HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20221012AGENDA
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION
COMMISSION
October 12, 2022
4:30 PM,
I.ROLL CALL
II.MINUTES
II.A Draft Minutes - 9/14/22 - 9/28/22
III.PUBLIC COMMENTS
IV.COMMISSIONER MEMBER COMMENTS
V.DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
VI.PROJECT MONITORING
VI.A Project monitoring list
VII.STAFF COMMENTS
VIII.CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT ISSUED
IX.CALL UP REPORTS
WebEx Meeting Instructions
WEBEX MEETING INSTRUCTIONS
TO JOIN ONLINE:
Go to www.webex.com and click on "Join a Meeting"
Enter Meeting Number: 2554 290 1571
Enter Password: 81611
Click "Join Meeting"
-- OR --
JOIN BY PHONE
Call: 1-408-418-9388
Enter Meeting Number: 2554 290 1571
Enter Password: 81611
minutes.hpc.20220914_DRAFT.docx
minutes.hpc.20220928_DRAFT.docx
PROJECT MONITORING_20220826.doc
1
X.SUBMIT PUBLIC NOTICE FOR AGENDA ITEMS
XI.OLD BUSINESS
XI.A 422-434 E. Cooper Avenue–Substantial Amendment to Major Development, PUBLIC
HEARING CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 14, 2022
XI.B
520 E. Cooper – Minor Development Review, Commercial Design Review, PUBLIC
HEARING CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 28, 2022
XII.NEW BUSINESS
XIII.ADJOURN
XIV.NEXT RESOLUTION NUMBER
Oct 12 Cover Memo_422-434 E Cooper.pdf
Oct 12_Resolution_422-434 E Cooper.pdf
Exhibit 1_Revised application.pdf
Exhibit 2_September 14 HPC packet.pdf
Exhibit 3_September 14 draft minutes.pdf
Oct 12 Cover Memo_520 E Cooper.pdf
Oct 12 Resolution_520 E Cooper.pdf
Exhibit 1_Revised application.pdf
Exhibit 2_September 28 HPC packet.pdf
Exhibit 3_September 28 draft minutes.pdf
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 SEPTEMBER 14, 2022
Ms. Thompson opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission at 4:35pm.
Commissioners in attendance: Kara Thompson, Jeffrey Halferty, Roger Moyer, and Barb Pitchford.
Staff present:
Amy Simon, Planning Director
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
Ms. Thompson motioned to adjust the meeting agenda to start with New Business. Mr. Moyer
seconded. All in favor, motion passes.
NEW BUSINESS:
422 – 434 E. Cooper Ave. –Substantial Amendment to Major Development, PUBLIC HEARING
Applicant Presentation: Chris Bendon – Bendon Adams
Mr. Bendon started by introducing the project and applicant. He also introduced Jimmy Marcus, the
project manager from M Development. He mentioned that the massing of the project is the same, but
some detail changes have triggered this review by HPC. He then briefly went over the past approvals for
this project. He then showed a few historical pictures of the building. Showing a rendering of the project
approved in 2016 next to the proposed rendering he went over some details of the approved design and
proposed changes. One change was to relocate the main entry to the corner, to which Mr. Bendon
showed some other examples of corner entries in the downtown. He then showed approved and
proposed renderings of the secondary entrance on Galena St. and went over the proposed changes.
Next, he showed some examples of skylights currently in the downtown, going over some of their details
and also mentioned the approved, but yet to be developed skylight feature at the new Jazz Aspen
project at 414-422 East Cooper. Then he went over proposed materials and showed a few examples of
different bricks and a picture of a skylight that was the inspiration for the one proposed for this project.
Mr. Bendon mentioned a letter that the HPC members had received (Exhibit L) from the attorney of a
neighbor to the project. Mr. Bendon went over the concerns of glare and glow that the neighbor
expressed. He said that he had spoken to the neighbor’s attorney and that they would work as a good
neighbor and that the neighbor’s views were important to them. He went on to describe some of the
aspects of the design and benefits it will provide the neighborhood. He then introduced Gary Friedman,
CEO of RH, and Jordan Brown who leads the design team for RH to talk about their design goals for the
building. Ms. Brown and Mr. Friedman spoke to the overall design of the building, what the skylights
bring to the project and what they hope to give back to the community. Mr. Friedman started by sharing
RH’s overall design philosophy and their vision for the project. Renderings of the proposed skylights and
open space between the first and second floors were shown while Mr. Friedman described the details of
the skylight design. Ms. Brown reiterated their desire to be good neighbors with respect to being
mindful dark sky ordinances and controlling their environment to be both beautiful and harmonious
within the place they are.
3
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 14, 2022
Mr. Bendon then showed a picture taken from Little Nell ski run looking into town which included a
rendering of the proposed building, noting their understanding of how the building appears from the
mountain. He also showed the same view from the mountain into town but as it would appear at night
with lighting from the proposed building and the surrounding area.
Mr. Moyer asked when construction would resume. Mr. Bendon said as soon as they could, but that
there were some decisions to be made regarding this review that translate into structural elements.
Ms. Pitchford asked about comments at the beginning of the presentation regarding the recessed
secondary entry, that it could be address or fixed. She asked, being a significant issue, if anything more
could be explained about that comment. Mr. Bendon explained that in their revised proposal they have
changed from the approved recessed entryway to a flat fenestration, but if important to the HPC they
could adjust on.
Ms. Thompson asked some clarifying questions about modifying their proposed entry way if they
needed to recess it.
Mr. Halferty commented that the proposed changes to make the entryways flush instead of recessed
would add FAR and Mr. Bendon concurred but said it would be nominal. Mr. Halferty then asked if the
night view rendering was an accurate depiction of the lumens that would come from the skylight. Mr.
Friedman said it was pretty accurate.
Mr. Bendon noted that since the secondary entries were mainly intended for egress the flush mounted
design would differentiate them from a primary entrance.
Ms. Thompson asked if the main entrance on the corner would be covered. Ms. Jordan said the door is
slightly recessed but is not covered by an overhang.
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.
Staff Presentation:Amy Simon, Planning Director
Ms. Simon started by going over the history of the approvals of the project. She said that staff has
thoroughly vetted this application and it is an appropriated filed amendment to a standing major
development approval granted by HPC. The amendment does not change the massing or character, nor
is much of a deviation from what was seen before. She then mentioned that new design guidelines were
adopted in 2017 and those are what will be applied here. Next, she went over the differences between
“standards” and “guidelines” for review criteria. She mentioned that staff finds some of the revisions to
the ground floor to be improvements, namely the increased plate height and narrowing of storefront
openings, creating a more vertical proportion and that staff recommends this amendment. She did say
that there are two mandatory standards relating to the entrances that staff finds are not met. One
standard is that both primary and secondary entries be recessed. There is also concern about the height
of the door on the end of the building closet to the alley. The grade slopes there and staff finds the
proposed height of the door is inconsistent with others in the neighborhood. Moving to the upper floor,
she mentioned that staff has not provided a recommendation of support in regard to the skylights,
sighting two guidelines in particular. One being that with the amount of skylights covering enough of the
roof space, staff feels it is moving away from compliance with the characteristics of the downtown. Staff
4
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 14, 2022
has recommended against approval. There is also a concern that with the upper floor already having a
lot of glazing, combined with the proposed skylights on the roof it will potentially create illumination
that is out of character with the downtown. Overall, staff is in support of the ground floor revisions, but
concerned over the roof plane and recommends HPC either provide a partial approval of aspects they
find in compliance or after discussion continue the hearing to October 12th.
PUBLIC COMMENT: Evan Wyly introduced himself as a neighbor in the Paragon building. He spoke to his
concerns the proposed changes will make regarding the increase in height and potential light pollution.
He also mentioned concern over the glare that could be produced during the day.
Bart Johnson introduced himself as an attorney for Edward Slatkin who lives in the Paragon building. Mr.
Johnson spoke to Mr. Slatkin’s concerns about potential impacts from light pollution at night and glare.
He also mentioned some concern of the potential amount of activity and noise from the upper terrace.
Between the main skylight, that he estimated at over 1,000 square feet, and the 4 other skylights there
is a lot of potential light.
Ms. Johnson closed the public comment and allowed the applicant to respond to staff’s presentation
and public comments.
Mr. Bendon thanked Ms. Simon for her time in working with the applicant team on these iterations. He
then responded to the two standards Ms. Simon brought up regarding the recessed entries and height
of the door on the north end toward the alley. He said the applicant team see those as more detail
oriented and they could be worked on with staff and monitor. He noted that the design team had spent
a lot of time on the skylights thinking about how to make them a beautiful element of the building with
minimal impact to pedestrian view planes. He noted that they are in compliance with the code regarding
the height of the building and that the downtown core does have activity and the building has always
been designed as a commercial space. They do have empathy for the neighbors’ concerns and are
willing to continue to work with neighbors on the glare and glow issues.
Mr. Marcus stated that he doesn’t believe he has even worked with a developer that has been as
painstaking with every detail on a design and taken the amount of time honoring the guidelines. He
spoke to the benefits this building will bring to the community and that the skylight will be a huge
amenity to the town compared to what is usually on most roofs.
Mr. Freidman responded to the concerns of evening noise and light. He said that their restaurants take
last seating at 9:00pm and they don’t have a bar or serve hard alcohol. Regarding the lighting, they only
use dark solar skylights and have low level, extremely dim restaurant lighting.
BOARD DISCUSSION:Ms. Thompson started by agreeing with staff that the entrances should be
recessed to come into compliance with the commercial design requirements. She also did not think it
appropriate to have five skylights but would be ok allowing one skylight and would want to continue the
meeting to hear more from the applicant about the details of the skylight and glass. She then appointed
Mr. Halfety the chair for the rest of the meeting and said she would rejoin the meeting shortly.
Mr. Halferty also agreed with staff regarding the recessed entries. He felt that the skylights work for the
space and that they comply with the guidelines. He agreed with the applicants trying to energize more
roofs as opposed to just having mechanicals. He thought that the glazing and shading of the skylights in
respect to the neighbors could be done with staff and monitor.
5
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 14, 2022
Ms. Pitchford agreed with staff that the secondary entries need to meet the standards and she could not
support the skylights as they don’t, in her mind meet the guidelines.
Mr. Moyer agreed with staff on the entries and said he was completely opposed to the skylights as
designed. If there is to be a skylight it should be flat and not visible from the street. He was also
concerned about rooftop implements related to the restaurant.
Mr. Bendon said that this may be an item that the applicant would like to continue. He said there are
some aspects that can be taken care of with staff and monitor, but the number, scale and scope of the
skylights could be something they could look at and potentially come back with a slightly amended
proposal. Ms. Simon conferred that the next meeting they could bring this back would be October 12th.
MOTION: Mr. Moyer motioned to continue the hearing to October 12th, 2022. Ms. Pitchford seconded.
Roll call vote: Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 4-0; All in favor,
motion passes.
STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Yoon took the time to inform the Board that she would be leaving the City of
Aspen. She said it has been a great five years and thanked the members for all the help and support they
have provided her.
MINUTES: Mr. Moyer motioned to continue the approval of the minutes from 8/10/22. Ms. Pitchford
seconded. All in favor, motion passes.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: None.
DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: None.
PROJECT MONITORING: None.
CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: None.
CALL UP REPORTS: None.
COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS: Mr. Moyer stated he was appalled by the “holes in the ground”
and unfinished projects around town. He asked if the Commission could write a letter to City Council
demanding that something be done so that this doesn’t go on in the future. He mentioned several
comments he has received from people in town.
Ms. Johnson noted that this issue came up at the City Council meeting the night before. Many
Councilors shared the same concerns and have directed staff to start putting together some options in
that area. She said that the HPC board could decide to author a letter and submit it to Council as a board
or as individuals. Ms. Simon described some State statutes and City code language that perpetuates
approvals for some length of time and that is what we are seeing at work here.
Ms. Pitchford agreed with Mr. Moyer’s thoughts and wanted to know if there was some action HPC
could make to get some movement on this. She was in support of sending a letter to City Council.
6
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 14, 2022
Mr. Halferty said that he would like to be able to urge City Council on this matter but didn’t want to
push their board’s rights.
Ms. Johnson said in crafting a letter, the board needed to be careful about open meetings law and went
on to explain what can and can’t be done regarding discussions between members.
Mr. Moyer said that after hearing comments, maybe a letter would not be advisable at the moment and
that members should speak to City Council members and staff one on one.
Ms. Pitchford agreed with Mr. Moyer about talking one on one with City Council members and staff and
if after that and some time they don’t feel like things are moving, to discuss at a regular meeting and
potentially write a letter.
ADJOURN: Ms. Pitchford motioned to adjourn the regular meeting. Mr. Moyer seconded. All in favor;
motion passes.
____________________
Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk
7
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 28TH, 2022
Vice Chair Halferty opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission at
4:35pm.
Commissioners in attendance: Jeffrey Halferty, Roger Moyer, Jodi Surfas, Peter Fornell and Barb
Pitchford.
Staff present:
Amy Simon, Planning Director (virtual)
Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner
Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney
Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk
Risa Rushmore, Administrative Assistant
MINUTES: Mr. Fornell motioned to approve the minutes from 8/10/22 and 8/24/22. Mr. Moyer
seconded. All in favor, motion passes.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: None.
COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS: Mr. Moyer made some comments related to dark sky issues. He
talked about the amount of birds that are killed at night flying into a lit window. He wanted to make
sure these aspects are taking into account when making decisions.
Mr. Halferty thanked Ms. Yoon for all her hard work and wished her luck in her new job in California.
DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: Mr. Fornell mentioned that he was an owner at the Aspenhof
for about 10 years and sold the property about 4 years ago. He was responsible for placing some of the
tenants that are still there. He asked Ms. Johnson if that would be a conflict of interest. Ms. Johnson said
that as long as he did not have any direct financial interest with the applicant, nothing that he
mentioned would conflict him from hearing this particular application.
PROJECT MONITORING: None.
STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon mentioned that there had been some transition in staffing which may
lead to a difficult to manage 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 both agenda items.
NEW BUSINESS:
413 E. Main St – Minor Development Review, Commercial Design Review, PUBLIC HEARING
Ms. Yoon introduced this agenda item as 413 E. Main St. – Jing Restaurant.
8
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 28TH, 2022
Applicant Presentation:Gavin Merlino – Kuullastudio
Mr. Merlino stated that the goal of the application is to replace the front four panel slider which is
pretty dilapidated and doesn’t open very well. It also has a step up to get up and over it. The plan is to
replace it with a more modern four panel slider and bring the threshold down to the actual floor. They
would also like to replace the window on the right side of the building. He showed pictures at different
angles of the exterior of the building. These will match the black trim that is already in place on the
upper part of the building.
Staff Presentation:Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner
Ms. Yoon started by reviewing the applicant request and details of the building. She showed pictures of
the current conditions and described the details of the slider and window replacement. She sighted
guideline 10.6 and stated that staff believes the changes comply. Staff recommends approval of this
application as proposed.
Ms. Surfas asked about the ADA compliance. Ms. Yoon said that would be something reviewed by the
building department, making sure the threshold would comply.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
BOARD DISCUSSION: Mr. Halferty went over the considerations for HPC to discuss. There was no
discussion. Mr. Halferty asked if there was a motion.
MOTION: Ms. Pitchford moved to approve the next resolution in the series. Mr. Moyer seconded.
Roll call vote:Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes. 5-0:
All in favor, motion passes.
520 E. Cooper St – Minor Development Review, Commercial Design Review, PUBLIC HEARING
Ms. Pitchford brought up that her son is a partner with the owner but not in this property. Ms. Johnson
asked if Ms. Pitchford had any direct financial interest in the outcome of the application or this property.
Ms. Pitchford said no. Ms. Johnson also asked if Ms. Pitchford felt she could be impartial, to which Ms.
Pitchford said yes. Ms. Johnson said what was disclosed did not represent a conflict of interest according
to the code.
Ms. Simon apologized for the late packet and accidental omission of the application. She said she had
spoken to Sara Adams and again apologized to her and Mr. Guth.
Applicant Presentation: Sara Adams – Bendon Adams
Ms. Adams mentioned that Brian Beazley (DJ Architects) was on his way with material samples. She then
introduced the application and project and mentioned that she is representing the Aspenhof HOA and
HOA president, Bill Guth. She then described the property as being in the Commercial Core historic
district but is not a contributing structure. She said all HOA member tenants are on board with the
application and proposed changes to the façade.
Ms. Adams went on to describe some of the background of the building, noting that it was built in 1970
and designed by Ted Mularz. She believed this building was not one of his best works and that it is not
on the listed on the AspenModern map. The proposal is to remodel the existing façade, modernizing it a
9
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 28TH, 2022
bit. She then went over the prosed changes by showing the existing and proposed line drawings and
renderings. They are proposing to replace the failing triangle windows with flat ones, to remove the
vertical flue and replace some existing materials. There is also a reconfiguration of the Pitkin County Dry
Goods storefront, including new awnings.
Mr. Beazley arrived.
She went over the existing and proposed floor plans and mentioned that the removal of the flue lets
them expand the planter to include a new bench. She also mentioned the change of two windows to
doors on the second floor. She continued to go over proposed changes to the façade including a warm
lime wash of the brick, replacement of the existing stucco with a composite wood, and replacement of
the existing metal railings with clear glass. She described the awning drainage details. She then went
over the design guidelines referenced in the staff memo in detail and how the applicant team
interpreted them in relation to this project. Details of the proposed materials were described, and
samples were shown to board members. She also showed examples of other brick in the downtown
core. The applicant team feels strongly that the building will still be recognizable as the same form and
that the changes relate to what’s already there. Ms. Adams said that they are ok with the resolution that
was included in the packet but would request amendments to the conditions of approval and staff and
monitor approval of the lime wash.
Mr. Fornell asked if the proposed new brick above the Pitkin County Dry Goods space and the proposed
lime washing of existing brick would cause a matching situation. Ms. Adams said they did not have any
concerns about this. Mr. Fornell then asked if any changes were to be made to the north elevation, if
that would come back to HPC, to which Ms. Adams said yes.
Ms. Surfas asked for more details about the glass proposed for the railings. Mr. Beasley said the sample
that was shown was the exact material that would be used. Ms. Surfas then asked if the railing cap
material would be real wood, to which Mr. Beasley said yes. Ms. Surfas asked if the glass proposed to
replace the existing triangle windows the same as proposed for the railing. Mr. Beasley said no and that
it would be a storefront commercial grade window glass.
Ms. Pitchford asked if they could explain why they wanted the triangle windows to go away. Mr. Beasley
went on to explain their dilapidated condition and the difficulties in their maintenance. They still want
to have the natural light and windows to be in the same configuration, but that the current design is not
working for the functionality. Ms. Pitchford said that the original triangle design seems to be a signature
part of the building and asked if there was any consideration to keeping the original design. Mr. Beasley
said they had looked into keeping it just on the face, but it just wasn’t working. Ms. Pitchford then asked
(not directed to the applicant) if this building would in the future choose to be landmarked as
AspenModern if the removal of the triangle windows would affect that. Mr. Halferty said they could
address that in staff’s presentation. Ms. Pitchford asked if the limewash in any way would damage and
or keep the brick healthy. Mr. Beasley explained it’s application, that it does not damage the brick and
that it can be completely taken off if needed.
Mr. Moyer asked if the composite wood materials proposed would be exposed to the weather, to which
Mr. Beasley said yes. Mr. Moyer asked if the material had been used enough to know that it won’t self-
destruct. Mr. Beasley described the material and mentioned it had a 50-year warranty. Mr. Moyer asked
if the composite wood materials would be installed over the existing stucco, to which Mr. Beasley said
that was yet to be determined. Mr. Moyer asked a few questions about the durability of the wood
10
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 28TH, 2022
railing cap material. He then asked about the slope of the awnings. Mr. Beasley went over the details of
the awning slopes. Mr. Moyer asked about the current condition of the existing brick. Mr. Beasley said
there may be some type of sealant that might need to be removed before applying the lime wash. Mr.
Moyer asked a few questions about the application and make-up of the lime wash. Ms. Adams said it is
hard because they can’t do any testing on its application until they get approval of the concept of using
lime wash.
Ms. Surfas asked if the applicant is planning on adding the horizontal relief elements on the brick as seen
in the renderings. Mr. Beasley said they were planning on these to pay homage to the many historic
horizontal elements in the façade.
Mr. Halferty asked about the fire rating of the windows proposed for the stair tower because it is an
egress. Mr. Beasley said they would be able to use fire rated glass. Next Mr. Halferty asked the
reasoning for the two different heights of the vertical window elements. Mr. Beasley said again it was
intended to tie into the other horizontal elements in the building. Mr. Halferty asked if the proposed
routering of the brick will cause any further deterioration of the brick. Mr. Beasley said it was an
experiment and if it doesn’t work, they would replace the brick. There was some discussion about the
vertical tower flue regarding its original intent and architecture. Mr. Beasley said he believed it was only
designed there originally out of function and necessity.
Staff Presentation:Amy Simon – Planning Director
Ms. Simon started by going over the difference in required standards versus guidelines when it comes to
Commercial Design Reviews. She then showed a slide of and reviewed the proposed materials. She
mentioned that staff had reached out to the HOA about the potential for AspenModern designation and
encouraged it. While this review does not apply a preservation lens, there are compatibility topics that
should be met in the downtown historic district. She pointed to a guideline that speaks to, when in a
renovation, respecting the underlining character of the building. Ms. Simon said historic or not, this
building has certain architectural statements. She stated that staff does not support the proposed use of
lime wash for several reasons. The preservation staff has been resisting for many years, any kind of
coating applied to masonry for several reason including the possibility of causing deterioration and in
their opinion, the “dumbing” down of the masonry where the distinction between the masonry and the
grout lines gets erased. She noted that the downtown core is predominantly red toned masonry, and
that new or remodeled architecture is to respect that. Staff does not support moving away from that.
She then spoke to the use of the composite wood material and noted that HPC has allowed it to be used
in a residential project on a new construction element, but the guidelines talk about relating to the
materials of the surrounding district and any new materials need to be carefully considered. She noted
that this material is not, to her knowledge, been used in the downtown historic district and asked HPC to
consider this when it comes to the characteristic of the downtown. Ms. Simon said that the proposed
use of clear glass for the railings as opposed to a tinted glass resolves staff’s concerns there. She then
presented a few slides going over mandatory standards and guidelines for materials and described
staff’s related thoughts and concerns. She stated that staff is recommending continuation of this. Staff
does not believe these elements, particularly the lime wash to be something to be pushed to staff and
monitor to resolve.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
11
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 28TH, 2022
Ms. Adams pointed out that one of the guidelines (2.14) Ms. Simon mentioned only requires for two of
the qualities to be met.
BOARD DISCUSSION: Mr. Halferty went over the relevant guidelines for discussion.
