Amy Simon and Sarah Yoon
427 Rio Grande Place
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Proposed Substantial Amendment to Approval for 434 E. Cooper Avenue
Dear Historic Preservation Commission Members:
I am writing on behalf of the family who owns the residence located on the top floor of the Paragon
Building at 419 E. Hyman Avenue in Aspen. The views to the south from this residence extend over the
project located at 434 E. Cooper Avenue. We recently learned of the pending application to modify the
HPC approval for this project, in particular the proposal to add five skylights to the roof of the Restoration
Hardware building.
Up to this point, my clients have been fine with the proposed Restoration Hardware building and
were looking forward to seeing construction completed consistent with the approved design.
But my clients strongly oppose the addition of skylights to the roof of the building. The applicant
concedes that the largest of these skylights does not comply with the applicable 28-foot height limitation.
And as noted by Amy Simon in her staff report, these proposed skylights do not comply with the
Commercial Design Standards and Guidelines applicable to new buildings within the downtown historic
district. Sections 2.3 and 2.4 of the Commercial Design Standards and Guidelines require that new
development reinforce continuity with late 19th century historic commercial structures and respect
adjacent historic structures. The proposed skylights will be wholly inconsistent with the historic
commercial context of downtown Aspen. And given the way in which the second floor is stepped back
from the building façade, the larger and taller of these skylights will extend above the roof line and likely
be visible from the street level plaza/mall areas at the intersection of Cooper Avenue and Galena Street.
There is also the issue of light pollution and glare. The Restoration Hardware building can be
expected to be a vibrant commercial space that is open after nightfall, especially in the winter months
when this area of Aspen is dark by 5 or 6 p.m. The proposed skylights will allow for significant light
spillage out of the roof of the building. The City of Aspen puts an emphasis on avoiding light pollution
by requiring, for example, that exterior lighting be downward facing. At night these proposed skylights
will act as enormous upward facing lights, causing significant light pollution upward and also horizontally
into the public space surrounding the building. This will have a direct impact on my clients’ use and
enjoyment of their property with windows on the fourth floor of an adjacent building. And during the
day, reflection off the glass can be expected to create significant upward glare.
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
September 13, 2022
Page 2
We urge you to follow the recommendations of the staff report and reject the proposal to add
skylights to this building. The building has already been approved and is under construction with a design
that went through a comprehensive and deliberate review process to ensure the building would be
consistent with its historic context. The proposed skylights would undermine a lot of hard work by the
HPC and the City’s staff to make sure the proposed building would be a good fit for Aspen.
Thank you very much for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Bart Johnson
for
WAAS CAMPBELL RIVERA
JOHNSON & VELASQUEZ LLP
cc: Paragon Penthouse, LLC
Chris Bendon
Curt Sanders, Esq.
{A0075221 / 1 }