Mr. Fornell stated he believed that the mandatory standards are being met and was satisfied with the
lime washing of the brick. He thought that if we like different heights of buildings in downtown why do
we not like different colors of buildings. He appreciates the difference and was willing to approve this as
presented. He thought that if the owners, in changing the color to their satisfaction, actually shorten the
life of the bricks, it is a financial matter for them only.
Ms. Surfas didn’t have any issue with the use of the Trespa (composite wood material), due to its
sustainability. She wasn’t crazy about the horizontal lines on the brick. She thought it was an interesting
update to the building.
Ms. Pitchford didn’t have any issue with the use of Trespa but did have an issue with the brick towers.
She thought the proposed changes really change the feel of the building and referenced guideline 1.35,
which says the design should relate to the existing design and form. She was ok with the lime wash and
materials, but the flattening out of the triangle windows goes against the guideline.
Mr. Moyer was not opposed to the lime wash, providing its real lime wash. He commented on the
addition of composite materials in the downtown. He wasn’t sure if it was good or bad for the
community. He was ok with the removal of the flue tower and thought the building was better off
without the triangle windows.
Mr. Halferty acknowledged that this is a challenge. He supported keeping the flue as it is a vertical
feature that was a design feature. He discussed his thoughts on the required standards versus the
guidelines. He was not sold on the lime washing because of concerns of the ability to take it off without
damaging the brick and that it does not appear in the downtown. He thought the majority of the
application complies with the guidelines, but the challenge for him was the lime wash and the vertical
flue. He thought that the amount of glass railings proposed will alter the appearance. He agreed with
staff that the lime wash would make the brick look more monochromatic and that the entire board
should be voting on the lime wash and not just a monitor. He could support the majority of this project
but thought that the triangle windows were an architectural feature that were intended by the architect
and not a mistake. He would recommend that these stay the same in scale and appearance. He thought
the routering of the brick was an interesting concept, but he had serious concerns.
Mr. Fornell mentioned that there is at least one other building on the block that has glass railings and
not all buildings in the downtown are red brick. He reminded everyone that this is not a historic asset.
Ms. Adams stated the two most important things to make this project happen are the removal of the
flue tower and the lime wash of the brick. They can do the triangle windows and use real wood as
opposed to composite, but the removal of the flue and the lime wash are non-negotiable. She said the
HOA does not want to replace the brick and the City talks about working with what you have and the
best way to do this is to lime wash the brick. She acknowledged that it does aesthetically change what it
looks like, but that this is not a landmark and not one of Ted’s best buildings.
Ms. Simon repeated that the boards main concern here is the historic district.
Mr. Moyer asked if the board could take a straw poll of where the members stood on the various issues.
12
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 28TH, 2022
As for the flue tower Mr. Fornell, Mr. Moyer, Ms. Pitchford, and Ms. Surfas were ok with the removal of
the tower. Mr. Halferty was in favor of keeping it.
All members were ok with the use of composite wood materials.
Ms. Pitchford, Mr. Fornell and Ms. Surfas were in support of keeping the triangle windows. Other
members did not comment.
Mr. Fornell and Mr. Moyer were ok with the glass railings. Other members did not comment.
Mr. Moyer and Mr. Halferty were against the routering of the brick. Mr. Fornell agreed. No other
members commented.
Mr. Fornell, Mr. Moyer, and Ms. Surfas were ok with the lime wash as long as it did not deteriorate the
brick. Ms. Pitchford would prefer to keep the original brick, but it was more important to keep the
triangle windows. Mr. Halferty was concerned with what the lime washing of this building would do to
the district. Mr. Fornell said he thinksthis represents a change of character and considers it a positive.
MOTION: Mr. Fornell motioned to approve the next resolution in the series with added conditions.
Condition #1: That the triangle windows remain or are replaced in kind with the exception of the skylight
feature at the top. Condition #2: The removal of the horizontal routering of the brick. Mr. Moyer
seconded.
Ms. Adams asked for a short break to discuss with her client. The board said OK.
Ms. Adams returned and requested a continuation to October 12th.
There was discussion about how to handle the first motion.
Ms. Adams asked if the HPC approves this resolution with conditions, can the applicant request that
they rescind it at the next meeting. Ms. Johnson said that was correct.
Ms. Yoon asked Ms. Simon the question about the applicant asking the board to rescind the approval.
Ms. Simon responded that she believed a board member who approved the resolution would have to
motion for reconsideration and that it is not at the applicant’s discretion.
Ms. Johnson stated that the way the code is designed is that if a board member has regret or feels that a
wrong decision was made, they can call that issue back up, but not at the request of the applicant.
Mr. Beasley commented on a discussion he had with Mr. Bill Guth over the phone about the details of
the replacement of the triangle windows.
Mr. Fornell moved to rescind his original motion. Mr. Moyer seconded. All in favor, motion passes.
Mr. Moyer moved to continue this item to the October 12th meeting. Ms. Pitchford seconded.
Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; 5-0,
motion passes.
ADJOURN: Mr. Moyer motioned to adjourn the regular meeting. Mr. Halferty seconded. All in favor;
motion passes.
____________________
Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk
13
HPC PROJECT MONITORS -projects in bold are permitted or under construction
C:\Users\EASYPD~1\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF
8\@BCL@5C089E8B\@BCL@5C089E8B.doc
10/7/2022
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
14
HPC PROJECT MONITORS -projects in bold are permitted or under construction
C:\Users\EASYPD~1\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF
8\@BCL@5C089E8B\@BCL@5C089E8B.doc
10/7/2022
Peter Fornell 304 E. Hopkins
930 King
135 W. Francis
233 W. Bleeker
Barb Pitchford 121 W. Bleeker
312 W. Hyman
15
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: October 12, 2022
RE: 422-434 E. Cooper Avenue–Substantial Amendment to Major Development,
PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 14, 2022
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: On September 14th HPC held a public hearing on
proposed amendments to the 2015 HPC approval granted for a
new building on the subject property. HPC discussed and
continued the review for restudy of the ground floor entries and
the rooftop skylights. A revised application responsive to the
board is attached as Exhibit 1 to this cover memo. The full
packet from the September 14th meeting is attached as Exhibit
2, and minutes from September 14th are Exhibit 3.
The key standards and guidelines are listed on the next page.
Staff finds that the applicant has fully resolved previous
concerns with the doors, such that each façade now features
an appropriately scaled recessed entry.
Regarding the skylights, three of the five proposed at the last
meeting have been eliminated. On the remaining examples,
the applicant is offering the use of “dynamic glass,” which can
be darkened, and a glare coating, which are recommended as
conditions of approval. The applicant has indicated that the
largest skylight is their highest priority. Previously, the majority
of the board was in favor of only one, or no skylights. Staff finds
that the proposed treatment of the glass helps to mitigate
concerns discussed on September 14th and can support the
single skylight over the dining room. The octagonal form
remains an anomaly in the district, but the visibility and impact
of the feature is reduced.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval with
conditions listed in the attached resolution.
EXHIBITS:
Resolution #____, Series of 2022
Exhibit 1- Revised application
Exhibit 2- September 14th HPC packet
Exhibit 3- September 14th draft minutes
16
Page 2 of 3
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
The following standards and guidelines are key to this review:
Entrances
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.
Roof Plane
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.
• 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.
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.
MANDATORY STANDARD
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.
MANDATORY STANDARD
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.
17
Page 3 of 3
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
• 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.
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.
18
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
19
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 and continued the review to
October 12, 2022 with direction for restudy. At that time the Commission considered the
application, the staff memo and public comments, and granted approval of the application, with
conditions, by a vote of __ to __.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
Section 1: Approvals
The Substantial Amendment is approved as proposed with the following conditions.
A. The largest skylight proposed over the dining room is the only approved skylight. It must be
“dynamic glass,” which can be darkened, and must have a glare coating, as represented in the
October 12, 2022 application.
B. 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.
C. This amendment qualifies for, and is subject to the separate issuance of an administrative
approval for development within a view plane.
D. Design and placement of all exterior mechanical equipment requires review and approval by
staff and monitor prior to submittal of building permit.
E. In the building permit, the applicant must include air curtains or airlocks at all exterior entries
as required by design standards.
F. 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
20
HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2022
Page 3 of 5
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.
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.
21
HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2022
Page 4 of 5
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.
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.
22
HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2022
Page 5 of 5
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 12th day of October,
2022.
Approved as to Form: Approved as to Content:
___________________________________ __________________
Katharine Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Kara Thompson, Chair
ATTEST:
_________________________
Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk
23
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
September 28, 2022
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
c/o Ms. Amy Simon
Planning Director
City of Aspen
RE: 434 East Cooper Avenue Substantial Amendment Application
Design Resubmission
Dear Commission and Ms. Simon:
Thank you for the feedback and guidance provided during the September 14 HPC meeting. The design team
has adjusted the project based on your feedback and respectfully submits the attached revised design. The
new drawing packet is dated September 28, 2022.
The amendments do not alter the massing, materials, forms, character, or relationship to the adjacent
landmark Red Onion. The approved project was found by the HPC to respond appropriately to the adjacent
landmark and in compliance with the Guidelines. Guideline 1.13 asks new development to respond to an
adjacent landmark structure. Guideline 2.4 asks development to respect adjacent iconic structures. We
believe both of these Guidelines are met. The project has previously demonstrated compliance with the
notion of responding and respecting, and received unanimous approval from the HPC.
The images below compare the approved and proposed
project in relation to the adjacent Red Onion and
conformance with Guidelines 1.13 and 2.4
24
434 E Cooper
Design Resubmission
9-28-22
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
Page 2
The revised design provides recessed entries along both Galena and Cooper Streets along with a lowered
entryway. This change responds to HPC input and provides compliance with Guidelines 1.16, 2.9, and 2.10.
The entryways are proportioned consistent with those seen historically and represent a scale which is
compatible with the downtown commercial pedestrian streetscape. Slight adjustments to the commercial
net leasable area will occur, which will be refined during permit review.
The images below show entryways recessed and scaled
appropriately for the downtown pedestrian environment in
conformance with Guidelines 1.16, 2.9, and 2.10.
Guideline 2.3 asks development to relate to and reinforce traditional commercial buildings and reinforce
and existing architectural language. The Guideline suggests a new building to relate to the existing context
through matching two of the following: form, materials, and fenestration. The approved project was found
by HPC to have met this Guideline. The proposed building relates in all three methods. The traditional
strong first floor massing on the property line with commercial store fronts reflects the way downtown
Aspen was developed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The proposed brick building reflects the
traditional brick buildings in downtown with craftmanship typical of the era. The traditional storefront
windows, display windows, and upper-floor punched openings reflect the traditional fenestration pattern
of downtown. We believe the design complies with Guideline 2.3.
The images below compare the approved building with the proposed
building and the continued conformance with Guideline 2.3.
25
434 E Cooper
Design Resubmission
9-28-22
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
Page 3
The skylight proposal has also been amended to contain two skylights in response to HPC comments
regarding the overall scope of the skylight elements.
The image to the right shows the
revised roofscape
The skylight proposal is less obtrusive than skylights on
other commercial buildings in the immediate area.
Skylights exist on many downtown buildings, including a
large skylight recently approved for the JAS space within
the Red Onion buildng next door.
The two images below show existing skylights in the
downtown (left) and a recently approved skylight on the
JAS / Red Onion building (right).
Guidelines 2.3 and 2.4 were previously cited as conflicting with the previous skylight design. Guideline 2.3
asks new development to relate the traditional development by being consistent with two of three design
aspects – form, materials, and fenestration. This guideline is addressed above and the proposed building is
consistent with traditional forms, with
traditional materials, and with traditional
fenestration. The skylights represent
approximately 15% of the roof area and
utilize the shallowest pitch possible (12:2) to
avoid visibility from pedestrian
vantagepoints. We believe Guideline 2.3 is
met.
The image to the right shows the revised
design from a pedestrian vantagepoint and
compliance with Guideline 2.3
26
434 E Cooper
Design Resubmission
9-28-22
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
Page 4
Guideline 2.4 is also addressed above and the approved building along with the minor changes continue to
respect adjacent iconic buildings.
Light trespass was discussed during the prior HPC meeting. A dynamic glass or “smart glass” system is
specified that allows skylight glass to go from transparent to opaque. The technology uses an electric
current which can be programmed to implement various opacities during the day or night. The system can
also be manually manipulated with an approximate 60 second response time. This will allow a standard
program for an opaque setting during nighttime hours while allowing on-site staff to adjust daytime opacity
for varying light conditions.
The image to the right demonstrates the
transparency range of dynamic glass
Still images and video of the glass technology will
be provided during the October 12th hearing. A
sample of the system may be available for a
demonstration.
Light glare was also mentioned during the
previous HPC meeting. The glass can be treated
with a coating to minimize glare. This is common
industry practice and can easily be accomplished.
A large skylight adjacent to the Red Onion building in association with the JAS space was recently approved
by the Historic Preservation Commission. Both staff and the HPC found the skylight in compliance with the
Guidelines, including Guideline 2.3 and Guideline 2.4. Specifically, the large skylight adjacent to the historic
landmark Red Onion was found to relate to the existing architectural context through form, materials, and
fenestration. There is no mention of light trespass or glare in the staff analysis for this comparable skylight
and no conditions of approval related to nighttime use. To our knowledge, no stipulations on other
downtown skylights have been applied.
The design team is committed to complying with the City’s adopted skylight requirements which have been
adopted into the Land Use Code along with utilizing the dynamic glass and glare coating to the extent
required by the HPC.
Thank you for working with the development team over the past few months. We look forward to
presenting these revisions to HPC and to keeping the construction on track.
Kind Regards,
Chris Bendon, AICP
BendonAdams
Exhibits:
K – Plans, Elevations, and Renderings – Updated 9-28-22.
27
THE GALLERY ON
GALENA
MOUNTAIN HOUSE
Exhibit K
Sept. 28, 2022
28
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
VI EWPLAN
F
ELEV
ELEV
ELEV
SKYLIGHT
SKYLIGHT
FIREWALL PER CODE
37'-2"21'-5"16'-8"10'-4"10'-4"110'-8"100'-0"27'-7"72'-5"27.97 27' - 11 1/2"
29.00 29' - 0"
WHEELER VIEW PLAN
2" / 1'-0"
MINIMUM RECOMMENDED
SLOPE AND CURB FOR
WEATHER/DRAINAGEROOF
29
/(9(/
/(9(/
72&251,&(
72&251,&(
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
352326('6287+(/(9$7,21SEPT 28, 2022
352326('($67(/(9$7,21SEPT282022
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. PARAPET (EXT'G)
+14'-11"
T.O. STOREFRONT
+11'-10"
T.O. STOREFRONT
+11'-10"
212
212
8" MINIMUM CURB
HEIGHT PER MFG.
8" MINIMUM CURB
HEIGHT PER MFG.
MIN SLOPE
PER MFG.
MIN SLOPE
PER MFG.
30
15'-11"
$33529('6287+(/(9$7,21
20'-0"20'-0"
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. PARAPET (EXT'G)
+14'-11"
/(9(/
/(9(/
72&251,&(
DESIGN UPDATE SUMMARY
72&251,&(
0
/(9(/
/(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.
1
2
1 SKYLIGHT REMOVED
2 DOOR RECESSED
SEPT 28, 2022
31
15'-11"
20'-0"
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. STOREFRONT
+11'-10"
DESIGN UPDATE SUMMARY
/(9(/
/(9(/
72&251,&(
72&251,&(
0
/(9(/
/(9(/
3
2
T.O. PARAPET
+17'-0"
T.O. STOREFRONT
11'-0"
T
1 SKYLIGHT REMOVED
2 DOOR RECESSED
1
2
3
3 DOOR HEIGHT LOWERED
SEPT 28, 2022
32
Scale:3/32" = 1'-0"
422-434 E. COOPER06/27/22
HPC-5
Unnamed
ASPEN, CO
SOUTH GRADE
0' - 0"
SECOND FLOOR
16' - 2"
LOWER PARAPET
20' - 0"ADJACENT BUILDINGELEVATOR OVERRUN BEYOND
TRANSFORMER
PAINTED UNIT MASONRY, TYP.10' - 0"8' - 0"8' - 0"
OVERHEAD
SECTIONAL DOOR, TYP.
UPPER PARAPET
25' - 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 BUILDING$33529('NORTH(/(9$7,21
352326('NORTH (/(9$7,21SEPT 28, 2022
APPROVED NORTH ELEVATION - 2016
T.O. SKYLIGHT
27'-11 1/2"
122
33
PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED SKYLIGHT DESIGN - 9/14/22 34
PROPOSED SKYLIGHT DESIGN - 9/28/22 35
PROPOSED SKYLIGHT DESIGN - 9/28/22 36
37
38
39
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED HPC CURRENT PROPOSAL - SEPT. 28, 2022
VIEW AT CORNER OF COOPER & GALENA
40
CURRENT PROPOSAL - SEPT. 28, 2022 PREVIOUSLY APPROVED HPC - 2018 CURRENT PROPOSAL - SEPT. 28, 2022
VIEW FROM GALENA
41
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED HPC CURRENT PROPOSAL - SEPT. 28, 2022
VIEW FROM COOPER
42
CURRENT PROPOSAL - SEPT. 28, 2022 EAST ENTRY - GALENA SOUTH ENTRY - COOPER
RECESSED DOORS
43
44
45
46
PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED SKYLIGHT DESIGN - 9/14/22 47
PROPOSED SKYLIGHT DESIGN - 9/28/22 48
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
49
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.
50
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
51
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
52
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.
53
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.
54
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.
55
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
56
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
57
Page 2 of 2
to the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines.” Staff evaluation of compliance with the
Commercial guidelines is provided at Exhibit B.
58
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.
59
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.
60
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.
61
62
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.
63
• 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.
64
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.
65
• 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.
66
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.
67
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.
68
• 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.
69
• 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.
70
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
71
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.
72
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 14, 2022
Ms. Thompson opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission at 4:35pm.
Commissioners in attendance: Kara Thompson, Jeffrey Halferty, Roger Moyer, and Barb Pitchford.
Staff present:
Amy Simon, Planning Director
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
Ms. Thompson motioned to adjust the meeting agenda to start with New Business. Mr. Moyer
seconded. All in favor, motion passes.
NEW BUSINESS:
422 – 434 E. Cooper Ave. –Substantial Amendment to Major Development, PUBLIC HEARING
Applicant Presentation: Chris Bendon – Bendon Adams
Mr. Bendon started by introducing the project and applicant. He also introduced Jimmy Marcus, the
project manager from M Development. He mentioned that the massing of the project is the same, but
some detail changes have triggered this review by HPC. He then briefly went over the past approvals for
this project. He then showed a few historical pictures of the building. Showing a rendering of the project
approved in 2016 next to the proposed rendering he went over some details of the approved design and
proposed changes. One change was to relocate the main entry to the corner, to which Mr. Bendon
showed some other examples of corner entries in the downtown. He then showed approved and
proposed renderings of the secondary entrance on Galena St. and went over the proposed changes.
Next, he showed some examples of skylights currently in the downtown, going over some of their details
and also mentioned the approved, but yet to be developed skylight feature at the new Jazz Aspen
project at 414-422 East Cooper. Then he went over proposed materials and showed a few examples of
different bricks and a picture of a skylight that was the inspiration for the one proposed for this project.
Mr. Bendon mentioned a letter that the HPC members had received (Exhibit L) from the attorney of a
neighbor to the project. Mr. Bendon went over the concerns of glare and glow that the neighbor
expressed. He said that he had spoken to the neighbor’s attorney and that they would work as a good
neighbor and that the neighbor’s views were important to them. He went on to describe some of the
aspects of the design and benefits it will provide the neighborhood. He then introduced Gary Friedman,
CEO of RH, and Jordan Brown who leads the design team for RH to talk about their design goals for the
building. Ms. Brown and Mr. Friedman spoke to the overall design of the building, what the skylights
bring to the project and what they hope to give back to the community. Mr. Friedman started by sharing
RH’s overall design philosophy and their vision for the project. Renderings of the proposed skylights and
open space between the first and second floors were shown while Mr. Friedman described the details of
the skylight design. Ms. Brown reiterated their desire to be good neighbors with respect to being
mindful dark sky ordinances and controlling their environment to be both beautiful and harmonious
within the place they are.
73
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 14, 2022
Mr. Bendon then showed a picture taken from Little Nell ski run looking into town which included a
rendering of the proposed building, noting their understanding of how the building appears from the
mountain. He also showed the same view from the mountain into town but as it would appear at night
with lighting from the proposed building and the surrounding area.
Mr. Moyer asked when construction would resume. Mr. Bendon said as soon as they could, but that
there were some decisions to be made regarding this review that translate into structural elements.
Ms. Pitchford asked about comments at the beginning of the presentation regarding the recessed
secondary entry, that it could be address or fixed. She asked, being a significant issue, if anything more
could be explained about that comment. Mr. Bendon explained that in their revised proposal they have
changed from the approved recessed entryway to a flat fenestration, but if important to the HPC they
could adjust on.
Ms. Thompson asked some clarifying questions about modifying their proposed entry way if they
needed to recess it.
Mr. Halferty commented that the proposed changes to make the entryways flush instead of recessed
would add FAR and Mr. Bendon concurred but said it would be nominal. Mr. Halferty then asked if the
night view rendering was an accurate depiction of the lumens that would come from the skylight. Mr.
Friedman said it was pretty accurate.
Mr. Bendon noted that since the secondary entries were mainly intended for egress the flush mounted
design would differentiate them from a primary entrance.
Ms. Thompson asked if the main entrance on the corner would be covered. Ms. Jordan said the door is
slightly recessed but is not covered by an overhang.
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.
Staff Presentation: Amy Simon, Planning Director
Ms. Simon started by going over the history of the approvals of the project. She said that staff has
thoroughly vetted this application and it is an appropriated filed amendment to a standing major
development approval granted by HPC. The amendment does not change the massing or character, nor
is much of a deviation from what was seen before. She then mentioned that new design guidelines were
adopted in 2017 and those are what will be applied here. Next, she went over the differences between
“standards” and “guidelines” for review criteria. She mentioned that staff finds some of the revisions to
the ground floor to be improvements, namely the increased plate height and narrowing of storefront
openings, creating a more vertical proportion and that staff recommends this amendment. She did say
that there are two mandatory standards relating to the entrances that staff finds are not met. One
standard is that both primary and secondary entries be recessed. There is also concern about the height
of the door on the end of the building closet to the alley. The grade slopes there and staff finds the
proposed height of the door is inconsistent with others in the neighborhood. Moving to the upper floor,
she mentioned that staff has not provided a recommendation of support in regard to the skylights,
sighting two guidelines in particular. One being that with the amount of skylights covering enough of the
roof space, staff feels it is moving away from compliance with the characteristics of the downtown. Staff
74
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 14, 2022
has recommended against approval. There is also a concern that with the upper floor already having a
lot of glazing, combined with the proposed skylights on the roof it will potentially create illumination
that is out of character with the downtown. Overall, staff is in support of the ground floor revisions, but
concerned over the roof plane and recommends HPC either provide a partial approval of aspects they
find in compliance or after discussion continue the hearing to October 12th.
PUBLIC COMMENT: Evan Wyly introduced himself as a neighbor in the Paragon building. He spoke to his
concerns the proposed changes will make regarding the increase in height and potential light pollution.
He also mentioned concern over the glare that could be produced during the day.
Bart Johnson introduced himself as an attorney for Edward Slatkin who lives in the Paragon building. Mr.
Johnson spoke to Mr. Slatkin’s concerns about potential impacts from light pollution at night and glare.
He also mentioned some concern of the potential amount of activity and noise from the upper terrace.
Between the main skylight, that he estimated at over 1,000 square feet, and the 4 other skylights there
is a lot of potential light.
Ms. Johnson closed the public comment and allowed the applicant to respond to staff’s presentation
and public comments.
Mr. Bendon thanked Ms. Simon for her time in working with the applicant team on these iterations. He
then responded to the two standards Ms. Simon brought up regarding the recessed entries and height
of the door on the north end toward the alley. He said the applicant team see those as more detail
oriented and they could be worked on with staff and monitor. He noted that the design team had spent
a lot of time on the skylights thinking about how to make them a beautiful element of the building with
minimal impact to pedestrian view planes. He noted that they are in compliance with the code regarding
the height of the building and that the downtown core does have activity and the building has always
been designed as a commercial space. They do have empathy for the neighbors’ concerns and are
willing to continue to work with neighbors on the glare and glow issues.
Mr. Marcus stated that he doesn’t believe he has even worked with a developer that has been as
painstaking with every detail on a design and taken the amount of time honoring the guidelines. He
spoke to the benefits this building will bring to the community and that the skylight will be a huge
amenity to the town compared to what is usually on most roofs.
Mr. Freidman responded to the concerns of evening noise and light. He said that their restaurants take
last seating at 9:00pm and they don’t have a bar or serve hard alcohol. Regarding the lighting, they only
use dark solar skylights and have low level, extremely dim restaurant lighting.
BOARD DISCUSSION: Ms. Thompson started by agreeing with staff that the entrances should be
recessed to come into compliance with the commercial design requirements. She also did not think it
appropriate to have five skylights but would be ok allowing one skylight and would want to continue the
meeting to hear more from the applicant about the details of the skylight and glass. She then appointed
Mr. Halfety the chair for the rest of the meeting and said she would rejoin the meeting shortly.
Mr. Halferty also agreed with staff regarding the recessed entries. He felt that the skylights work for the
space and that they comply with the guidelines. He agreed with the applicants trying to energize more
roofs as opposed to just having mechanicals. He thought that the glazing and shading of the skylights in
respect to the neighbors could be done with staff and monitor.
75
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 14, 2022
Ms. Pitchford agreed with staff that the secondary entries need to meet the standards and she could not
support the skylights as they don’t, in her mind meet the guidelines.
Mr. Moyer agreed with staff on the entries and said he was completely opposed to the skylights as
designed. If there is to be a skylight it should be flat and not visible from the street. He was also
concerned about rooftop implements related to the restaurant.
Mr. Bendon said that this may be an item that the applicant would like to continue. He said there are
some aspects that can be taken care of with staff and monitor, but the number, scale and scope of the
skylights could be something they could look at and potentially come back with a slightly amended
proposal. Ms. Simon conferred that the next meeting they could bring this back would be October 12th.
MOTION: Mr. Moyer motioned to continue the hearing to October 12th, 2022. Ms. Pitchford seconded.
Roll call vote: Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 4-0; All in favor,
motion passes.
STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Yoon took the time to inform the Board that she would be leaving the City of
Aspen. She said it has been a great five years and thanked the members for all the help and support they
have provided her.
MINUTES: Mr. Moyer motioned to continue the approval of the minutes from 8/10/22. Ms. Pitchford
seconded. All in favor, motion passes.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: None.
DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: None.
PROJECT MONITORING: None.
CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: None.
CALL UP REPORTS: None.
COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS: Mr. Moyer stated he was appalled by the “holes in the ground”
and unfinished projects around town. He asked if the Commission could write a letter to City Council
demanding that something be done so that this doesn’t go on in the future. He mentioned several
comments he has received from people in town.
Ms. Johnson noted that this issue came up at the City Council meeting the night before. Many
Councilors shared the same concerns and have directed staff to start putting together some options in
that area. She said that the HPC board could decide to author a letter and submit it to Council as a board
or as individuals. Ms. Simon described some State statutes and City code language that perpetuates
approvals for some length of time and that is what we are seeing at work here.
Ms. Pitchford agreed with Mr. Moyer’s thoughts and wanted to know if there was some action HPC
could make to get some movement on this. She was in support of sending a letter to City Council.
76
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 14, 2022
Mr. Halferty said that he would like to be able to urge City Council on this matter but didn’t want to
push their board’s rights.
Ms. Johnson said in crafting a letter, the board needed to be careful about open meetings law and went
on to explain what can and can’t be done regarding discussions between members.
Mr. Moyer said that after hearing comments, maybe a letter would not be advisable at the moment and
that members should speak to City Council members and staff one on one.
Ms. Pitchford agreed with Mr. Moyer about talking one on one with City Council members and staff and
if after that and some time they don’t feel like things are moving, to discuss at a regular meeting and
potentially write a letter.
ADJOURN: Ms. Pitchford motioned to adjourn the regular meeting. Mr. Moyer seconded. All in favor;
motion passes.
____________________
Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk
77
427 Rio Grande Place, Aspen, CO 81611 | 970-920-5000 | cityofaspen.com
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Amy Simon, Planning Director
MEETING DATE: October 12, 2022
RE: 520 E. Cooper – Minor Development Review, Commercial Design Review,
PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 28, 2022
APPLICANT/OWNER:
Bill Guth / Aspenhof Condominium
Association
REPRESENTATIVE:
Sara Adams
LOCATION:
Street Address:
520 E. Cooper
Legal Description:
Subdivision: Aspenhof Subdivision
Common Area, City and Townsite
of Aspen, Colorado
Parcel Identification Number:
2737-182-24-800
CURRENT ZONING & USE
CC, Commercial Core, Mixed Use
PROPOSED LAND USE:
No Change
SUMMARY: On September 28th HPC held a public hearing on proposed
alterations to a non-historic building in the Commercial Core Historic
District. Last minute staffing changes lead to a less than seamless
presentation of the materials to the board, however a meaningful
discussion of the project took place, which resulted in general agreement
of support with two conditions; that triangular window columns which are
part of the existing façade are to be recreated as closely as possible with
a new glazing system (which would better meet guideline 1.35), and that
the proposal to route the face of certain areas of the brick to create a
“banding” effect was to be dropped (which meets guideline 2.14). The
applicant asked for a continuation to discuss these conditions with their
HOA.
A revised application agreeing to the September 28th conditions is provided
as Exhibit 1 to this cover memo. The applicant has offered two options
related to the window condition. Staff recommends Option 1, a closer
match to the current design as the board indicated an interest in retaining
character defining architectural elements of the existing building.
The full packet from the September 28th meeting, as it had been intended
to be delivered to HPC before logistical difficulties, is attached as Exhibit
2. Staff has also provided a recommended Resolution of approval, with
HPC’s conditions, and others suggested by the dialogue at the previous
hearing regarding the authorization for a limewash finish on the masonry
and composite wood in the historic district. Mandatory standards 1.22,
1.23 and 1.33 must be met by these materials. Board members indicated
a concern that the limewash should not create a monochromatic
appearance to the building. The durability benefits of the composite wood
was recognized, but it was also indicated that the material was particularly
acceptable in this case because it would be installed sufficiently distant
from the public view to decrease it’s reading as something other than
wood. An on-site mock-up to be accepted by the full board is appropriate.
Draft minutes summarizing the board comments from September 28th are
attached to the packet Exhibit 3.
78
427 Rio Grande Place, Aspen, CO 81611 | 970-920-5000 | cityofaspen.com
2
The following standards and guidelines are key to this 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.
1.35 Design alterations to relate to the existing building style and form that may remain.
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.
MANDATORY STANDARD
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.
MANDATORY STANDARD
Remodel
1.33 All remodel projects shall meet Standards 1.22 and 1.23.
MANDATORY STANDARD
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.
79
427 Rio Grande Place, Aspen, CO 81611 | 970-920-5000 | cityofaspen.com
3
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC approve Minor Development and Commercial Design
Review with conditions listed in the attached Resolution.
EXHIBITS:
Resolution #____, Series of 2022
Exhibit 1- Revised application
Exhibit 2- September 28th HPC packet, as intended to have been provided to HPC
Exhibit 3- September 28th draft minutes
80
HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2022
Page 1 of 3
RESOLUTION #__, SERIES OF 2022
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
GRANTING MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND COMMERCIAL DESIGN
REVIEW FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 520 E. COOPER, ASPENHOF
SUBDIVISION COMMON AREA, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO
PARCEL ID: 2737-182-24-800
WHEREAS, the applicant, Bill Guth/Aspenhof Condominium Association has requested HPC
approval for Minor Development and Commercial Design Review for the property located at 520
E. Cooper, Aspenhof Subdivision Common Area, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that “no building or structure
shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a
designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted
to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures
established for their review;” and
WHEREAS, for Minor Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff
analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project’s conformance
with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.C of the
Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove,
approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to
make a decision to approve or deny; and
WHEREAS, for approval of Commercial Design Review, the application shall meet the
requirements of Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.412, Commercial Design Review; and
WHEREAS, Community Development Department staff reviewed the application for
compliance with applicable review standards and recommends approval; and
WHEREAS, HPC reviewed the project on September 28, 2022 and continued the hearing to
October 12, 2022. HPC considered the application, the staff memo and public comment, and
found the proposal consistent with the review standards and granted approval with conditions by
a vote of _-_.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That HPC hereby approves Minor Development and Commercial Design Review for 520 E. Cooper,
Aspenhof Subdivision Common Area, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO as follows:
Section 1: Minor Development and Commercial Design Review.
HPC hereby approves Minor Development and Commercial Design Review for the exterior remodel
on the street-facing south facade as proposed in the application, with the window columns as shown
in Option 1 of the October 12th application. As a condition of approval, the applicant must create an
on-site mock-up of the limewash to be applied to the masonry and the composite wood, and must
secure approval by the majority of the board members in attendance for the review.
81
HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2022
Page 2 of 3
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.
Section 5: Vested Rights
The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development plan
vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order. However,
any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in
the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise exempted or extended, failure to
properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded, as specified herein, within 180
days of the effective date of the development order shall also result in the forfeiture of said
vested property rights and shall render the development order void within the meaning of Section
26.104.050 (Void permits). Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development
plan shall not result in the creation of a vested property right.
No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to
obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be
published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of
Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan
and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in
the following form:
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan,
and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years, pursuant to the
Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes,
pertaining to the following described property: 520 E. Cooper, Aspen, CO, 81611
Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews and
approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City of
Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this approval.
82
HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2022
Page 3 of 3
The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; the
period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the
date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required under Section
26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the Colorado
Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 12th day of October,
2022.
Approved as to Form: Approved as to Content:
________________________________ ________________________________
Katharine Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Kara Thompson, Chair
ATTEST:
________________________________
Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk
83
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
October 5, 2022
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
c/o Amy Simon, Planning Director
RE: 520 East Cooper Street – Aspenhof Remodel
Dear HPC:
Thank you for your feedback on September 28th. The meeting concluded with direction to 1) remove
the banding in the brick; 2) recreate the triangle windows; and 3) replicate the length of the triangle
windows. The board understood that a metal cap at the top of the triangle windows, as opposed to
the existing skylight, is necessary for waterproofing and insuring the windows. The material palette
was supported by the majority of HPC and is not proposed to change in this revision. The removal of
the vertical flue and the redesigned storefront and entry awnings were supported by the majority of
HPC and are not proposed to change in this revision.
Design Guideline 1.35 was central to the discussion of triangle windows and the proposed horizontal
banding in the brick.
1.35 Design alterations to relate to the existing building style and form that may remain.
The attached drawings propose two options. Option 1 shows the triangle windows and no brick
banding. A metal cap is proposed at the top of the triangle windows. Option 2, the HOA’s preferred
option, shows a modern interpretation of the triangle windows that does not replicate the 1970s
windows. The essence of Ted Mularz’s 1970s design is intact but it is updated in Option 2 with windows
that provide more glazing, light and views.
Figure 1: Option 1 Figure 2: Option 2
84
Page 2 of 3
The building is not historic and is not proposed to voluntarily participate in the AspenModern program.
Its location in the Commercial Core Historic District is the only reason HPC has purview over the
exterior. The existing building does not relate to the surrounding 19th century commercial buildings;
however, the proposed remodel creates a stronger relationship between eras. The redesigned
storefront that currently houses Pitkin County Dry Goods has a more traditional appearance, entries
are defined by permanent awnings, and stucco is replaced by a low maintenance composite wood
material.
Please do not hesitate to contact me for a site visit or for additional information that will aid your
review. We look forward to presenting this remodel project and to demonstrate compliance with
applicable design guidelines and standards.
Sincerely,
Sara Adams, AICP
www.bendonadams.com
Figure 3: Photograph of 520 East Cooper Avenue, courtesy Ted Mularz, www.aspenmod.com
85
Page 3 of 3
Exhibits -
1. Response to Review Criteria
a. Commercial Design and HP provided 9/28/22.
2. Moratorium Exemption approval provided 9/28/22.
3. Pre-Application Summary provided 9/28/22.
4. Land Use Application provided 9/28/22.
5. Authorization to Represent provided 9/28/22.
6. Agreement to Pay provided 9/28/22.
7. HOA Form provided 9/28/22.
8. Proof of Ownership provided 9/28/22.
9. Vicinity Map provided 9/28/22.
10. Mailing list within 300’ provided 9/28/22.
11. Drawings provided 9/28/22.
a. Survey
b. Floor plans, elevations and renderings
c. Cut sheets
d. Neighborhood context photographs
12. Updated elevations based on HPC feedback. Provided 10/5/22
a. Option 1
b. Option 2 – preferred by HOA
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
427 Rio Grande Place, Aspen, CO 81611 | 970-920-5000 | cityofaspen.com
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Amy Simon, Planning Director
MEETING DATE: September 28, 2022
RE: 520 E. Cooper – Minor Development Review, Commercial Design Review,
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICANT/OWNER:
Bill Guth / Aspenhof Condominium
Association
REPRESENTATIVE:
Sara Adams
LOCATION:
Street Address:
520 E. Cooper
Legal Description:
Subdivision: Aspenhof Subdivision
Common Area, City and Townsite of
Aspen, Colorado
Parcel Identification Number:
2737-182-24-800
CURRENT ZONING & USE
CC, Commercial Core, Mixed Use
PROPOSED LAND USE:
No Change
SUMMARY: 520 E. Cooper is a non-contributing building located in
the Commercial Core Historic District. Designed by Ted Mularz, the
structure is a candidate for AspenModern designation, however the
property owner has elected not to pursue designation and instead
proposes a remodel to the street facing façade, window
replacements, replacing exterior siding materials, removing the
vertical flue, replacing balcony railings, and updating the large
vertical triangular windows at the exterior stair corridors.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends continuation
for compliance with the applicable design standards and
guidelines.
520 E. Cooper
101
427 Rio Grande Place, Aspen, CO 81611 | 970-920-5000 | cityofaspen.com
2
REQUEST OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals:
• Minor Development (Section 26.415.070.C) - design review of alterations to a non-
landmarked property.
• Commercial Design Review (Section 26.412.070.C)- design review of development located in the
Commercial Core Historic District.
The Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) is the final review authority on the reviews listed above.
The scope of the project is subject to Call-Up notice to City Council.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Staff has reviewed the project based on the Commercial Design Standards and Guidelines. The review
criteria and staff recommendations in response to this proposal are detailed in Exhibit A.
Staff finds the proposed configurations of the project to be incompatible with several of the Commercial
Design Standards and Guidelines. Staff finds that the proposed limewash treatment of the natural red
brick façade, and the use of composite engineered siding instead of wood are not consistent with the
material palette that defines the historic district. See examples below. In addition, new windows and
railings must be clear, without colored glazing or films, and the new fixed awning over the storefront
that abuts the sidewalk must show how drainage will be managed.
521 E Hyman, Image by City of Aspen. 413 E. Hyman, Image by Remax.
102
427 Rio Grande Place, Aspen, CO 81611 | 970-920-5000 | cityofaspen.com
3
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC continue the Minor Development and Commercial
Design Review to achieve compliance with the design standards and guidelines. A resolution of
approval is provided, should the HPC choose to take that action.
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution #____, Series of 2022
Exhibit A- Minor Development and Commercial Design Review/Staff Findings
Exhibit B- Application
103
HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2022
Page 1 of 3
RESOLUTION #__, SERIES OF 2022
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
GRANTING MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND COMMERCIAL DESIGN
REVIEW FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 520 E. COOPER, ASPENHOF
SUBDIVISION COMMON AREA, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO
PARCEL ID: 2737-182-24-800
WHEREAS, the applicant, Bill Guth/Aspenhof Condominium Association has requested HPC
approval for Minor Development and Commercial Design Review for the property located at 520
E. Cooper, Aspenhof Subdivision Common Area, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that “no building or structure
shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a
designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted
to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures
established for their review;” and
WHEREAS, for Minor Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff
analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project’s conformance
with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.C of the
Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove,
approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to
make a decision to approve or deny; and
WHEREAS, for approval of Commercial Design Review, the application shall meet the
requirements of Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.412, Commercial Design Review; and
WHEREAS, Community Development Department staff reviewed the application for
compliance with applicable review standards and recommends approval; and
WHEREAS, HPC reviewed the project on September 28, 2022. HPC considered the application,
the staff memo and public comment, and found the proposal consistent with the review standards
and granted approval with conditions by a vote of _-_.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That HPC hereby approves Minor Development and Commercial Design Review for 520 E. Cooper,
Aspenhof Subdivision Common Area, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO as follows:
Section 1: Minor Development and Commercial Design Review.
HPC hereby approves Minor Development and Commercial Design Review for the exterior remodel
on the street-facing South facade as proposed in the application, with the condition that the applicant
provide a physical sample of the proposed limewash finish, the engineering wood, and the tinted
glass railings proposed for the project, for review by staff and monitor. Staff and monitor may
choose to refer that material selection to the full board for consideration. A detail of the proposed
drainage for the fixed awning over the storefront that abuts the sidewalk is also required.
104
HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2022
Page 2 of 3
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.
Section 5: Vested Rights
The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development plan
vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order. However,
any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in
the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise exempted or extended, failure to
properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded, as specified herein, within 180
days of the effective date of the development order shall also result in the forfeiture of said
vested property rights and shall render the development order void within the meaning of Section
26.104.050 (Void permits). Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development
plan shall not result in the creation of a vested property right.
No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to
obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be
published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of
Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan
and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in
the following form:
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan,
and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years, pursuant to the
Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes,
pertaining to the following described property: 520 E. Cooper, Aspen, CO, 81611
Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews and
approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City of
Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this approval.
105
HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2022
Page 3 of 3
The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; the
period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the
date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required under Section
26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the Colorado
Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 28th day of September,
2022.
Approved as to Form: Approved as to Content:
________________________________ ________________________________
Katharine Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Jeffrey Halferty, Vice Chair
ATTEST:
________________________________
Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk
106
Page 1 of 5
Exhibit A
Minor Development
Commercial Design Standards and Guidelines
Staff Findings
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.
26.415.070.C Minor Development
1. The review and decision on the issuance of a certificate of appropriateness for minor
development shall begin with a determination by the Community Development Director that the
proposed project constitutes a minor development. Minor development work includes:
a) Expansion or erection of a structure wherein the increase of the floor area of the
structure is two hundred and fifty (250) square feet or less or
b) Alterations to a building façade, windows, doors, roof planes or material, exterior
wall materials, dormer porch, exterior staircase, balcony or ornamental trim when
three (3) or fewer elements are affected and the work does not qualify for a
certificate of no negative effect or
c) Erection or installation of a combination or multiples of awning, canopies,
mechanical equipment, fencing, signs, accessory features and other attachments
to designated properties such that the cumulative impact does not allow for the
issuance of a certificate of no negative effect or
d) Alterations that are made to non-historic portions of a designated historic property
that do not qualify for a certificate of no negative effect or
e) The erection of street furniture, signs, public art and other visible improvements
within designated historic districts of a magnitude or in numbers such that the
cumulative impact does not allow for the issuance of a certificate of no negative
effect. The Community Development Director may determine that an application
for work on a designated historic property involving multiple categories of minor
development may result in the cumulative impact such that it is considered a major
development. In such cases, the applicant shall apply for a major development
review in accordance with Subsection 26.415.07.D.
3. The procedures for the review of minor development projects are as follows:
b) Staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a report that analyzes the
project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use
Code sections. This report will be transmitted to the HPC with relevant information
on the proposed project and a recommendation to approve, disapprove or approve
with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the
application, the report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the
project's conformance with the City Historic Preservation Design Guidelines.
107
Page 2 of 5
c) The HPC shall approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the
application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to
approve or deny. If the application is approved, the HPC shall issue a certificate
of appropriateness and the Community Development Director shall issue a
development order.
Staff Findings: The proposed work, which involves no new addition to the structure, has been
determined to qualify as Minor Development. Because the affected structure is not designated,
the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, adopted in 2016 do not apply. 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.”
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
to the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines.” The applicable guidelines for this remodel are
found in the General and Commercial Core Historic District chapters.
Below, staff has identified information pertinent to the scope of work, highlighting topics found not
to be met. Regarding the proposal to apply a limewash to the existing natural red brick, staff finds
that mandatory Standard 1.22 is not met, in part because a clear description of the finish has not
been provided. Renderings suggest a yellow brick façade, however, a limewash would be
expected to have a result as seen at 406 S. Mill, another non-contributing structure that was
approved for this finish by HPC, against staff’s recommendation, in 2017. Staff also finds this
aspect of the proposal does not comply with mandatory standards 1.23 and 1.33, guideline 1.24
and guideline 2.14. Applying the proposed finish to the masonry literally washes over the reading
of the masonry units and grout lines, and reduces the visual interest of the façade. Masonry was
historically not painted in the historic district, and doing so can cause long-term deterioration to
the brick, and negatively impacts the relationship of the building to the surrounding context in
terms of texture, color, and the human scale that the masonry units provide. While the subject
building is not designated historic, it remains strongly influenced by Modernism. The “old world”
character of the limewash arguably conflicts with guideline 1.35, which suggests that remodel
activities relate to the existing building style and form that may remain.
Close up of limewashed masonry
at 406 S. Mill, Image from Yelp.
Project rendering from
application.
108
Page 3 of 5
Staff has similar concerns that engineered, rather than natural wood siding, has an unnaturally
uniform appearance not consistent with wood that characterizes the historic district which
acquires texture and patina. The engineered wood does not meet Standards 1.23 and 1.33, and
Guidelines 1.24 and 2.14.
Guidelines 1.24 and 2.14 are not met by the tinted glass railings proposed across the façade as
the historic district is consistently characterized by clear glazing.
Regarding a fixed awning proposed for the storefront occupied by Pitkin County Dry Goods, more
information is needed as to how drainage will be managed. Standard 1.22 requires complete
identification of materials and details.
Staff recommends HPC continue the application for restudy.
RELEVANT HISTORIC COMMERCIAL DESIGN STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES- GENERAL
(TOPICS OF CONCERN ARE HIGHLIGHTED):
Site Planning and Streetscape
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.
MANDATORY STANDARD
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.
109
Page 4 of 5
• 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.
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.
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.
MANDATORY STANDARD
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.
MANDATORY STANDARD
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.
110
Page 5 of 5
1.34 Consider updating windows, doors, and/or primary entrances to better relate to
the Character Area and pedestrian experience.
1.35 Design alterations to relate to the existing building style and form that may remain.
1.36 Incorporate elements that define the property line in accordance with Guideline
1.6.
RELEVANT HISTORIC COMMERCIAL DESIGN STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES-
COMMERCIAL CORE HISTORIC DISTRICT (GUIDELINES OF CONCERN ARE
HIGHLIGHTED):
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.
MANDATORY STANDARD
Remodel
1.33 All remodel projects shall meet Standards 1.22 and 1.23.
111
Exhibit B
Referral Comments
Engineering
Zoning
Engineering Comments
Re: HPC Referral Project 520 E. Cooper
Prior to HPC approval the following comments need to be addressed:
1. All elements of the awning in the ROW shall be at least 7' above grade.
2. Permanent encroachment license must be obtained for the awning in the ROW.
3. How will snow be removed from the awning, and how will stormwater drain?
Awning shall be designed so that snow/rain do not dump onto pedestrians on the
sidewalk.
4. Since the only work proposed is building exterior, a major engineering review will
not be required and therefore public improvements (widened sidewalk) are not
required.
Zoning Comments
Re: HPC Referral Project 520 E. Cooper
Prior to HPC approval the following comments need to be addressed:
1. All signs are approved through the sign permit process. Permits are issued on a
per business basis. Sheet No. 4.1, Sec. 26.510 Signs.
2. Show that the awnings meet the dimensional requirements. Sheet No. 3.2, Sec.
26.104.100.
3. The proposed site plan does not show the new awnings or altered landscape bed
with bench. Sheet No. 1.2
No additional comments from the Building Department or Parks Department.
112
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
July 7, 2022
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
c/o Sarah Yoon, Aspen Historic Preservation Planner
RE: 520 East Cooper Street – Aspenhof Remodel
Dear HPC:
Please accept this application for Minor
Historic Preservation review and
Consolidated Commercial Design review for
the property located at 520 East Cooper
Street. The property is within the
Commercial Core Historic District, but is not
considered a designated landmark or a
contributing structure. This application is
submitted on behalf of the Aspenhof
Condominium Association. The project is
exempt from the residential moratorium as
noted in Exhibit 2.
The Aspenhof Building was constructed in
1970 and designed by Ted Mularz. Ted
Mularz is a recognized AspenModern
architect and is associated with
Wrightian/organic style of architecture. He
worked in Fritz Benedict’s office with Robin
Molny, and opened his own architecture
firm in Aspen in 1963. He and his wife were
active community members until they
relocated to Oregon in 1990.
There is no question that Ted Mularz is
important to Aspen’s post War history and
development as a destination ski resort. The
best and most architecturally successful
examples of Ted’s work are the Berko studio
in the west end (aka 211 East Hallam Street,
Figure 1: 520 East Cooper after completion. Photograph is from
www.aspenmod.com.
Figure 2: 400 West Hopkins Avenue. Photograph is from www.aspenmod.com.
113
Page 2 of 2
designated historic landmark) and the residential condominium complex at 400 West Hopkins. These
works exemplify Mularz’s contributions to Aspen’s vernacular Wrightian/organic style.
520 East Cooper falls short of exemplifying the Wrightian/organic style, which is likely why it is not
identified on the AspenModern map as a potentially eligible historic landmark and is only referenced
in Mularz’s biography. Not every work completed by Mularz is significant and deserves to be
designated historic and offered development incentives. Properties that participate in AspenModern
are the best examples of a recognized style, architect, or event, and 520 East Cooper just does not
make the cut.
After careful consideration and consultation with the city’s historic preservation staff, the applicant
requests approval to remodel the street facing façade. In addition to inkind repairs like window
replacements, the applicant proposes to update the exterior appearance of the building by replacing
materials, removing the vertical flue and updating the triangular windows on the circulation corridors.
Existing and proposed drawings, and proposed materials are included in this application. We can
provide material samples if the HPC meeting is in person. Applicable review criteria are addressed in
Exhibit 1. The project does not reduce pedestrian amenity or second tier commercial space.
520 East Cooper Street is located well below the Main Street view plane which crosses the property at
about 100-120 feet and the Courthouse view plane which crosses the property at about 70- 80 feet
according to Aspen GIS.
Please do not hesitate to contact me for a site visit or for additional information that will aid your
review. We look forward to presenting this remodel project and to demonstrate compliance with
applicable design guidelines and standards.
Sincerely,
Sara Adams, AICP
www.bendonadams.com
Exhibits
1. Response to Review Criteria
a. Commercial Design and HP
2. Moratorium Exemption approval
3. Pre-Application Summary
4. Land Use Application
5. Authorization to Represent
6. Agreement to Pay
7. HOA Form
8. Proof of Ownership
9. Vicinity Map
10. Drawings
a. Survey
b. Floor plans, elevations and renderings
c. Cut sheets
d. Neighborhood context photographs
114
Exhibit 1
Review Criteria
Page 1 of 9
1.a Commercial Design and HP Design Reviews
26.415.060.B.2 The City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, as amended, which are on file
with the Community Development Department, will be used in the review of requests of certificates of no
negative effect or certificates of appropriateness. Conformance with the applicable guidelines and the
common development review procedures set forth in Chapter 26.304 will be necessary for the approval of
any proposed work:
Please find an analysis of the Commercial Core Historic District Design Standards and Guidelines.
Commercial Design Standard Review uses the same design guidelines for the Commercial Core
Historic District and the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. As described below, the project
conforms with the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines/ Commercial, Lodging and Historic
District Design Standards and Guidelines.
26.412.040. Commercial Design Procedures for Review.
E. Consolidation of applications and combining of reviews. If a development project includes additional City
land use approvals, the Community Development Director may consolidate or modify the review process
accordingly, pursuant to Subsection 26.304.060.B of this title.
If a proposed development, upon determination of the Community Development Director in consultation
with the applicant, is of limited scope, the Director may authorize the application to be subject to a one-step
process that combines both conceptual and final design reviews…
Response - This application proposes a trellis as a permanent element that has roll down sides 6
months of the year.
26.412.060 Review Criteria.
An application for commercial design review may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based
on conformance with the following criteria:
A. Guidelines and Standards
1. The Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Standards and Guidelines are met as
determined by the appropriate Commission. The Standards and Guidelines include design review
criteria that are to be used to determine whether the application is appropriate.
2. All applicable standards in the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Standards and
Guidelines shall be met unless granted a variation pursuant to Section 26.412.040.D.
3. Not every guideline will apply to each project, and some balancing of the guidelines must occur
on a case-by-case basis. The applicable Commission must:
a. determine that a sufficient number of the relevant guidelines are adequately met in order
to approve a project proposal.
b. weight the applicable guidelines with the practicality of the measure.
115
Exhibit 1
Review Criteria
Page 2 of 9
Commercial Design Standards and Guidelines – General Chapter
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.
Response – Neighborhood context is included as Exhibit 10d of the application.
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.
Response – n/a.
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.
Response – A new bench niche is proposed to activate the streetscape.
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 achieve through a fence, a defined walkway, a front porch element, covered walkway,
or landscape.
Response – Grade level open space is not proposed to be altered as part of this project. The vertical flue is
proposed to be removed and the space incorporated into an existing planter.
116
Exhibit 1
Review Criteria
Page 3 of 9
Figure 1: Existing ground level open space (top) and proposed ground level open space (bottom).
Figure 2: Proposed updated outdoor space with bench.
117
Exhibit 1
Review Criteria
Page 4 of 9
1.5 – 1.13 n/a.
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.
Response – Street facing commercial
entrances are upgraded with new
materials and awnings. Entrances are
already oriented to the street at grade
level and the orientation is not proposed
to change.
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.
Response – n/a. Entrances are not proposed to move.
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.
Response – n/a. Entrance heights are not proposed to change.
1.17 ATMs and vending machines visible from the street are prohibited.
Figure 3: Commercial entrance with updated appearance.
118
Exhibit 1
Review Criteria
Page 5 of 9
Response – ATMS and vending machines are not proposed.
1.18 – 1.21 n/a
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.
Response – Proposed materials are found in Exhibit 10. The brick is proposed to remain and be treated
with a lime wash. Stucco is replaced with horizontal composite siding, guardrails are replaced with tinted
glass, and awnings are replaced with metal.
Figure 4:Proposed materials in rending.
119
Exhibit 1
Review Criteria
Page 6 of 9
1.25 Architecture that reflects corporate branding of the tenant is not permitted.
Response – n/a.
1.26 The design of light fixtures should be appropriate to the form, materials, scale and style of the
building.
Response – No new light fixtures are proposed.
1.27 - 1.32 – n/a. No change to trash/utility areas.
1.33 All remodel projects shall meet Standards 1.22 and 1.23.
Response – please see above.
1.34 Consider updating windows, doors, and/or primary entrances to better relate to the Character Area
and pedestrian experience.
Response – Windows, doors and ground level outdoor areas are updated to relate to the Commercial Core
Historic District.
1.35 Design alterations to relate to the existing building style and form that may remain.
Response – The design alterations to the circulation towers and the removal of the flue relate to the
character of the 1970s building but refresh the appearance to relate to the downtown core.
1.36 Incorporate elements that define the property line in accordance with Guideline 1.6.
Response – A bench niche is proposed to further define the property line.
1.37 Creative solutions that incorporate ADA compliance into the architecture are encouraged.
• Minimize the appearance of ramps by exploring other on-site options such as altering interior floor
levels or exterior grade.
Response – No change to ADA compliance proposed.
120
Exhibit 1
Review Criteria
Page 7 of 9
Commercial Core Historic District
2.1 Maintain the alignment of facades at the property line.
Response – n/a.
2.2 Consider a 45-degree chamfer for corner lots where appropriate.
Response – n/a.
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.
Response – 520 East Cooper Avenue is a flat roof mixed use building. The primary material is brick and
existing stucco is proposed to be replaced with horizontal composite siding that looks like wood.
Fenestration is not proposed to change, but be replaced in kind.
2.4 Respect adjacent iconic historic structures.
Response – 520 is located in a block face that does not contain any historic landmarks. There are 19th
century landmarks across Cooper Avenue – the proposed remodel does not detract from these important
buildings.
2.5 The massing and proportions of a new building or addition should respond to the historic context.
Response – Massing is unchanged with the exception of the removal of a brick flue. Proportions of the
existing building are maintained.
2.6 One story buildings on lots larger than 6,000 sf are discouraged.
Response –n/a.
2.7 Buildings on lots larger than 6,000 sf should incorporate architectural features that break up the mass.
Response –n/a.
121
Exhibit 1
Review Criteria
Page 8 of 9
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.
Response – The
composition of the façade
is largely the same as
existing. The addition of a
brick parapet to replace a
guardrail on the second
floor creates a stronger
one story brick mass that
relates to 19th century
commercial buildings.
The removal of the
vertical brick flue breaks
the façade into more
appropriate modules that
better relate to the
historic district.
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 – No change to existing entries.
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 – No change to existing entries.
2.11 Maintain a floor to ceiling height of 12 to 15 feet for the first floor and 9 feet for the second floor.
Response – n/a.
Figure 5: Existing south elevation (top) and proposed (bottom). Blue arrow at top identifies the brick flue
proposed to be removed. Blu area at bottom draws attention to the proposed brick parapet wall that
create a stronger one story element.
122
Exhibit 1
Review Criteria
Page 9 of 9
2.12 Maintain an architectural distinction between the street level and upper floors.
Response – The existing distinction between floors is maintained.
2.13 Street level commercial storefronts should be predominantly 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 – Street level commercial storefronts are predominantly transparent glass.
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 and traditional application are proposed to update the existing structure.
Architectural details blend into the historic district without distracting from the important 19th century
historic landmarks.
Pedestrian Amenity
A. Applicability and Requirement. The requirements of this Section shall apply to the development of all
commercial lodging and mixed use development within the CC…Zone Districts…This area represents the
City’s primary pedestrian-oriented downtown, as well as important mixed use service and lodging
neighborhoods. Development in these zone districts consisting of entirely residential uses is exempt from
these provisions. Remodel and renovation activities that do not trigger demolition, and which maintain
100% of the existing pedestrian amenity present of the site are exempt from this Section. Changes to
pedestrian amenity space as a result of required accessibility or building code compliance are exempt from
compliance with the 25% requirement if demolition is not triggered.
Response – No change to existing pedestrian amenity is proposed.
Second Tier Commercial Space
A. Applicability.
1. Development or redevelopment. This section applies to all new development and redevelopment
in the CC…districts. Proposals that are 100% lodge projects shall be exempted from this
requirement. Remodel and renovation activities that do not trigger demolition, and which maintain
100% of the existing second tier space present on the site are exempt from this Section. Changes to
second tier space as a result of required accessibility or building code compliance are exempt from
compliance with the section if demolition is not triggered.
Response – The proposed project is exempt from this section because demolition is not triggered and 100%
of the existing second tier space is maintained.
123
427 Rio Grande Place, Aspen, CO 81611
(970) 920.5090
www.aspen.gov
NOTICE OF EXEMPTION AND AUTHORIZATION TO APPLY FOR LAND USE/
BUILDING PERMITS DURING THE EFFECTIVE TERM OF ORDINANCE #27,
SERIES OF 2021 AND ORDINANCE #6, SERIES OF 2022
Property Address:
Parcel ID Number:
Property Owner:
Representative/email:
Scope o f Work (Provide narrative here and a separate pdf which is a succinct and
clear set of supporting documents, to be attached to this form as Exhibit A, such as
Letters of Completeness, Resolutions, Development Orders, Land Use Case
numbers, Building Permit numbers etc. If the representation being made is that the
work does not involve dimensional changes prohibited by the moratorium provide
existing and proposed calculations, f loor Plans and and elevations to be attached:
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
Due to the circumstances noted below, the above referenced project as defined by
the Scope of Work is exempt from the application of Ordinance #27, Series of 2021
and Ordinance #6, Series of 2022, and is authorized to pursue a land use review
and/or building permit review during the effective terms of Ordinance #27, Series of
2021 and Ordinance #6, Series of 2022, ordinances which generally place a
moratorium on residential development. This authorization does not guarantee
issuance of a building permit or approval of any land use application. The applicant
must submit complete information and pursue all authorized approvals in a timely
fashion, adhering to all deadlines for submission, terms of Vested Rights,
response times required to maintain an active building permit, and all other Land Use
Code and Building Code requirements in effect as of December 8, 2021. Any
amendments and or additional approvals not addressed or identified in the
application, may be subject to Ordinance #27, Series of 2021 or Ordinance #6, Series
of 2022.
The project described above is permitted to proceed with land use review because
(check all that apply):
124
□A land use application for a Development Order or Notice of Approval was
submitted to the Community Development Department prior to final passage of
the ordinance on December 8, 2021, and was subsequently deemed to be
c omplete by the Community Development Department Director.
□The land use application is seeking a Development Order or Notice of Approval
for a project consisting of 100% Af fordable Housing as that term is defined at
§26.104.100 of the Aspen Municipal Code, or as may be deemed necessary for
the issuance of C ertificates of Affordable Housing for a 100% Affordable Housing
project, or as determined by the Community Development Director .
□The land use application involves Voluntar y AspenModern designation
processes that meet the requirements of Section 26.415.025.C and
26.415.030.
□The land use application or administrative request may be necessary to issue
exempt building per mits as described below , and as determined by the
Comm unity Development Director .
The project described above is permitted to submit for building permit review
bec ause (check all that apply ):
□A building permit application was submitted to the Community Development
Department prior to final passage of the ordinance on December 8, 2021, and
was subsequently deemed to be c omplete by the Chief Building Official.
□It is a building permit for a project that will not increase the gross square
footage of development, Net leasable area, or Net livable area of any building
and does not m eet the definition of demolition.
□It is a building permit for a project that will not increase the Height of any
building. This includes additions to or replacement of mechanical equipment or
energy eff iciency systems pursuant to height exemptions as set f orth at
§26.575.020 of the Aspen Municipal Code, or as determined by the Community
Development Director.
□It is a building permit for commercial and lodge development as stand-alone
uses on a parcel or property .
□The project has received or is eligible to receive a Development Order or
Notice of Approval on the effective date of this ordinance.
□It is a building perm it for 100% affordable housing projects as that term is
defined at §26.104.100 of the Aspen Municipal Code.
□It is a building permit for demolition or repair of non-habitable str uctures.
Issued on ___________________, 20___, this certificate is valid through the
effective date of Ordinance #27, Series of 2021 and Ordinance #6, Series of 2022, or
any Ordinance which supersedes a provision of these ordinances in a manner which
is relevant to the Scope of Work. A copy of this certificate is required when applying
for any land use review or building permit. This Notice is not a Development Order
or Administrative Determination that is subject to appeal.
___________________________________
Phillip Supino
Community D evelopment Director
Disclaimer: This exemption is given based on the information provided by the applicant. If changes are
made, or the scope, after a more detailed review, is found to be subject to Ordinance 27, 2021 or
Ordinance #6, Series of 2022, the exemption may be revoked.
Exhibit A: Floor plans and elevations representing s cope of work
Planning Director, for
125
PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PLANNER: Sarah Yoon, sarah.yoon@cityofaspen.com
REPRESENTATIVE: Brian Beazley, brian@djarchitects.com
PROJECT LOCATION: 520 E. Cooper
REQUEST: Historic Preservation – Minor Development & Commercial Design Review
DESCRIPTION: 520 E. Cooper is a mixed-use building in the Commercial Core (CC) Historic District. This
property is eligible for Aspen Modern designation as a building designed by Theodore Mularz, who is an
important local architect recognized for his contributions to the Aspen Modern movement.
The applicant proposes exterior changes to the building, specifically to the guardrails around the existing
decks, new fenestration on the stair towers and a new entry awning. Various like-for-like repairs are also being
considered for this building.
The Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) review for Minor Development is a one-step process where the
project may be approved, disapproved, or approved with conditions.
HPC will use the Commercial Design Standards and applicable Land Use Code Sections to assist with their
determinations. The applicant must demonstrate that the proposed scope of work complies with all applicable
criteria in the Commercial, Lodging, and Historic District Design Standards: Chapter 1 – General & Chapter 4
– Commercial Area.
Following approval, if granted, staff will inform City Council of the HPC decision, allowing them the opportunity
to uphold HPC’s decision or to “Call Up” aspects of the approval for further discussion. This is a standard
practice for Commercial Design Review.
RELEVANT LAND USE CODE SECTIONS:
Section Number Section Title
26.304 Common Development Review Procedures
26.412 Commercial Design Review
26.412.040.E Consolidation of Applications and Combining of Reviews
26.412.040.F Appeals, Notice of Approval and Call-up
26.415.070.C Historic Preservation – Minor Development
26.575.020 Calculations and Measurements
26.710.140 Commercial Core (CC) Zone District
For your convenience – links to the Land Use Application and Land Use Code are below:
Land Use Application Land Use Code
Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Commercial Design Guidelines and Standards
Review by: Staff for completeness and recommendations
HPC for final decision
Public Hearing: Yes, at Minor Review
126
Referrals: Staff will seek referral comments from the Building Department,
Zoning, Engineering and Parks regarding any relevant code
requirements or considerations. There will be no Development
Review Committee meeting or referral fees.
Planning Fees: $1,300 for 4 billable hours of staff time. (Additional/ lesser hours will
be billed/ refunded at a rate of $325 per hour.) This fee will be due
at Conceptual and Final submittal.
Total Deposit: $1,300.
APPLICATION CHECKLIST:
Below is a list of submittal requirements for HPC Minor review. Please email the entire application as one
pdf to sarah.yoon@cityofaspen.com. The fee will be requested after the application is determined to be
complete.
Completed Land Use Application and signed Fee Agreement.
Pre-application Conference Summary (this document).
Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur,
consisting of a current (no older than 6 months) certificate from a title insurance company, an
ownership and encumbrance report, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing
the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts
and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner’s right to apply for the
Development Application.
Applicant’s name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant that states
the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the
applicant.
HOA Compliance form (Attached).
List of adjacent property owners for both properties within 300’ for public hearing.
An 8 1/2” by 11” vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen.
Site improvement survey including topography and vegetation showing the current status,
certified by a registered land surveyor, licensed in the state of Colorado.
A written description of the proposal (scope of work) and written explanation of how the proposed
development complies with the review standards and design guidelines relevant to the
application.
A proposed site plan showing setbacks and property boundaries.
Scaled drawings of the proposed changes; and the primary features of the elevation. Scaled
drawings are to include both existing and proposed conditions.
An accurate representation of all building materials and finishes to be used in the development.
Please include relevant cut-sheets for review.
127
Supplemental materials to provide a visual description of the context surrounding the designated
historic property including photographs and other exhibits, as needed, to accurately depict
location and extent of proposed work.
Disclaimer:
The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based
on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or
may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right.
128
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
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)
Required Land Use Review(s):
Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) required fields:
x
xx
x
129
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
July 29, 2022
Amy Simon
Planning Director
City of Aspen
427 Rio Grande Place
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: 520 E. Cooper Ave.; Aspen, CO
Ms. Simon:
Please accept this letter authorizing BendonAdams LLC to represent our ownership
interests in 520 East Cooper Avenue / Common Area, Aspenhof Subdivision, and act on
our behalf on matters reasonably associated in securing land use approvals for the
property.
If there are any questions about the foregoing or if I can assist, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Property – 520 E. Cooper Ave.; Aspen, CO
Legal Description – Aspenhof Subdivision Common Area
Parcel ID – 2737-182-24-800
Owner – Aspenhof Condominium Association
Kind Regards,
Bill Guth, President
Aspenhof Condominium Association
520 East Cooper Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611
Bill@wnggroup.com
970-300-2120
130
CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
City of Aspen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5090 April 2020
Agreement to Pay Application Fees
Please type or print in all caps
Representative Name (if different from Property Owner)
Contact info for billing: e-mail: Phone:
I understand that the City has adopted, via Ordinance No. 30, Series of 2017, review fees for Land Use applications and
payment of these fees is a condition precedent to determining application completeness. I understand that as the property
owner that I am responsible for paying all fees for this development application.
For flat fees and referral fees: I agree to pay the following fees for the services indicated. I understand that these flat fees are
non-refundable.
$. flat fee for . $. flat fee for
$. flat fee for . $. flat fee for
For Deposit cases only: The City and I understand that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not
possible at this time to know the full extent or total costs involved in processing the application. I understand that additional
costs over and above the deposit may accrue. I understand and agree that it is impracticable for City staff to complete
processing, review and presentation of sufficient information to enable legally required findings to be made for project
consideration, unless invoices are paid in full.
The City and I understand and agree that invoices mailed by the City to the above listed billing address and not returned to
the City shall be considered by the City as being received by me. I agree to remit payment within 30 days of presentation of
an invoice by the City for such services.
I have read, understood, and agree to the Land Use Review Fee Policy including consequences for no-payment. I agree to pay
the following initial deposit amounts for the specified hours of staff time. I understand that payment of a deposit does not
render and application complete or compliant with approval criteria. If actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, I
agree to pay additional monthly billings to the City to reimburse the City for the processing of my application at the hourly
rates hereinafter stated.
$ deposit for hours of Community Development Department staff time. Additional time
above the deposit amount will be billed at $325.00 per hour.
$ deposit for hours of Engineering Department staff time. Additional time above the
deposit amount will be billed at $325.00 per hour.
City of Aspen:
Phillip Supino, AICP
Community Development Director
City Use:
Fees Due: $ Received $
Case #
Signature:
PRINT Name:
Title:
%HQGRQ$GDPV
An agreement between the City of Aspen (“City”) and
Address of Property:
Property Owner Name:
Billing Name and Address - Send Bills to:
520 E. Cooper Ave.; Aspen, CO 81611
Aspenhof CondoPLQLXP
Association
Bill Guth, 520 E. Cooper Ave.; Aspen, CO 81611
Bill@wnggroup.com 970-300-2120
1300 4
%LOO*XWK
3UHVLGHQW$VSHQKRI&RQGRPLQLXP$VVRFLDWLRQ
131
CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
April 2020 City of Aspen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5090
Homeowner Association Compliance Policy
All land use applications within the City of Aspen are required to include a Homeowner Association
Compliance Form (this form) certifying the scope of work included in the land use application complies
with all applicable covenants and homeowner association policies. The certification must be signed by
the property owner or Attorney representing the property owner.
Property
Owner (“I”):
Name:
Email: Phone No.:
Address of
Property:
(subject of
application)
I certify as follows: (pick one)
Ƒ This property is not subject to a homeowners association or other form of private covenant.
Ƒ This property is subject to a homeowners association or private covenant and the improvementsproposed in this land use application do not require approval by the homeowners association orcovenant beneficiary.
Ƒ This property is subject to a homeowners association or private covenant and the improvementsproposed in this land use application have been approved by the homeowners association or
covenant beneficiary.
I understand this policy and I understand the City of Aspen does not interpret, enforce, or manage the
applicability, meaning or effect of private covenants or homeowner association rules or bylaws. I
understand that this document is a public document.
Owner signature: date:
Owner printed name:
or,
Attorney signature: date:
Attorney printed name:
%LOO*XWK3UHVLGHQW$VSHQKRI&RQGRPLQLXP$VVRFLDWLRQ
%LOO#ZQJJURXSFRP
(&RRSHU$YHQXH
$VSHQ&2
%LOO*XWK$VSHQKRI&RQGRPLQLXP$VVRFLDWLRQ
132
www.mountainlawfirm.com
Glenwood Springs – Main Office
201 14th Street, Suite 200
P. O. Drawer 2030
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
Aspen
323 W. Main Street
Suite 301
Aspen, CO 81611
Montrose
1544 Oxbow Drive
Suite 224
Montrose, CO 81402
Wilton E. Anderson
Associate Attorney
wea@mountainlawfirm.com Office: 970.945.2261
Fax: 970.945.7336
*Direct Mail to Glenwood Springs
Office
July 6, 2022
Sent via e-mail: amy.simon@aspen.gov
Amy Simon, Planning Director
City of Aspen
RE: Aspenhof Condominium Association
Common Element Ownership, Application Authority
Dear Ms. Simon,
On behalf of the Aspenhof Condominium Association (the “Association”) this letter addresses
ownership of the Common Elements and the authority of the Board of Managers to submit an
application to the City of Aspen for approval of proposed repair, replacement and improvement of
exterior Common Elements. In preparing this letter we reviewed the Map of Aspenhof recorded on
November 27, 1970 at Reception No. 143297 in Pitkin County, Colorado as amended or
supplemented (the “Map”); the Bylaws of Aspenhof Condominium Association dated April of 1970
recorded in Book 420, Page 172 at Reception No. 238526 as amended or supplemented (the
“Bylaws”); the Articles of Incorporation of Aspenhof Condominium Association filed with the
Colorado Secretary of State on October 8, 1993; the Amended and Restated Condominium
Declaration for Aspenhof recorded on August 31, 2020 at Reception No. 667566 (the “Declaration”)
together with other pertinent Association records; that Title Commitment No. Pre-2022-917-TBD,
issued by Aspen Title & Escrow, LLC, dated June 2, 2022 (the “Commitment”); and relevant portions
of the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act, C.R.S. § 38-33.3-101, et seq. (“CCIOA”), the
Condominium Ownership Act, C.R.S. § 38-33-101, et seq. (“COA”), and the Colorado Revised
Nonprofit Corporation Act (the “Nonprofit Act”). A copy of the Commitment is attached.
1. The Association is the sole entity authorized to act as owner of the Common
Elements.
As a preliminary matter, the Association is the owners association which manages, operates
and controls that real property described in the Commitment, Exhibit A, also known as 520 Cooper
Ave., Aspen, CO 81611 (the “Property”) together with that certain common interest community
known as the "Aspenhof Condominiums", which was created on November 27, 1970 pursuant to
COA, and is subject to the Nonprofit Act and portions of CCIOA. As shown in the Commitment,
Schedule A, fee simple title to the Property is vested in the Association. However, the Association’s
ownership interest extends only to the Common Elements and does not include the separately owned
Units within the Property. The “Common Elements” are everything within the Property including
133
Page 2
the General Common Elements and Limited Common Elements, but excluding the Units.1 “Limited
Common Elements” are a portion of the Common Elements allocated by the Declaration or Map for
the exclusive use of one or more, but fewer than all, of the Units.2 As the Units within the Property
are condominium units with horizontal and vertical boundaries based on the unfinished interior
surfaces,3 it is clear that the proposed repair, replacement and improvement of exterior surfaces only
relate to the Common Elements.
2. The Board of Managers is authorized to act as necessary to facilitate the repair,
replacement or improvement of the Common Elements.
The Association, acting through the Board of Managers, is obligated to maintain, repair or
replace the Common Elements including, without limitation, the Common Element exterior surfaces
and structural components.4 The Board is authorized to take any action necessary, except those
actions specifically reserved for the Members,5 and is specifically authorized to act to keep the
Common Elements in good order, condition and repair, and to otherwise act in furtherance of its
duties and powers.6 Furthermore, “the Board may and shall make any additions, alterations, or
modifications to the Common Elements that, in its judgment, are necessary and in the best interest of
the Project”.7 In this instance, Owner approval is not required for the Association to perform
maintenance, repair or replacement of any portion of the Common Elements under the Association
Documents or applicable law, and there is no limitation on the Board’s authority to submit an
application for the City of Aspen’s approval of proposed Common Element repair, replacement or
improvement.
Finally, the Board has properly authorized Bill Guth, the Association President, to sign the
application for approval, and has approved submission of the application to the City of Aspen, by
voting in favor of such actions at a properly called and noticed Board meeting, or by an action without
a meeting pursuant to C.R.S. § 7-128-202.
The opinions set forth in this letter are limited to the matters specifically addressed and may
not be relied on for any unrelated purpose. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions
you may have.
Very truly yours,
KARP NEU HANLON, P.C.
Wilton E. Anderson
1 Declaration Art, II § 2.1(k); see also C.R.S. § 38-33.3-103(5).
2 Declaration, Art. II § 2.1(s); see also C.R.S. 38-33.3-202(1)(d).
3 Declaration, Art. II § 2.1(ee),
4 Declaration, Art. IV § 4.1; Bylaws, Art. IV § 3(c) and (k); Articles, Art. V.
5 Declaration, Art. III § 3.8; Bylaws Art. IV §§ 2 and 3; Articles, Art. V; see also C.R.S. § 33-33.3-302, and C.R.S. § 7-123-102.
6 Declaration, Art. IV § 4.1; Bylaws, Art. IV § (3)(c) and (i); Articles, Art. V. see also C.R.S. § 33-33.3-302.
7 Declaration, Art. XI § 11.8.
134
Page 3
CC: Board of Managers, Aspenhof Condominium Association
135
FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE
Issued By
Fidelity National Title Insurance Company
ALTA Commitment (6/17/06)
1 of 8 Colorado
Copyright American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA
members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title
Association
Fidelity National Title Insurance Company, a California corporation (“Company”), for a valuable
consideration, commits to issue its policy or policies of title insurance, as identified in Schedule A, in
favor of the Proposed Insured named in Schedule A, as owner or mortgagee of the estate or interest in
the land described or referred to in Schedule A, upon payment of the premiums and charges and
compliance with the Requirements; all subject to the provisions of Schedules A and B and to the
Conditions of this Commitment.
This Commitment shall be effective only when the identity of the Proposed Insured and the amount of
the policy or policies committed for have been inserted in Schedule A by the Company.
All liability and obligation under this Commitment shall cease and terminate 180 days after the Effective
Date or when the policy or policies committed for shall issue, whichever first occurs, provided that the
failure to issue the policy or policies is not the fault of the Company.
The Company will provide a sample of the policy form upon request.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Fidelity National Title Insurance Company has caused its corporate name
and seal to be affixed by its duly authorized officers on the date shown in Schedule A.
Aspen Title & Escrow
449 East Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611
T: (970) 925-1177
F: (888) 885-0805
License #:694340
Countersigned :
Susan Sarver, License #: 271422
Authorized Signatory
136
FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE
Issued By
Fidelity National Title Insurance Company
ALTA Commitment (6/17/06)
2 of 8 Colorado
Copyright American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA
members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title
Association
CONDITIONS
1. The term mortgage, when used herein, shall include deed of trust, trust deed, or other security instrument.
2. If the proposed Insured has or acquired actual knowledge of any defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse
claim or other matter affecting the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment
other than those shown in Schedule B hereof, and shall fail to disclose such knowledge to the Company
in writing, the Company shall be relieved from liability for any loss or damage resulting from any act of
reliance hereon to the extent the Company is prejudiced by failure to so disclose such knowledge. If the
proposed Insured shall disclose such knowledge to the Company, or if the Company otherwise acquires
actual knowledge of any such defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter, the Company at
its option may amend Schedule B of this Commitment accordingly, but such amendment shall not relieve
the Company from liability previously incurred pursuant to paragraph 3 of these Conditions.
3. Liability of the Company under this Commitment shall be only to the named proposed Insured and such
parties included under the definition of Insured in the form of policy or policies committed for and only for
actual loss incurred in reliance hereon in undertaking in good faith (a) to comply with the requirements
hereof, or (b) to eliminate exceptions shown in Schedule B, or (c) to acquire or create the estate or
interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. In no event shall such liability exceed the
amount stated in Schedule A for the policy or policies committed for and such liability is subject to the
insuring provisions and Conditions and the Exclusions from Coverage of the form of policy or policies
committed for in favor of the proposed Insured which are hereby incorporated by reference and are made
a part of this Commitment except as expressly modified herein.
4. This Commitment is a contract to issue one or more title insurance policies and is not an abstract of title
or a report of the condition of title. Any action or actions or rights of action that the proposed Insured may
have or may bring against the Company arising out of the status of the title to the estate or interest or the
status of the mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment must be based on and are subject to the
provisions of this Commitment.
5.ARBITRATION
The policy to be issued contains an arbitration clause. All arbitrable matters when the Amount of
Insurance is $2,000,000 or less shall be arbitrated at the option of either the Company or the Proposed
Insured as the exclusive remedy of the parties. You may review a copy of the arbitration rules at
http://www.alta.org/arbitration.
137
FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE
SCHEDULE A
ALTA Commitment (6/17/06)
3 of 8 Colorado
Copyright American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA
members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title
Association
Name and Address of Title Insurance Company:
Aspen Title & Escrow, LLC,
449 E. Hopkins Ave., Aspen, CO 81611
Office File No.: Pre-2022-917-TBD
1. Effective Date: 06/02/2022 at 8:00 AM
2. Policy or Policies to be issued:
a) ALTA Owner's Policy Policy Amount: $0.01
PROPOSED INSURED: To Be Determined
3. The estate or interest in the Land described or referred to in this Commitment and covered herein is: Fee Simple
4. Title to the Fee Simple estate or interest in said Land is at the effective date hereof vested in:
Aspenhof Condominium Association
5. The Land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows:
Purported Address:
520 Cooper Ave., Aspen, CO 81611
The land is described as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof.
PREMIUMS:
ALTA Owner's Policy
Extended (Del 1-4)
$300.00
Countersigned:
Susan Sarver / Authorized Signatory
138
FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE
EXHIBIT A – PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
ALTA Commitment (6/17/06)
4 of 8 Colorado
Copyright American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA
members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title
Association
Office File No.: Pre-2022-917-TBD
Situated in the County of Pitkin and State of Colorado described as follows:
Units P-1, P-2, P-4, P-5, P-6, P-7, P-8, P-9 and P-10 and all the General Common Areas,
ASPENHOF CONDOMINIUMS, according to the Map thereof recorded November 27, 1970 in Plat Book 4 at Page 136 as Reception
No. 143297, First Amended Condominium Map of Aspenhof (a Condominium) recorded July 29, 1977 in Plat Book 6 at Page 10 as
Reception No. 196227 Second Amendment to the Condominium Map of Aspenhof recorded January 13, 2014 in Plat Book 105 at
Page 87 as Reception No. 607254, and as defined and described in the Condominium Declaration for Aspenhof recorded November
27, 1970 in Book 252 at Page 49 as Reception No. 143282, First Amendment recorded July 29, 1977 in Book 332 at Page 606 as
Reception No. 196226, Appendix 1 to First Amendment recorded August 9, 1977 in Book 333 at Page 249 as Reception No. 196516,
Second Amendment recorded June 22, 1982 in Book 428 at Page 238 as Reception No. 242140, Third Amendment recorded February
26, 2014 as Reception No. 608230, Amended and Restated Condominium Declaration for Aspenhof recorded August 31, 2020 as
Reception No. 667566.
139
FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE
SCHEDULE B - SECTION I
REQUIREMENTS FOR COVERAGE
ALTA Commitment (6/17/06)
5 of 8 Colorado
Copyright American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA
members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title
Association
The following Requirements are to be complied with:
1. The Proposed Insured must notify the Company in writing of the name of any party not referred to in this Commitment who
will obtain an interest in the Land or who will make a loan on the Land. The Company may then make additional
Requirements or Exceptions.
2. Pay the agreed amount for the estate of interest to be insured.
3. Pay the premiums, fees, and charges for the Policy to the Company.
4. A satisfactory owner’s affidavit must be completed, executed and returned to the Company.
5. Payment of all taxes and assessments now due and payable.
6. Evidence satisfactory to the Company of payment of the Town of Aspen Transfer Tax, or evidence that the property is exempt
from said Tax.
7. Evidence satisfactory to Aspen Title & Escrow, furnished by the Office of the Director of Finance, City of Aspen, that the
following taxes have been paid, or that conveyance is exempt from said taxes: (1) The “Wheeler Real Estate Transfer Tax”
pursuant to Ordinance No. 20 (Series of 1979) and (2) The “Housing Real Estate Transfer Tax” pursuant to ordinance No. 13
(Series of 1990).
8. Payment of any and all Condominium assessments and expenses which may be assessed to the property.
9. Furnish for recordation a deed as set forth below:
Grantor(s): Aspenhof Condominium Association
Grantee(s): To Be Determined
The search did not disclosed any open mortgages or deeds of trust of record, therefore the Company reserves the right to
require further evidence to confirm that the property is unencumbered, and further reserves the right to make additional
requirements or add additional items or exceptions upon receipt
of the requested evidence.
NOTE: A 24 month Chain of Title has been completed and we find the following: NONE FOUND
NOTE: Please be aware that due to the conflict between federal and state laws concerning the cultivation, distribution,
manufacture or sale of marijuana, the Company is not able to close or insure any transaction involving Land that is
associated with these activities.
NOTE: Exception No. 1-4 will not appear on the Policy, Exception No. 5 will be removed from the policy provided the
company conducts the closing.
NOTE: This TBD Commitment is for INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY
140
FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE
SCHEDULE B - SECTION I
REQUIREMENTS FOR COVERAGE
ALTA Commitment (6/17/06)
6 of 8 Colorado
Copyright American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA
members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title
Association
END OF SCHEDULE B – SECTION I
141
FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE
ALTA Commitment (6/17/06)
7 of 8 Colorado
Copyright American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA
members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title
Association
SCHEDULE B – SECTION II
EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE
Schedule B of the Policy or Policies to be issued will contain Exceptions to the following matters unless the same are disposed of to
the satisfaction of the Company:
1. Any facts, rights, interests, or claims that are not shown by the Public records but that could be ascertained by an inspection of
the Land or that may be asserted by persons in possession of the land.
2. Easements, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, not shown by the Public Records.
3. Any encroachment, encumbrance, violation, variation, or adverse circumstances affecting the Title that would be disclosed by
an accurate and complete and survey of the land and not shown by the Public Records.
4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or materials heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by
the Public Records.
5. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the Public Records or
attaching subsequent to the Effective Date, but prior to the date that the proposed insured acquires record title, for value, of the
estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment.
6. All taxes and assessments, now or heretofore assessed, due or payable.
NOTE: This tax exception will be amended at policy upon satisfaction and evidence of payment of taxes.
7. Water rights, claims of title to water, whether or not these matters are shown by the Public Records.
8. Reservations and exceptions as set forth in Deed from the City of Aspen recorded October 7, 1887 in Book 59 at Page 13 and
in Deed recorded January 4, 1888 in Book 59 at Page 248 and Deed recorded January 18, 1888 in Book 59 at Page 301 ,
providing as follows: “That no title shall be hereby acquired to any mine of gold, silver, cinnabar or copper or to any valid
mining claim or possession held under existing laws”.
9. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in Notice of Historic Designation recorded January 14, 1975 in Book
295 at Page 515 as Reception No. 172512.
10. Covenants, conditions, restrictions and lien rights but omitting any covenants or restrictions, if any, including but not limited
to those based upon race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, familial status, marital status, disability, handicap, national
origin, ancestry, source of income, gender, gender identity, gender expression, medical condition or genetic information, as set
forth in applicable state or federal laws, except to the extent that said covenants or restriction is permitted by applicable law, as
set forth in the Condominium Declaration for Aspenhof recorded November 27, 1970 in Book 252 at Page 49 as Reception
No. 143282, First Amendment recorded July 29, 1977 in Book 332 at Page 606 as Reception No. 196226, Appendix 1 to First
Amendment recorded August 9, 1977 in Book 333 at Page 249 as Reception No. 196516, Second Amendment recorded June
22, 1982 in Book 428 at Page 238 as Reception No. 242140, Third Amendment recorded February 26, 2014 as Reception No.
608230 , Amended and Restated Condominium Declaration for Aspenhof recorded August 31, 2020 as Reception No.
667566 .
11. Easement, rights of way and all other matters described on the Map of Aspenhof recorded November 27, 1970 in Plat Book 4
at Page 136 as Reception No. 143297, First Amended Condominium Map of Aspenhof (a Condominium) recorded July 29,
142
FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE
ALTA Commitment (6/17/06)
8 of 8 Colorado
Copyright American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA
members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title
Association
1977 in Plat Book 6 at Page 10 as Reception No. 196227 Second Amendment to the Condominium Map of Aspenhof recorded
January 13, 2014 in Plat Book 105 at Page 87 as Reception No. 607254
12. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in Articles of Incorporation for Aspenhof Condominium Association
recorded December 14, 1970 as Reception No. 143537 .
13. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in Statement of Exemption from the Definition of a Subdivision
recorded July 26, 1977 in Book 332 at Page 397 as Reception No. 196117.
14. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in By-Laws of Aspenhof Condominium Association recorded
January 22, 1982 in Book 420 at Page 172 as Reception No. 238526.
15. Terms, conditions, provision and obligations as set forth in Letters recorded September 11, 2008 as Reception No. 552797 .
16. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in Irrevocable License recorded February 11, 2009 as Reception No.
556378 .
17. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in Reciprocal Easement and Joint Maintenance Agreement recorded
March 25, 2014 as Reception No. 608889 and re-recorded September 12, 2014 as Reception No. 613484 .
END OF SCHEDULE B – SECTION II
143
432
520
419
535
426
307
520
432428
516
210
535
501
309
433
432
520
428
520
520
420
420
535
419
520
431
302
303
420
419
534
419
521
520
217
419
520514
510
517
533
505
432
419 305
304
420
433
408
408
429408
422
408
424
416
408
408
408
400
450
408
320
409
429
420
325
401
415
420
315
415
400
400
413
415
400
407
415
307
315
401
419
415
315
315
312
415
307
315
450
410
315
305
416
316
409
315
419
314
315
308
315
400 601
601
620
602
601
602
611
602
601
616
602
602
615
610
630
630
601
617
308
617 617
611
617
630
617
617
630
665
601
617
605
630
617
617
617
617
630
617
630
601
617
630
617
630
625
617
630
617
630
617
617
617
630
620
624
630
625
602
630
411
312
404
617
404
520
508
534
531
404
520
535529
531 617
535
402
520
404
404
617
520
404
404
516
318
403
404
534
520
520
520
531
404
308 535
320
404
534
404
520
434
520
600
535
450
520
404
520
531 409
534
601
315
520
533525
520
314
408
520
531
510
535
312
447
404
520
404
520
430
500
534 S HUNTER STS GALENA STE HOP
K
I
N
S
A
V
E
S MILL STS MILL STS GALENA STS GALENA STE HYM
A
N
A
V
E
E HYM
A
N
A
V
E
E DURA
N
T
A
V
E S HUNTER STE COO
P
E
R
A
V
ES HUNTER STS HUNTER STE HYMAN AV
ES MILL STDate: 7/6/2022
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 0.02 0.040.01
mi
When printed at 8.5"x11"
4
Legend
Parcels
Roads Zoomed In
Scale: 1:1,882
520 East Cooper
Avenue Vicinity Map
144
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: 273718224022 on 07/18/2022
Instructions:
Disclaimer:
http://www.pitkinmapsandmore.com
145
127 ASPEN SQUARE LLC
GALVESTON, TX 77554
144B SPANISH GRANT
213 ASPEN SQUARE LLC
BASALT, CO 816218302
841 HILLCREST DR
308 HUNTER LLC
DENVER, CO 80218
490 N WILLIAMS ST
403 SOUTH GALENA LLC
MIAMI, FL 33127
244-250 NW 35TH ST
419 AH LLC
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 4068
419 EAST HYMAN AVENUE LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
625 E MAIN ST UNIT 102B #401
423 ASPEN SQUARE LLC
AUSTIN, TX 78739
10621 REDMOND RD
434 EAST COOPER AVENUE LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
516 E HYMAN AVE 2ND FL
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
617 E COOPER 303 ASE LLC
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 3557
633 SPRING II LLC
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 8485
ABELMAN JARED
SAINT PETERSBURG, FL 33701
199 DALI BLVD #407
ABRAMSON FAMILY REV TRUST
HEALDSBURG , CA 95448
1083 VINE ST #228
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
ANDERSON ROBERT M & LOUISE E
ALBUQUERQUE, NM 871234217
1525 CATRON AVE SE
ANDINA SUPER LLC
MANLY NSW AUSTRALIA 1655,
PO BOX 1177
AP RT 29 LLC
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 8485
AS 134 LLC
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94147
PO BOX 475027
ASPEN & COMPANY LLC
FISHKILL, NY 12524
4 LAFAYETTE CT
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 GROVE ASSOCIATES LLP
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601
51027 HWY 6 &24 #100
ASPEN KOEPPEL LLC
MIAMI, FL 33133
2627 S BAYSHORE DRIVE # 806
ASPEN MUSE PH LLC
HIGHLAND PARK, IL 60035
1850 SECOND ST
ASPEN OFFICE PARTNERSHIP LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
520 E COOPER AVE #C7
146
ASPEN OFFICE PARTNERSHIP LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
625 E MAIN ST #102-B-233
ASPEN RETREAT LLC
SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85251
6536 E GAINSBOROUGH
ASPEN SQUARE 103 LLC
BASALT, CO 81621
PO BOX 3695
ASPEN SQUARE 305 LLC
HOUSTON, TX 77007
6018 BLOSSOM ST
ASPEN SQUARE 410 LP
M4T IY7 CANADA,
1407 YONGE ST #200 TORONTO ONTARIO
ASPEN SQUARE CONDO ASSOC BLD A
ASPEN, CO 81611
COMMON AREA
E COOPER AVE
ASPEN SQUARE CONDO ASSOC BLD B
ASPEN, CO 81611
617 E COOPER AVE
ASPEN SQUARE HOLDINGS LLC
MARIETTA, GA 30067
1216 TIMBERLAND DR
ASPEN SQUARE VENTURES LLP
ASPEN, CO 81611
602 E COOPER #202
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
AWALL350 LLC
TAMPA, FL 33606
350 BLANCA AVE
BAISCH BARBARA D
LA JOLLA, CA 92038
PO BOX 2127
BARGE RENE TRUST
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663
408 31ST ST
BECKER EQUITIES LLC
LAS VEGAS, NV 89130
3065 N RANCHO RD #130
BECKER ERNEST & KATHLEEN TRUST
LAS VEGAS, NV 89130
3065 N RANCHO RD #132
BENNETT MARGARET A REV TRUST
OAK BROOK, IL 60523
55 BAYBROOK LN
BERSCH BLANCHE TRUST
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210
9642 YOAKUM DR
BERSCH ELLEN TRUST
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210
9642 YOAKUM DR
BLACK HAWK ASPEN LLC
LEICESTERSHIRE LE12 8TF ENGLAND,
ROECLIFFE COTTAGE JOE MOORES LN
WOODHOUSE EAVES
BONCZEK ROBERT R
CHAPEL HILL, NC 275152896
PO BOX 2896
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
BROWNS FAMILY HOLDINGS LLC
SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85250
7500 E MCDONALD DR #100A
CALDWELL EDWARD B
NASHVILLE, TN 37215
4216 WALLACE LN
CALDWELL EDWARD BARRICK
NASHVILLE, TN 37215
4216 WALLACE LN
147
CALDWELL PAIGE T
NASHVILLE, TN 37215
4216 WALLACE LN
CALGI RAYMOND D
SCARSDALE, NY 10583
134 TEWKESBURY RD
CARAS STACY LIV TRUST
PALOS VERDES PENINSULA, CA 90274
PO BOX 266
CAVES KAREN W
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
1 BARRENGER CT
CLIFFORD MRS MARGARET JOAN
BOULDER, CO 80302
146 WILD TIGER RD
CMMM INVESTMENTS LLC
METAIRIE, LA 70001
4937 HEARST ST #B
COBLE JANE H
NASHVILLE, TN 37218
5033 OLD HICKORY BLVD
CONERLY WILLIAM B & ULLA CHRISTINA WEST JT TRUST
LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034
3042 TOLKIEN LN
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
DALY CAROL Y REV TRUST
ASPEN, CO 81611
617 E COOPER
DCGB LLC
NEW YORK, NY 10019
610 WEST 52 ST
DPG INVESTMENT PROPERTIES LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
120 E HYMAN AVE
DURANT AH LLC
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 4068
DURANT GALENA CONDOS
ASPEN, CO 81611
COMMON AREA
500 E DURANT AVE
ECCHYMOSIS LLC
LONG BEACH, CA 90803
4802 E 2ND ST # 2
ELLERON CHEMICALS CORP
BANNOCKBURN, IL 60015
2101 WAUKEGAN RD #210
ESPOSITO FAMILY TRUST
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275
6276 VIA CANADA
FITZ SSM 520 LLC
CARBONDALE, CO 81623
333 LIONS RIDGE RD
FORD ANN MICHIE
ASPEN, CO 816111820
404 S GALENA ST
FORD MICHIE
ASPEN, CO 81611
404 S GALENA ST
FRANZ NORBERT ALEXANDER
FRANKFURT 60313 GERMANY ,
KAISERHOFSTR 15
FUNHOUSE PROPERTIES LLC
FRANKLIN, MI 48025
26480 NORMANDY RD
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
GILBERT GARY G TRUST
GLENDALE, CA 912071261
1556 ROYAL BLVD
148
GLUCK SANFORD & CAROLE E ASP TRST
NEW YORK, NY 10021
176 E 71ST ST
GLUKI LLC
BASALT, CO 81621
PO BOX 127
GONE WEST LLC
LITTLE ROCK, AR 72221
PO BOX 22297
GOODMAN BARRY M REV TRUST
WASHINGTON, DC 20016
4101 ALBEMARLE ST NW #612
GOODMAN WILMA J COLINO REV TRUST
WASHINGTON, DC 20016
4101 ALBEMARLE ST NW #612
HUNKE CARLTON J LVG TRST
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401
408 N 1ST ST #507
HUNTER PLAZA ASSOC LLP
ASPEN, CO 81611
602 E COOPER #202
HURWIN DUFFY & RON REV TRUST
TIBURON, CA 94920
558 TENAYA DR
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
JB SMV LLC
ESCONDIDO, CA 92030
PO BOX 300792
JENNE LLP
AUSTIN, TX 78703
1510 WINDSOR RD
JONA HOLDINGS INC
TORONTO ONTARIO CANADA M5K1H6,
PO BOX 163, 66 WELLINGTON ST W #4400
JONA HOLDINGS INC
TORONTO ONTARIO M5H 3Y2,
PO BOX 110
SCOTIA PL 40 KING ST #3700
K L 77 CO INVESTMENTS LP
HOUSTON, TX 77008
1235 NORTH LOOP W #205
K&W PROPERTIES INC
NEW SMYRNA BEACH, FL 32168
728 CANAL ST
KOEPPEL KEVIN F
MIAMI, FL 33133
2627 S BAYSHORE DRIVE # 806
KRESS EXCHANGE LLC
DALLAS, TX 75201
1845 WOODALL RODGER FRWY #1100
KUTINSKY BRIAN A TRUST
FRANKLIN, MI 48025
26480 NORMANDY RD
LACY LESLIE W
BOULDER, CO 80302
485 ARAPAHOE AVE
MAIERSPERGER RENELL
ASPEN, CO 81611
404 S GALENA
MARCUS DURANT GALENA LLC
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 1709
MAYFAIR INVESTMENTS LLC
AUSTRALIA ,
PO BOX 268
RICHMOND VICTORIA 3121
MEYER CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
403 S GALENA
MJB MOUNTAIN PROPERTIES LLC
GRAND RAPIDS, MI 49544
2345 WALKER AVE
MJM AMENDED & RESTATED TRUST
NORTHBROOK , IL 60062
1776 SOUTH LANE
MJM HOLDINGS II LLC
NORTHBROOK, IL 60062-5514
1776 SOUTH LN
MOCKINGBIRD INTERESTS ASPEN LLC
DALLAS, TX 75205
47 HIGHLAND PARK VILLAGE #208
149
MOODY JANICE
SANTA FE, NM 87501
834 CAMINO DEL ESTE
MOUNTAIN C I HOLDINGS LTD
ANCASTER ONTARIO CANADA L9G 4V5,
4-1480 SANDHILL DR
MP INDEPENDENCE ASPEN LLC
KANSAS CITY, MO 64108
1908 MAIN ST
MUSE CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
625 E HYMAN AVE
N S N ASSOCIATES INC
FRANKLIN PARK, IL 60131
11051 W ADDISON ST
NEPSA INVESTMENT GROUP PTY LTD
MELBOURNE VICTORIA AUSTRALIA 3000,
185 SPRING ST
NEUMANN MICHAEL D TRUST
FRANKLIN, MI 48025
26480 NORMANDY RD
NEUMAYER CHARLES & DEBORAH
TWIN LAKES , WI 53181
1701 MOUNT MORIAH DR
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
PERIN EMERSON C & JACQUELINE
HOUSTON, TX 77098
3210 VIRGINIA ST
PITKIN CENTER CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
COMMON AREA
E HYMAN AVE
PITKIN CENTER CONDO OWNERS ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
517 W NORTH ST
PITKIN COUNTY BANK
LEXINGTON , KY 40555
PO BOX 54288
PLATINUM GLOBAL VENTURES LLC
CHAPEL HILL, NC 27515
PO BOX 2896
PORTE BROOKE
WESTON, FL 33331
3520 PADDOCK RD
PROVINE CATHERINE ANNE
WASHINGTON, DC 200073131
2902 O ST NW
QUALITY HOUSING GROUP I LLC
BETHESDA, MD 20814
7735 OLD GEORGETOWN RD #301
QUICK MART LLC
SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615
PO BOX 6832
R & R INVESTMENTS
RAMONA, CA 92065
15238 OAK VALLEY RD
RAHLEK LTD AT BANK OF AMERICA
HOUSTON, TX 77056
PO BOX 460329
RANKMORE KEVIN L & JASMINE
WELLINGTON NSW 2820 AUSTRALIA,
PO BOX 168
RED FLOWER PROP CO PTNSHP
NEW YORK, NY 100235834
155 W 68TH ST #22CD
REVOLUTION PARTNERS LLC
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 1247
RG COOPER ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
601 E HYMAN AVE
RHOADES CHRISTINE A LYON LIV TRUST
LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651
644 GRIFFITH WY
ROGENESS FAMILY TRUST
SAN ANTONIO, TX 78230
3046 COLONY DR
150
ROSS BARBARA REV TRUST
KILAUEA, HI 96754
4720 WAILAPA RD
ROSS JOHN F
BOULDER, CO 80302
5097 FLAGSTAFF RD
ROSS ROGER A REV TRUST
KILAUEA, HI 96754
4720 WAILAPA RD
RRN INDUSTRIES LLC
AUSTIN, TX 78746
123 BIRNAM WOOD CT
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
SANDIFER C W JR TRUST
BOULDER, CO 80304
240 LINDEN DR
SANDIFER DICKSIE L TRUST
BOULDER, CO 80304
240 LINDEN DR
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
SCHWARTZ C BETH TRUST
INDIAN WELLS, CA 92210
78145 MONTE SERENO CIR
SEELIG-BROWN BARBARA
HIGHLAND BEACH, FL 33487
4605 S OCEAN BLVD #8D
SEGUIN JEFF W & MADALYN B TRUST
ASPEN, CO 81611
617 E COOPER #412
SEGUIN WILLIAM L & MARILYN A
ASPEN, CO 81611
1001 E COOPER #7
SEVEN CONTINENTS LLC
GLENCOE, IL 60022
521 LONGWOOD AVE
SHOCKLEY-ZALABAK PAMELA
COLORADO SPRINGS, CO 80903
34 W MONUMENT #203
SINGER ALAN & BETH L BRONNER
CHICAGO, IL 60610
1246 N STATE PKWY
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
STRUEVER HANNA R TRUST
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
2130 YACHT JULIA
TELLURIDE PARTNERS LLC
TELLURIDE, CO 81435
PO BOX 859
TENNESSEE THREE
NASHVILLE, TN 37202
PO BOX 24382
TERMINELLO DENNIS J & KERRY L
WHITE PLAINS, NY 106054323
656 RIDGEWAY
TEXAS PENTHOUSE LLC
PLANO, TX 75093
2204 BRADBURY CT
THOR 534 EAST COOPER AVENUE LLC
NEW YORK, NY 10018-4074
25 W 39TH ST # 11
UNCAPHER BILL
LA JOLLA, CA 92038
PO BOX 2127
151
UNCAPHER BILL TRUST
LA JOLLA, CA 92038
PO BOX 2127
V M W TRUST OF 1991
SIERRA MADRE, CA 91024
80 W SIERRA MADRE BLVD #390
VARADY LOTHAR & CHERYL TRUST
HONOLULU, HI 96816
5036 MAUNALANI CIR
VARADY LOTHAR M & CHERYL G TRUST
HONOLULU, HI 96816
5036 MAUNALANI CIR
VAUSE FAMILY TRUST
LAS VEGAS, NV 89102
3020 PLAZA DE MONTE
VICTORIAN SQUARE CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
601 E HYMAN AVE
VICTORIAN SQUARE LLC
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 8485
WALLING REBECCA
TAMPA, FL 33606
350 BLANCA AVE
WEIGAND 122 LLC
WICHITA, KS 67202
150 N MARKET
WEIGAND BROTHERS LLC
WICHITA, KS 67202
150 N MARKET
WEIGAND JOHNATHAN R TRUST
WICHITA, KS 67202
150 N MARKET ST
WELLS RICHARD A & SUSAN T TRUST
CHARLOTTE, NC 28202
100 N TRYON ST 47TH FLR
WELSCH SUSAN FLEET REV TRUST
BOZEMAN, MT 597185950
47 VOLANS CT
WELSCH SUSAN FLEET TRUST
ASPEN, CO 81611
101 N SPRING ST #201
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
152
G
GDYHN75°09'11"W 112.19'BASIS OF BESARINGSN14°50'49"E 100.00'
S14°50
'
4
9
"
W
1
0
0
.
0
0
'3' WITNESS CORNERFOUND NAIL & 1-1/2"ALUMINUM TAG LS28643S75°09'11"E 112.19'3' WITNESS CORNERFOUND NAIL & 1-1/2"ALUMINUM TAG LS28643N75°09'11"W 37.93'FOUND 1" BRASS PLUGLS28643ELEVATION: 7926.66CONC
R
E
T
E
RAMP
D
O
W
N
T
O
PARKI
N
G
G
A
R
A
G
EFOUND 1" BRASS PLUGLS28643FOUND NAIL & 2"ALUMINUM TAGLS23875 HCE65.2'36.8'9.7'17.8'57.6'
PARTY WALL WITH ADJOINING BUILDING
57.0'
72.1'
14.6'
82.1'22.3'0.4'9.4'24.5'0.5'28.5'35.6'LANDSCAPEPLANTER(G.C.E.)1.3'CONC
R
E
T
E
R
A
M
P
(G.C.E
.
)
9.0'CONCRETE SIDEWALKPAVED ROADWAY(73.70' PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY)ALLEY - BLOCK 95PAVED ALLEYWAYLOT OLOT QE. COOPER AVENUELOT RLOT NTRASHCOMPACTORLOT P2.2'± BETWEENBUILDINGSLOT MSTAIRWELL& ELEVATOR(G.C.E.)FOUR - STORYBRICK BUILDINGLANDSCAPEPLANTER(G.C.E.)FOUR - STORYSTUCCO & BRICKBUILDING520 E. COOPER AVENUEDN STEPSTILED WALKWAYS(G.C.E.)STEPSSTEPS TOLOWER LEVEL(G.C.E.)UNIT SP-1855 SQ.FT.COVERED PARKING AREAOWNED BY COOPERSTREET DEVELOPMENTRECEPTION NO. 608230RECIPROCAL EASEMENTRECEPTION 613484(CROSS HATCHED AREA)17.58'46.72'48.63'RECIPROCAL EASEMENTRECEPTION 613484(CROSS HATCHED AREA)UNIT SP-2822 SQ.FT.COVERED PARKING AREAOWNED BY COOPERSTREET DEVELOPMENTRECEPTION NO. 60823017.58'OWNERCOOPER STREETCONDOMINIUMSFIRE L
A
N
E
A
C
C
E
S
S
TILED
W
A
L
K
W
A
Y
(G.C.E
.
)
(G.C.E.
)OWNERTHOR 534 EAST COOPERAVENUE LLCBOOGIES BUILDING OFASPEN SUBDIVISIONOWNERDCGB LLC312 S GALENA STREETLOWE
R
L
E
V
E
L
COUR
T
Y
A
R
D
(RB-1
L
.
C
.
E
.
)
(G.C.E.
)
LANDS
C
A
P
E
PLANT
E
R
(G.C.E.
)LIGHT POLEPARKING SIGNTELEPHONE PEDESTALDYHFIRE HYDRANTELECTRICAL TRANSFORMERGAS METERELECTRICAL METERGLEGENDESURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATIONTHE EASTERLY 23.75 FEET OF LOT N, ALL OF LOTS O AND P AND WESTERLY 28.25 FEET OF LOT Q, BLOCK 95SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84 WEST OF THE 6TH PMCITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO TRUE NORTH COLORADO LLC.A LAND SURVEYING AND MAPPING COMPANYP.O. BOX 614 - 386 MAIN STREET UNIT 3NEW CASTLE, COLORADO 81647(970) 984-0474www.truenorthcolorado.comDRAWNSURVEYEDSHEET1 OF 5TRUENORTHA LAND SURVEYING AND MAPPING COMPANY10'5'20'SCALE: 1" = 10'NFURNISHED PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:THE EASTERLY 23.75 FEET OF LOT N, ALL OF LOTS O AND P AND THE WESTERLY 28.25 FEET OF LOT Q, BLOCK 95,CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, ALSO KNOWN AS ASPENHOF, A CONDOMINIUM ACCORDING TO THECONDOMINIUM MAPS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 4 AT PAGE 36, PLAT BOOK 6 AT PAGE 10 AND PLAT BOOK 105 ATPAGE 87, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS THIRD AMENDED CONDOMINIUM MAP OF ASPENHOF, A CONDOMINIUM HASBY THESE PRESENTS LAID OUT, PLATTED AND DESCRIBED THE SAME INTO CONDOMINIUM UNITS AND COMMONELEMENTS AS SHOWN HEREON AND DESCRIBED IN THE AMENDED AND RESTATED DECLARATION RECORDEDAUGUST 31, 2020 AS RECEPTION NO. 667566.CITY OF ASPENCOUNTY OF PITKINSTATE OF COLORADO0NOTICE: ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANYLEGAL ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY WITHIN THREEYEARS AFTER YOU FIRST DISCOVER SUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVENT MAY ANYACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY BE COMMENCED MORETHAN TEN YEARS FROM THE DATE OF CERTIFICATION SHOWN HEREON.PROJECT NO: 2021-463DATE: July 6, 2022RPKGBL-DJB-RPKNOTES:1.BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS SURVEY IS A BEARING OF N75°09'11"W BETWEEN A FOUND NAIL & 2"ALUMINUM TAG HCE LS23875 AND A FOUND 1" BRASS PLUG LS28643 AS SHOWN HEREON.2. DATE OF FIELD SURVEY: FEBRUARY 21-22, 2022.3. LINEAR UNITS USED TO PERFORM THIS SURVEY WERE U.S. SURVEY FEET.4. THIS IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT OF ASPENHOF, A CONDOMINIUM IS BASED ON CONDOMINIUMMAPS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 4 AT PAGE 36, PLAT BOOK 6 AT PAGE 10 AND PLAT BOOK 105 ATPAGE 87 AND SURVEY OF THE PROPERTY PREPARED BY SOPRIS ENGINEERING JANUARY OF 2013.5. THIS PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO RESERVATIONS, RESTRICTIONS, COVENANTS AND EASEMENTS OFRECORD OR IN PLACE AND EXCEPTIONS TO TITLE SHOWN IN THE TITLE COMMITMENT PREPAREDBY ASPEN TITLE & ESCROW. LLC, EFFECTIVE DATE: JUNE 2, 2022.6. LIMITED COMMON ELEMENT (L.C.E.) - GENERAL COMMON ELEMENT (G.C.E.).VICINITY MAPSITECITYOFASPENNASPENHOF, A CONDOMINIUMIMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLATSTORM DRAIN153
1
ASPENHOF BUILDING 520 EAST COOPER | ASPEN CO
ASPENHOF BUILDING 520 EAST COOPER | ASPEN CO
154
DRAWING ISSUE
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:2108
CPF
DESIGN DEV.2022-06-14520 E COOPER AVENUE | ASPEN COASPENHOFAll ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
owned by and are the property of David Johnston
Architects, PC and developed for use and in
conjunction with the specified project. None
of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans
shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose
whatsoever without the written authorization
of David Johnston Architects, PC.
119 South Spring St.
Suite 203
Aspen, CO 81611
970-925-3444
970-920-2186
TEL
FAX
1.1
SITE PLAN | EXISITNG
Sheet No.GGDYH
N75°0
9
'
1
1
"
W
1
1
2
.
1
9
'
BASIS
O
F
B
E
S
A
R
I
N
G
SN14°50'49"E 100.00'S14°50'49"W 100.00'3' WIT
N
E
S
S
C
O
R
N
E
R
FOUN
D
N
A
I
L
&
1
-
1
/
2
"
ALUMI
N
U
M
T
A
G
L
S
2
8
6
4
3
S75°09
'
1
1
"
E
1
1
2
.
1
9
'
3' WIT
N
E
S
S
C
O
R
N
E
R
FOUN
D
N
A
I
L
&
1
-
1
/
2
"
ALUMI
N
U
M
T
A
G
L
S
2
8
6
4
3
N75°0
9
'
1
1
"
W
3
7
.
9
3
'
FOUN
D
1
"
B
R
A
S
S
P
L
U
G
LS286
4
3ELEVA
T
I
O
N
:
7
9
2
6
.
6
6 CONCRETERAMP DOWN TOPARKING GARAGEFOUN
D
1
"
B
R
A
S
S
P
L
U
G
LS286
4
3
FOUN
D
N
A
I
L
&
2
"
ALUM
I
N
U
M
T
A
G
LS238
7
5
H
C
E
65.2'
36.8'
9.7'
17.8'57.6'PARTY WALL WITH ADJOINING BUILDING57.0'72.1'14.6'82.1'22.3'0.4'9.4'24.5'0.5'28.5'
35.6'
LANDS
C
A
P
E
PLANT
E
R
(G.C.E
.
)
1.3'CONCRETE RAMP(G.C.E.)9.0'CONC
R
E
T
E
S
I
D
E
W
A
L
K
PAVE
D
R
O
A
D
W
A
Y
(73.7
0
'
P
U
B
L
I
C
R
I
G
H
T
-
O
F
-
W
A
Y
)
ALLEY
-
B
L
O
C
K
9
5
PAVE
D
A
L
L
E
Y
W
A
Y
LOT O
LOT Q
E. CO
O
P
E
R
A
V
E
N
U
E
LOT R
LOT N
TRAS
H
ENCLO
S
U
R
E
LOT
P
2.2'± B
E
T
W
E
E
N
BUILD
I
N
G
S
LOT M
STAIR
W
E
L
L
& ELE
V
A
T
O
R
(G.C.E
.
)
FOUR
-
S
T
O
R
Y
BRICK
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
LANDS
C
A
P
E
PLANT
E
R
(G.C.E.
)
FOUR
-
S
T
O
R
Y
STUCC
O
&
B
R
I
C
K
BUIL
D
I
N
G
520 E.
C
O
O
P
E
R
A
V
E
N
U
E
DNSTEPS
TILED
W
A
L
K
W
A
Y
S
(G.C.E
.
)
STEPS
STEPS
T
O
LOWE
R
L
E
V
E
L
(G.C.E
.
)
UNIT
S
P
-
1
855 S
Q
.
F
T
.
COVE
R
E
D
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
A
R
E
A
OWNE
D
B
Y
C
O
O
P
E
R
STREE
T
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
RECIP
R
O
C
A
L
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
RECEP
T
I
O
N
6
1
3
4
8
4
(CROS
S
H
A
T
C
H
E
D
A
R
E
A
)17.58'46.72'
48.63'
RECIP
R
O
C
A
L
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
RECEP
T
I
O
N
6
1
3
4
8
4
(CROS
S
H
A
T
C
H
E
D
A
R
E
A
)
UNIT
S
P
-
2
822 S
Q
.
F
T
.
COVE
R
E
D
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
A
R
E
A
OWNE
D
B
Y
C
O
O
P
E
R
STREE
T
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T17.58'OWNE
RCOOP
E
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
COND
O
M
I
N
I
U
M
S FIRE LANE ACCESSTILED WALKWAY(G.C.E.)(G.C.E.)OWNE
RTHOR
5
3
4
E
A
S
T
C
O
O
P
E
R
AVEN
U
E
L
L
C
BOOG
I
E
S
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
O
F
ASPEN
S
U
B
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
OWNE
R
DCGB
L
L
C312 S
G
A
L
E
N
A
S
T
R
E
E
T
LOWER LEVELCOURT YARD(G.C.E.)LIGHT POLE
PARKING SIGN
ORF
R
EV I E W
TELEPHONE PEDESTAL
DYH FIRE HYDRANT
ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER
GAS METER
ELECTRICAL METER
G
LEGEND
E
THE EASTERLY 23.75 FEET OF LOT N, ALL OF LOTS O AND P AND WESTERLY 28.25 FEET OF LOT Q, BLOCK 95
SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84 WEST OF THE 6TH PM
CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO
TRUE NORTH COLORADO LLC.
A LAND SURVEYING AND MAPPING COMPANY
P.O. BOX 614 - 386 MAIN STREET UNIT 3
NEW CASTLE, COLORADO 81647
(970) 984-0474
www.truenorthcolorado.com
DRAWN
SURVEYED
SHEET
1 OF 5
TRUENORTH
A LAND SURVEYING AND MAPPING COMPANY
10'5'20'
SCALE: 1" = 10'
N
0
NOTICE: ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY
LEGAL ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY WITHIN THREE
YEARS AFTER YOU FIRST DISCOVER SUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVENT MAY ANY
ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY BE COMMENCED MORE
THAN TEN YEARS FROM THE DATE OF CERTIFICATION SHOWN HEREON.
PROJECT NO: 2021-463
DATE: March 11, 2022
RPK
GBL-DJB-RPK
CLERK & RECORDER CERTIFICATE
THIS THIRD AMENDED CONDOMINIUM MAP OF ASPENHOF, A CONDOMINIUM HAS BEEN ACCEPTED FOR FILING IN
THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK AND RECORDER OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO ON THIS ________ DAY OF
______________________, 2022, IN PLAT BOOK ________ AT PAGE ___________ AS RECEPTION NO. ______________________.
________________________________________________________
PITKIN COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER
NOTES:
1.BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS SURVEY IS A BEARING OF N75°09'11"W BETWEEN A FOUND NAIL
& 2" ALUMINUM TAG HCE LS23875 AND A FOUND 1" BRASS PLUG LS28643 AS SHOWN HEREON.
2. DATE OF FIELD SURVEY: FEBRUARY 21-22, 2022. DATE OF INTERIOR AS-BUILT MEASUREMENTS:
FEBRUARY 23, 2022.
3. LINEAR UNITS USED TO PERFORM THIS SURVEY WERE U.S. SURVEY FEET.
4. THIS THIRD AMENDED PLAT OF ASPENHOF, A CONDOMINIUM IS BASED ON CONDOMINIUM
MAPS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 4 AT PAGE 36, PLAT BOOK 6 AT PAGE 10 AND PLAT BOOK 105
AT PAGE 87 AND SURVEY OF THE PROPERTY PREPARED BY SOPRIS ENGINEERING JANUARY OF
2013.
5. THIS PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO RESERVATIONS, RESTRICTIONS, COVENANTS AND EASEMENTS OF
RECORD OR IN PLACE AND EXCEPTIONS TO TITLE SHOWN IN THE TITLE COMMITMENT
PREPARED BY ___________________________DATED :_______________________________________________________
6. LIMITED COMMON ELEMENT (L.C.E.) - GENERAL COMMON ELEMENT (G.C.E.).
7. THIS THIRD AMENDED PLAT IS SUBJECT TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE
ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION RECORDED IN THE PITKIN COUNTY CLERK & RECORDER’S OFFICE AS
RECEPTION NO. _____________________________.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR APPROVAL
THIS THIRD AMENDED CONDOMINIUM MAP OF ASPENHOF, A CONDOMINIUM HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND
APPROVED FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE BY THE
CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR THIS _____DAY OF _______________________, 2022. TO THE
EXTENT THAT ANYTHING IN THIS PLAT IS INCONSISTENT OR IN CONFLICT WITH ANY CITY OF ASPEN
DEVELOPMENT ORDERS RELATING TO THESE CONDOMINIUMS OR ANY OTHER PROVISIONS OF APPLICABLE LAW,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO OTHER APPLICABLE LAND USE REGULATIONS AND BUILDING CODES, SUCH
OTHER DEVELOPMENT ORDERS OR APPLICABLE LAWS SHALL CONTROL.
BY: ____________________________________________________________________________
PHILLIP SUPINO-COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
TITLE CERTIFICATE
I, ________________________________________, AN AGENT AUTHORIZED OF _____________________________
DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE EXAMINED THE TITLE TO ALL LANDS SHOWN UPON THIS PLAT AND THAT
TITLE TO SUCH LANDS IS VESTED IN ASPENHOF CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION IS FREE AND CLEAR OF ALL
LIENS AND ENCUMBRANCES (INCLUDING MORTGAGES, DEEDS OF TRUST, JUDGMENTS, EASEMENTS,
CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS OF RECORD AFFECTING THE REAL PROPERTY IN THIS PLAT), EXCEPT AS
SHOWN IN THE TITLE COMMITMENT NO. ______________________ HAVING AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF
__________________________________.
DATED THIS_________DAY OF___________________________, A.D. 2022.
TITLE COMPANY NAME
___________________________________________________________
AUTHORIZED AGENT
SURVEYOR 'S CERTIFICATE
I, RODNEY P. KISER, REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE PREPARED THIS THIRD
AMENDED CONDOMINIUM MAP OF ASPENHOF, A CONDOMINIUM, THAT THE LOCATION OF THE OUTSIDE
BOUNDARIES, EXISTING STRUCTURES, FACILITIES AND OTHER FEATURES ARE ACCURATELY AND CORRECTLY
SHOWN HEREON AND ARE BASED ON A FIELD SURVEY PERFORMED UNDER MY SUPERVISION, THAT THE
LOCATION OF THE UNIT BOUNDARIES AND OTHER FEATURES ARE ACCURATELY AND CORRECTLY SHOWN
HEREON AND ARE BASED ON AS-BUILT SURVEY MEASUREMENTS OF THE SUBJECT UNITS. THIS CONDOMINIUM
MAP CONTAINS ALL OF THE INFORMATION REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §38-33.3-209.
IN WITNESS THEREOF, I HAVE SET MY HAND AND SEAL THIS ________ DAY OF _________________, 2022.
RODNEY P. KISER, PLS NO. 38215
COLORADO PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR
CITY OF ASPEN ENGINEER'S REVIEW AND APPROVAL
THIS THIRD AMENDED CONDOMINIUM MAP OF ASPENHOF, A CONDOMINIUM WAS REVIEWED FOR THE DEPICTION
OF THE ENGINEERING SURVEY REQUIREMENTS AND APPROVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN ENGINEER.
THIS __________ DAY OF _____________________, 2022
BY:________________________________________________________________________
TRICIA ARAGON, P.E. - CITY OF ASPEN ENGINEER
OWNER 'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, THAT ASPENOF CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION BEING THE OWNERS IN FEE
SIMPLE OF
THE EASTERLY 23.75 FEET OF LOT N, ALL OF LOTS O AND P AND THE WESTERLY 28.25 FEET OF LOT Q, BLOCK 95,
CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, ALSO KNOWN AS ASPENHOF, A CONDOMINIUM ACCORDING TO THE
CONDOMINIUM MAPS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 4 AT PAGE 36, PLAT BOOK 6 AT PAGE 10 AND PLAT BOOK 105 AT
PAGE 87, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS THIRD AMENDED CONDOMINIUM MAP OF ASPENHOF, A CONDOMINIUM HAS
BY THESE PRESENTS LAID OUT, PLATTED AND DESCRIBED THE SAME INTO CONDOMINIUM UNITS AND COMMON
ELEMENTS AS SHOWN HEREON AND DESCRIBED IN THE CONDOMINIUM DECLARATION FOR THE 208 E. MAIN
STREET CONDOMINIUMS RECORDED_____________________________, 2022 AS RECEPTION NO. _____________________
OWNER:
ASPENHOF CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
520 E COOPER AVENUE
ASPEN, CO 81611
BY:________________________________________________________________
MANAGING MEMBER
STATE OF COLORADO )
)ss
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
THE FOREGOING CERTIFICATION OF OWNERSHIP WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME THIS _______ DAY
OF_________________, 2022, BY _____________________________________________ AS MANAGING MEMBER.
WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL
___________________________________________________
NOTARY PUBLIC
VICINITY MAP
SITE
CITY
OF
ASPEN
N
ASPENHOF, A CONDOMINIUMTHIRD AMENDED CONDOMINIUM MAP
STORM DRAIN
155
DRAWING ISSUE
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:2108
CPF
DESIGN DEV.2022-06-14520 E COOPER AVENUE | ASPEN COASPENHOFAll ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
owned by and are the property of David Johnston
Architects, PC and developed for use and in
conjunction with the specified project. None
of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans
shall be used by or disclosed for any purposewhatsoever without the written authorization
of David Johnston Architects, PC.
119 South Spring St.
Suite 203
Aspen, CO 81611
970-925-3444
970-920-2186
TEL
FAX
1.2
SITE PLAN | PROPOSED
Sheet No.
N
FIRST FLOOR
UP
STAIRSELEVATORSTAIRWELL(G.C.E.)LANDSCAPE PLANTER
(G.C.E.)
UP
STAIRWELL
(G.C.E)CONCRETE RAMP(G.C.E.)LANDSCAPE
PLANTER
(G.C.E.)
OPEN COURT
AREA
BELOW
(L.C.E.)
COMMERCIAL
UP
DN
UP
UNIT SP-1
855 SQ.FT.
COVERED PARKING AREA
OWNED BY COOPER
STREET DEVELOPMENT
RECIPROCAL EASEMENT
RECEPTION 613484
(CROSS HATCHED AREAS)
UNIT SP-2
822 SQ.FT.
COVERED PARKING AREA
OWNED BY COOPER
STREET DEVELOPMENT
RAMP DOWN TO GARAGE(G.C.E.)FIRE LANEBRICK STEMS
WALLS (G.C.E.)
UNIT C-2
COMMERCIAL
2955± S.F.
UNIT C-1
COMMERCIAL
1937± S.F.
UNIT C-3
COMMERCIAL
1116± S.F.PLANTER(G.C.E.)CH:10.4'
CH:10.63'
CH:10.0'
WALKWAYS
(G.C.E.)
A
BATH
ROOM
RECESSED
ENTRY
(L.C.E.)
COMMERCIAL 18'-0"1'-0"48.3'
12.1'1.08'3.85'33.0'27.5'
18.4'
7.92'4.2'9.9'
7.8'
7.0'
35.5'55.5'2.75'2.6'30.7'
4.8'5.5'1.0''14.7'14.7'5.1'PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
SITE PLAN | PROPOSED
0 4'8'16'
156
DRAWING ISSUE
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:2108
CPF
DESIGN DEV.2022-06-14520 E COOPER AVENUE | ASPEN COASPENHOFAll ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
owned by and are the property of David Johnston
Architects, PC and developed for use and in
conjunction with the specified project. None
of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans
shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose
whatsoever without the written authorization
of David Johnston Architects, PC.
119 South Spring St.
Suite 203
Aspen, CO 81611
970-925-3444
970-920-2186
TEL
FAX
2.1
BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN
Sheet No.
UNIT 202
ADJOINING
COOPER STREET
CONDOMINIUMS
BASEMENT
MECHANICAL
LEASED
STORAGE
(L.C.E.)STORAGEUNIT P-10
165 S.F.
UNIT P-9
165 S.F.
UNIT P-8
142 S.F.
UNIT P-7
144 S.F.
UNIT P-6
144 S.F.
UNIT P-5
144 S.F.
UNIT P-4
161 S.F.
UNIT P-3
522 S.F.
UNIT P-2
142 S.F.
UNIT P-1
186 S.F. STORAGESTORAGEPARKING GARAGE &
STORAGE AREAS
(L.C.E.- RESIDENTIAL)
ENCLOSED
GARAGE STORAGERAMP UP TO ALLEY(G.C.E.)GARAGE
DOOR
MECHANICAL AREA
270 S.F.
(G.C.E.)
UNIT RB-1
COMMERCIAL
3574± S.F.
AREA
UNDER
CONSTRUCTIONRESTROOM RESTROOMSILVER PEAK
DISPENSARY
520 GRILL
OPEN
COURT
AREA
UP
STAIRS(G.C.E.)(L.C.E.)BOILER ROOM
260 S.F.ELEVATORMECHANICALELEVATORHALLWAY
STAIRWELL(G.C.E)UP
(G.C.E.)
STORAGE
UP
(G.C.E.)
A
1
1
A A
N N
M M
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
10
10
11
11
12
12
L L
J J
H H
2
2
3
3
B B
D D
F F
C C
E E
G G
K K
20.14'13.45'38'-11"'98.0'7'-43/4"'17'-10"'7'-31/2"'8'-83/4"'12'-9"'2'-2"'20.0'59'-53/4"'8'-63/4"'
29'-51/2"'8'-10"'43.5'
47.5'98.0'59.4'
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"-1 BASEMENT/GARAGE LEVEL
0 4'8'12'
157
DRAWING ISSUE
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:2108
CPF
DESIGN DEV.2022-06-14520 E COOPER AVENUE | ASPEN COASPENHOFAll ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
owned by and are the property of David Johnston
Architects, PC and developed for use and in
conjunction with the specified project. None
of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans
shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose
whatsoever without the written authorization
of David Johnston Architects, PC.
119 South Spring St.
Suite 203
Aspen, CO 81611
970-925-3444
970-920-2186
TEL
FAX
2.2
FIRST LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
Sheet No.
FIRST FLOOR
UP
STAIRSELEVATORSTAIRWELL(G.C.E.)LANDSCAPE PLANTER
(G.C.E.)
UP
STAIRWELL
(G.C.E)CONCRETE RAMP(G.C.E.)LANDSCAPE
PLANTER
(G.C.E.)
OPEN COURT
AREA
BELOW
(L.C.E.)
COMMERCIAL
UP
DN
UP
UNIT SP-1
855 SQ.FT.
COVERED PARKING AREA
OWNED BY COOPER
STREET DEVELOPMENT
RECIPROCAL EASEMENT
RECEPTION 613484
(CROSS HATCHED AREAS)
UNIT SP-2
822 SQ.FT.
COVERED PARKING AREA
OWNED BY COOPER
STREET DEVELOPMENTRAMP DOWN TO GARAGE(G.C.E.)FIRE LANEBRICK STEMS
WALLS (G.C.E.)
UNIT C-2
COMMERCIAL
2955± S.F.
UNIT C-1
COMMERCIAL
1937± S.F.
UNIT C-3
COMMERCIAL
1116± S.F.PLANTER(G.C.E.)CH:10.4'
CH:10.63'
CH:10.0'
WALKWAYS
(G.C.E.)
A
BATH
ROOM
RECESSED
ENTRY
(L.C.E.)
COMMERCIAL
1
1
A A
N N
M M
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
10
10
11
11
12
12
L L
J J
H H
2
2
3
3
B B
D D
F F
C C
E E
G G
K K
8"18'-8"5'-3"8'-3"12'-4"3'-10"12'-0"5'-41/2"7'-113/4"11'-1"15'-11"8'-0"8"100'-0"18'-0"4'-41/4"6'-31/2"3'-0"5'-01/4"6'-81/4"7'-31/2"14'-51/4"4'-63/4"8'-31/4"10'-83/4"19'-0"10'-41/4"108'-8"
1'-53/4"2'-4"7'-91/2"2'-31/2"1'-0"48.3'
12.1'1.08'3.85'33.0'27.5'
18.4'
7.92'4.2'9.9'
7.8'
7.0'
35.5'55.5'2.75'2.6'30.7'
4.8'5.5'1.0''14.7'14.7'5.1'
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"1 GROUND FLOOR EXISTING PLAN
0 4'8'12'
158
DRAWING ISSUE
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:2108
CPF
DESIGN DEV.2022-06-14520 E COOPER AVENUE | ASPEN COASPENHOFAll ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
owned by and are the property of David Johnston
Architects, PC and developed for use and in
conjunction with the specified project. None
of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans
shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose
whatsoever without the written authorization
of David Johnston Architects, PC.
119 South Spring St.
Suite 203
Aspen, CO 81611
970-925-3444
970-920-2186
TEL
FAX
2.3
SECOND LEVEL FLOOR
PLAN
Sheet No.RECIPROCAL EASEMENTRECEPTION 613484(CROSS HATCHED AREA)ELEVATORSTAIRWELL(G.C.E.)UP
DN
DN
UPDN
UNIT C-4
COMMERCIAL
795± S.F.UNIT C-6
COMMERCIAL
1025± S.F.
UP
UNIT C-8
COMMERCIAL
535± S.F.
UNIT C-7
COMMERCIAL
3707± S.F.
CH:8.08'
UNIT C-9
COMMERCIAL
350± S.F.
CH:7.94'
CH:8.08'
CH:7.92'
CH:7.90'
UNIT C-5
COMMERCIAL
871± S.F.
CH:7.90'
HALLWAY
BALCONY & WALKWAY(G.C.E.)MENS BATHROOM(L.C.E)(G.C.E.)LAUNDRY
FACILITIES
(L.C.E.)
RESIDENTIAL HALLWAYWOMENS BATHROOM(L.C.E)BALCONY & WALKWAY
A
(G.C.E.)
OFFICE
SPACE
STORAGE
STORAGE
STAIRWELL
(G.C.E.)
(G.C.E.)
(G.C.E.)
1
1
A A
N N
M M
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
10
10
11
11
12
12
L L
J J
H H
2
2
3
3
B B
D D
F F
C C
E E
G G
K K
4'-41/4"6'-31/2"8'-01/4"6'-81/4"21'-83/4"12'-10"29'-83/4"10'-41/4"57'-61/2"'19'-10"'17'-73/4"'18'-5"'2'-11/2"'9'-71/4"'13'-93/4"'11'-63/4"'4'-41/4"'22'-11"'23'-4"'
22'-9"'11'-01/2"'9'-4"'21'-21/4"'13'-5"'32'-21/2"'18'-2"'95'-13/4"28'-61/2"'35'-11"'23'-9"'34.1'2.75'2.4'23'-51/2"'35.4'13.4'3.9'10.0'39.3'5'-10"'4'-10"'5'-9"
13'-43/4"'11'-13/4"'14'-101/2"'6'-4"'6'-4"'6'-01/2"'5'-11"'11'-23/4"'111/2"'SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"2 SECOND FLOOR
0 4'8'12'
159
DRAWING ISSUE
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:2108
CPF
DESIGN DEV.2022-06-14520 E COOPER AVENUE | ASPEN COASPENHOFAll ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
owned by and are the property of David Johnston
Architects, PC and developed for use and in
conjunction with the specified project. None
of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans
shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose
whatsoever without the written authorization
of David Johnston Architects, PC.
119 South Spring St.
Suite 203
Aspen, CO 81611
970-925-3444
970-920-2186
TEL
FAX
2.4
THIRD LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
Sheet No.ELEVATORSTAIRWELL(G.C.E.)STAIRWELL
(G.C.E.)
UP
DN
UPDN
DN
UP TO
UNIT 406
(L.C.E.)
UP TO
UNIT 402
UNIT 403
(L.C.E.)
UP
CH:7.50'
CH:16.65'
UP
CH:16.70'
CH:7.50'
UP
CH:7.45'
CH:16.65'
A
CH:7.50'CH:7.45'CH:7.45'
UNIT 301 UNIT 302 UNIT 303 UNIT 304 UNIT 305 UNIT 306
818± S.F.1167± S.F.1167± S.F.830± S.F.830± S.F.1124± S.F.
OPEN BALCONY L.C.E. FOR UNITS ON THIRD & FOURTH FLOOR
OPEN COURT
(L.C.E.)
RESIDENTIAL
OPEN BALCONY L.C.E. FOR UNITS ON THIRD & FOURTH FLOOR
OPEN COURT
(L.C.E.)
RESIDENTIAL
OPEN COURT
(L.C.E.)
RESIDENTIAL
(L.C.E.)
RESIDENTIAL
DNDN
DN1234567UPCustom Text
1
1
A A
N N
M M
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
10
10
11
11
12
12
L L
J J
H H
2
2
3
3
B B
D D
F F
C C
E E
G G
K K64.0'11'-6"'22'-21/2"'22.2''11'-81/2"'11'-81/2"'20.2''
3.5'10.2'12'-1"'13.6'3.9'3.9'42'-91/2"9'-31/2"'1'-61/4"'21'-21/2"29.2'54.7'3.9'13.6'12.08'
3.9'42.8'15'-41/4"'15.55'15.5'15.55'15.6'12.7'
2.75'2'-8"'50.4'12.2'13.6'29.2'64.0'3.8'3'-111/2"'3.8'21.2'6.4'3.5'3.6'10.1'3.9'21.2'NEW FLUE ROUTING
1
4.1
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"3 THIRD FLOOR
0 4'8'12'
160
DRAWING ISSUE
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:2108
CPF
DESIGN DEV.2022-06-14520 E COOPER AVENUE | ASPEN COASPENHOFAll ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
owned by and are the property of David Johnston
Architects, PC and developed for use and in
conjunction with the specified project. None
of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans
shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose
whatsoever without the written authorization
of David Johnston Architects, PC.
119 South Spring St.
Suite 203
Aspen, CO 81611
970-925-3444
970-920-2186
TEL
FAX
2.5
FOURTH LEVEL FLOOR
PLAN
Sheet No.
DN
DN
FOURTH FLOOR
DN
DN
A
DN DNDN
UNIT 406UNIT 402 UNIT 403OPEN TO
LIVING ROOM
BELOW
(UNIT 301)
(2ND STORY)
OPEN TO
LIVING ROOM
BELOW
(UNIT 304)
(2ND STORY)
OPEN TO
LIVING ROOM
BELOW
(UNIT 305)
(2ND STORY)
BALCONY
UNIT 402
(L.C.E.)
BALCONY
UNITS 402 & 403
(L.C.E.)
BALCONY
UNIT 406
(L.C.E.)
CH:7.55'
CH:7.50'
CH:7.50'
CH:7.55'
CH:7.50'
UNIT 301
540± S.F.
1244± S.F.1242± S.F.
UNIT 304
546± S.F.
UNIT 305
547± S.F.
1237± S.F.
CH:7.55'
OPEN COURT
(L.C.E.)
RESIDENTIAL
OPEN COURT
(L.C.E.)
RESIDENTIAL
OPEN COURT
(L.C.E.)
RESIDENTIAL
STAIRWELL(G.C.E.)STAIRWELL
(G.C.E.)
STAIRWELL
UNIT 402
UNIT 403
(L.C.E.)
STAIRWELL
UNIT 406
(L.C.E.)
ELEVATORDNDN1
1
A A
N N
M M
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
10
10
11
11
12
12
L L
J J
H H
2
2
3
3
B B
D D
F F
C C
E E
G G
K K
23'-11"20'-7"3'-10"12'-0"5'-41/2"7'-113/4"11'-1"15'-11"8'-0"
45'-2"21'-21/2"7'-113/4"27'-0"
81/4"18'-8"5'-3"8'-3"12'-4"3'-10"12'-0"5'-41/4"7'-111/2"11'-1"15'-11"8'-0"8"9'-51/4"5'-81/2"108'-8"41.5'12.6'7.85'7.15'8.0'7.1'8.05'7.1'41.5'41.5'11.5'22.2'22.18'11.70'11.65'23.65'
6.65'
1.9'48.20'13.6'11.7'11.6'64.0'12.08'12.08'13.6'8.3'8.2'29.2'12.2'13.6'8.3'21.2'21.2'21.2'19.9'19.8'
11.3'
8.5'29.2'60.6'11.35'6.85'14.7'6.6'6.0'21.0'
NEW FLUE ROUTING
1
4.1
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"4 FOURTH FLOOR
0 4'8'12'
161
DRAWING ISSUE
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:2108
CPF
DESIGN DEV.2022-06-14520 E COOPER AVENUE | ASPEN COASPENHOFAll ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
owned by and are the property of David Johnston
Architects, PC and developed for use and in
conjunction with the specified project. None
of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans
shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose
whatsoever without the written authorization
of David Johnston Architects, PC.
119 South Spring St.
Suite 203
Aspen, CO 81611
970-925-3444
970-920-2186
TEL
FAX
3.1
BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN
Sheet No.
UNIT 202
ADJOINING
COOPER STREET
CONDOMINIUMS
BASEMENT
MECHANICAL
LEASED
STORAGE
(L.C.E.)STORAGEUNIT P-10
165 S.F.
UNIT P-9
165 S.F.
UNIT P-8
142 S.F.
UNIT P-7
144 S.F.
UNIT P-6
144 S.F.
UNIT P-5
144 S.F.
UNIT P-4
161 S.F.
UNIT P-3
522 S.F.
UNIT P-2
142 S.F.
UNIT P-1
186 S.F. STORAGESTORAGEPARKING GARAGE &
STORAGE AREAS
(L.C.E.- RESIDENTIAL)
ENCLOSED
GARAGE STORAGERAMP UP TO ALLEY(G.C.E.)GARAGE
DOOR
MECHANICAL AREA
270 S.F.
(G.C.E.)
UNIT RB-1
COMMERCIAL
3574± S.F.
AREA
UNDER
CONSTRUCTIONRESTROOM RESTROOMSILVER PEAK
DISPENSARY
520 GRILL
OPEN
COURT
AREA
UP
STAIRS(G.C.E.)(L.C.E.)BOILER ROOM
260 S.F.ELEVATORMECHANICALELEVATORHALLWAY
STAIRWELL(G.C.E)UP
(G.C.E.)
STORAGE
BASEMENT LEVEL - PARKING GARAGE
UP
(G.C.E.)
A
123456UPCustom Text
1
1
A A
N N
M M
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
10
10
11
11
12
12
L L
J J
H H
2
2
3
3
B B
D D
F F
C C
E E
G G
K K
8"18'-8"5'-3"8'-3"12'-4"3'-10"12'-0"5'-41/4"7'-113/4"11'-1"15'-11"8'-0"8"4'-41/4"6'-31/2"8'-01/4"6'-81/4"21'-83/4"4'-63/4"8'-31/4"10'-83/4"19'-0"10'-41/4"100'-0"4'-41/4"6'-31/2"3'-0"5'-01/4"6'-81/4"7'-31/2"14'-51/4"4'-63/4"8'-31/4"10'-83/4"19'-0"10'-41/4"20.14'13.45'38'-11"'98.0'7'-43/4"'17'-10"'7'-31/2"'8'-83/4"'12'-9"'2'-2"'20.0'59'-53/4"'8'-63/4"'
29'-51/2"'8'-10"'43.5'
47.5'98.0'59.4'3'-01/2"12'-03/4"20'-01/2"NEW FLUE ROUTING
REPLACE GAURDRAILS
REPLACE GAURDRAILS
12345678910DN
UP
EXISTING STAIR
1
4.1
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"-1 BASEMENT LEVEL-PARKING GARAGE
0 4'8'12'
162
DRAWING ISSUE
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:2108
CPF
DESIGN DEV.2022-06-14520 E COOPER AVENUE | ASPEN COASPENHOFAll ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
owned by and are the property of David Johnston
Architects, PC and developed for use and in
conjunction with the specified project. None
of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans
shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose
whatsoever without the written authorization
of David Johnston Architects, PC.
119 South Spring St.
Suite 203
Aspen, CO 81611
970-925-3444
970-920-2186
TEL
FAX
3.2
FIRST LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
Sheet No.
FIRST FLOOR
UP
STAIRSELEVATORSTAIRWELL(G.C.E.)LANDSCAPE PLANTER
(G.C.E.)
UP
STAIRWELL
(G.C.E)CONCRETE RAMP(G.C.E.)LANDSCAPE
PLANTER
(G.C.E.)
OPEN COURT
AREA
BELOW
(L.C.E.)
COMMERCIAL
UP
DN
UP
UNIT SP-1
855 SQ.FT.
COVERED PARKING AREA
OWNED BY COOPER
STREET DEVELOPMENT
RECIPROCAL EASEMENT
RECEPTION 613484
(CROSS HATCHED AREAS)
UNIT SP-2
822 SQ.FT.
COVERED PARKING AREA
OWNED BY COOPER
STREET DEVELOPMENTRAMP DOWN TO GARAGE(G.C.E.)FIRE LANEBRICK STEMS
WALLS (G.C.E.)
UNIT C-2
COMMERCIAL
2955± S.F.
UNIT C-1
COMMERCIAL
1937± S.F.
UNIT C-3
COMMERCIAL
1116± S.F.PLANTER(G.C.E.)CH:10.4'
CH:10.63'
CH:10.0'
WALKWAYS
(G.C.E.)
A
BATH
ROOM
RECESSED
ENTRY
(L.C.E.)
COMMERCIAL DN1234567UPCustom Text 1234567UP
Custom Text1
1
A A
N N
M M
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
10
10
11
11
12
12
L L
J J
H H
2
2
3
3
B B
D D
F F
C C
E E
G G
K K
8"18'-8"5'-3"8'-3"12'-4"3'-10"12'-0"5'-41/2"7'-113/4"11'-1"15'-11"8'-0"8"100'-0"18'-0"4'-41/4"6'-31/2"3'-0"5'-01/4"6'-81/4"7'-31/2"14'-51/4"4'-63/4"8'-31/4"10'-83/4"19'-0"10'-41/4"108'-8"
1'-53/4"2'-4"7'-91/2"2'-31/2"1'-0"48.3'
12.1'1.08'3.85'33.0'27.5'
18.4'
7.92'4.2'9.9'
7.8'
7.0'
35.5'55.5'2.75'2.6'30.7'
4.8'5.5'1.0''14.7'14.7'5.1'
NEW FLUE ROUTING
NEW BENCH NICHE
NEW AWNINGNEW AWNING
NEW AWNING
REPLACE WINDOW
REPLACE WINDOW
REPLACE GUARDRAIL (TYP.)12345678910111213141516171819DN
UP
EXISTING STAIR
1
4.1
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"1 FIRST FLOOR
0 4'8'12'
163
DRAWING ISSUE
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:2108
CPF
DESIGN DEV.2022-06-14520 E COOPER AVENUE | ASPEN COASPENHOFAll ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
owned by and are the property of David Johnston
Architects, PC and developed for use and in
conjunction with the specified project. None
of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans
shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose
whatsoever without the written authorization
of David Johnston Architects, PC.
119 South Spring St.
Suite 203
Aspen, CO 81611
970-925-3444
970-920-2186
TEL
FAX
3.3
SECOND LEVEL FLOOR
PLAN
Sheet No.RECIPROCAL EASEMENTRECEPTION 613484(CROSS HATCHED AREA)ELEVATORSTAIRWELL(G.C.E.)UP
DN
SECOND FLOOR
DN
UPDN
UNIT C-4
COMMERCIAL
795± S.F.UNIT C-6
COMMERCIAL
1025± S.F.
UP
UNIT C-8
COMMERCIAL
535± S.F.
UNIT C-7
COMMERCIAL
3707± S.F.
CH:8.08'
UNIT C-9
COMMERCIAL
350± S.F.
CH:7.94'
CH:8.08'
CH:7.92'
CH:7.90'
UNIT C-5
COMMERCIAL
871± S.F.
CH:7.90'
HALLWAY
BALCONY & WALKWAY(G.C.E.)MENS BATHROOM(L.C.E)(G.C.E.)LAUNDRY
FACILITIES
(L.C.E.)
RESIDENTIAL HALLWAYWOMENS BATHROOM(L.C.E)BALCONY & WALKWAY
A
(G.C.E.)
OFFICE
SPACE
STORAGE
STORAGE
STAIRWELL
(G.C.E.)
(G.C.E.)
(G.C.E.)DNDNDN
1234567UPCustom Text
1
1
A A
N N
M M
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
10
10
11
11
12
12
L L
J J
H H
2
2
3
3
B B
D D
F F
C C
E E
G G
K K
4'-41/4"6'-31/2"8'-01/4"6'-81/4"21'-83/4"12'-10"29'-83/4"10'-41/4"57'-61/2"'19'-10"'17'-73/4"'18'-5"'2'-11/2"'9'-71/4"'13'-93/4"'11'-63/4"'4'-41/4"'22'-11"'23'-4"'
22'-9"'11'-01/2"'9'-4"'21'-21/4"'13'-5"'32'-21/2"'18'-2"'95'-13/4"28'-61/2"'35'-11"'23'-9"'34.1'2.75'2.4'23'-51/2"'35.4'13.4'3.9'10.0'39.3'5'-10"'4'-10"'5'-9"
13'-43/4"'11'-13/4"'14'-101/2"'6'-4"'6'-4"'6'-01/2"'5'-11"'11'-23/4"'111/2"'NEW FLUE ROUTING
NEW AWNINGNEW AWNING
NEW AWNING
REPLACE WINDOW
REPLACE WINDOW
REPLACE GUARDRAIL (TYP.)
REPLACE WINDOW
1
4.1
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"2 SECOND FLOOR
0 4'8'12'
164
DRAWING ISSUE
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:2108
CPF
DESIGN DEV.2022-06-14520 E COOPER AVENUE | ASPEN COASPENHOFAll ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
owned by and are the property of David Johnston
Architects, PC and developed for use and in
conjunction with the specified project. None
of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans
shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose
whatsoever without the written authorization
of David Johnston Architects, PC.
119 South Spring St.
Suite 203
Aspen, CO 81611
970-925-3444
970-920-2186
TEL
FAX
3.4
THIRD LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
Sheet No.ELEVATORSTAIRWELL(G.C.E.)STAIRWELL
(G.C.E.)
UP
DN
UPDN
DN
UP TO
UNIT 406
(L.C.E.)
UP TO
UNIT 402
UNIT 403
(L.C.E.)
UP
CH:7.50'
CH:16.65'
UP
CH:16.70'
CH:7.50'
UP
CH:7.45'
CH:16.65'
A
CH:7.50'CH:7.45'CH:7.45'
UNIT 301 UNIT 302 UNIT 303 UNIT 304 UNIT 305 UNIT 306
818± S.F.1167± S.F.1167± S.F.830± S.F.830± S.F.1124± S.F.
OPEN BALCONY L.C.E. FOR UNITS ON THIRD & FOURTH FLOOR
OPEN COURT
(L.C.E.)
RESIDENTIAL
OPEN BALCONY L.C.E. FOR UNITS ON THIRD & FOURTH FLOOR
OPEN COURT
(L.C.E.)
RESIDENTIAL
OPEN COURT
(L.C.E.)
RESIDENTIAL
(L.C.E.)
RESIDENTIAL
DNDN
DN1234567UPCustom Text
1
1
A A
N N
M M
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
10
10
11
11
12
12
L L
J J
H H
2
2
3
3
B B
D D
F F
C C
E E
G G
K K64.0'11'-6"'22'-21/2"'22.2''11'-81/2"'11'-81/2"'20.2''
3.5'10.2'12'-1"'13.6'3.9'3.9'42'-91/2"9'-31/2"'1'-61/4"'21'-21/2"29.2'54.7'3.9'13.6'12.08'
3.9'42.8'15'-41/4"'15.55'15.5'15.55'15.6'12.7'
2.75'2'-8"'50.4'12.2'13.6'29.2'64.0'3.8'3'-111/2"'3.8'21.2'6.4'3.5'3.6'10.1'3.9'21.2'NEW FLUE ROUTING
REPLACE WINDOW
REPLACE WINDOW
REPLACE GUARDRAIL (TYP.)
REPLACE GUARDRAIL (TYP.)
REPLACE WINDOW
1
4.1
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"3 THIRD FLOOR
0 4'8'12'
165
DRAWING ISSUE
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:2108
CPF
DESIGN DEV.2022-06-14520 E COOPER AVENUE | ASPEN COASPENHOFAll ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
owned by and are the property of David Johnston
Architects, PC and developed for use and in
conjunction with the specified project. None
of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans
shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose
whatsoever without the written authorization
of David Johnston Architects, PC.
119 South Spring St.
Suite 203
Aspen, CO 81611
970-925-3444
970-920-2186
TEL
FAX
3.5
FOURTH LEVEL FLOOR
PLAN
Sheet No.
DN
DN
FOURTH FLOOR
DN
DN
A
DN DNDN
UNIT 406UNIT 402 UNIT 403OPEN TO
LIVING ROOM
BELOW
(UNIT 301)
(2ND STORY)
OPEN TO
LIVING ROOM
BELOW
(UNIT 304)
(2ND STORY)
OPEN TO
LIVING ROOM
BELOW
(UNIT 305)
(2ND STORY)
BALCONY
UNIT 402
(L.C.E.)
BALCONY
UNITS 402 & 403
(L.C.E.)
BALCONY
UNIT 406
(L.C.E.)
CH:7.55'
CH:7.50'
CH:7.50'
CH:7.55'
CH:7.50'
UNIT 301
540± S.F.
1244± S.F.1242± S.F.
UNIT 304
546± S.F.
UNIT 305
547± S.F.
1237± S.F.
CH:7.55'
OPEN COURT
(L.C.E.)
RESIDENTIAL
OPEN COURT
(L.C.E.)
RESIDENTIAL
OPEN COURT
(L.C.E.)
RESIDENTIAL
STAIRWELL(G.C.E.)STAIRWELL
(G.C.E.)
STAIRWELL
UNIT 402
UNIT 403
(L.C.E.)
STAIRWELL
UNIT 406
(L.C.E.)
ELEVATORDNDN1
1
A A
N N
M M
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
10
10
11
11
12
12
L L
J J
H H
2
2
3
3
B B
D D
F F
C C
E E
G G
K K
23'-11"20'-7"3'-10"12'-0"5'-41/2"7'-113/4"11'-1"15'-11"8'-0"
45'-2"21'-21/2"7'-113/4"27'-0"
81/4"18'-8"5'-3"8'-3"12'-4"3'-10"12'-0"5'-41/4"7'-111/2"11'-1"15'-11"8'-0"8"9'-51/4"5'-81/2"108'-8"41.5'12.6'7.85'7.15'8.0'7.1'8.05'7.1'41.5'41.5'11.5'22.2'22.18'11.70'11.65'23.65'
6.65'
1.9'48.20'13.6'11.7'11.6'64.0'12.08'12.08'13.6'8.3'8.2'29.2'12.2'13.6'8.3'21.2'21.2'21.2'19.9'19.8'
11.3'
8.5'29.2'60.6'11.35'6.85'14.7'6.6'6.0'21.0'
NEW FLUE ROUTING
REPLACE WINDOW
REPLACE WINDOW
REPLACE GUARDRAIL (TYP.)
REPLACE WINDOW
REPLACE GUARDRAIL (TYP.)
1
4.1
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"4 FOURTH FLOOR
0 4'8'12'
166
DRAWING ISSUE
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:2108
CPF
DESIGN DEV.2022-06-14520 E COOPER AVENUE | ASPEN COASPENHOFAll ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
owned by and are the property of David Johnston
Architects, PC and developed for use and in
conjunction with the specified project. None
of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans
shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose
whatsoever without the written authorization
of David Johnston Architects, PC.
119 South Spring St.
Suite 203
Aspen, CO 81611
970-925-3444
970-920-2186
TEL
FAX
4.1
ELEVATIONS
Sheet No.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
FIRST FLOOR
100'-0"
FIRST FLOOR
100'-0"
SECOND FLOOR
112'-0"
SECOND FLOOR
112'-0"
THIRD FLOOR
121'-73/8"
THIRD FLOOR
121'-73/8"
FOURTH FLOOR
130'-91/2"
FOURTH FLOOR
130'-91/2"
ROOF
139'-103/4"
ROOF
139'-103/4"
NEW BRICK
NEW STEEL
AWNING
NEW WINDOWS
NEW WINDOWS
NEW COMPOSITE
FASCIA
NEW TINTED GLASS GAURDRAIL
NEW COMPOSITE SIDING
NEW WINDOWS
NEW WINDOWS
NEW STUCCO
NEW WINDOWS
NEW STUCCO
EXISTING BRICK
(NEW FINISH)
NEW STEEL
AWNING
NEW STEEL
AWNING
NEW BENCH
NEW TINTED GLASS GAURDRAIL
NEW TINTED GLASS GAURDRAILNEW TINTED GLASS GAURDRAIL
NEW COMPOSITE
FASCIA
EXISTING BRICK
(NEW FINISH)
NEW WINDOWS
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
FIRST FLOOR
100'-0"
FIRST FLOOR
100'-0"
SECOND FLOOR
112'-0"
SECOND FLOOR
112'-0"
THIRD FLOOR
121'-73/8"
THIRD FLOOR
121'-73/8"
FOURTH FLOOR
130'-91/2"
FOURTH FLOOR
130'-91/2"
ROOF
139'-103/4"
ROOF
139'-103/4"
REPLACE WINDOWS
REPLACE AWNING
REPLACE GAURDRAILS
REPLACE GAURDRAILS
REPLACE WINDOWS
REPLACE WINDOWS
REPLACE AWNING
REPLACE WINDOWS REPLACE WINDOWS REPLACE WINDOWSOMIT FLUE
REPLACE GAURDRAILS
REPLACE STUCCO
W/ SIDING
REPLACE STUCCO
W/ SIDING
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"1 NEW SOUTH ELEVATION
0 4'8'12'
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"1 EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION
0 4'8'12'
167
DRAWING ISSUE
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:2108
CPF
DESIGN DEV.2022-06-14520 E COOPER AVENUE | ASPEN COASPENHOFAll ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
owned by and are the property of David Johnston
Architects, PC and developed for use and in
conjunction with the specified project. None
of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans
shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose
whatsoever without the written authorization
of David Johnston Architects, PC.
119 South Spring St.
Suite 203
Aspen, CO 81611
970-925-3444
970-920-2186
TEL
FAX
4.2
RENDERINGS
Sheet No.
1 PROPOSED SOUTH FACADE
2 PROPOSED SOUTH FACADE
3 PROPOSED SOUTH FACADE
4 PROPOSED SOUTH FACADE
168
DRAWING ISSUE
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:2108
CPF
DESIGN DEV.2022-06-14520 E COOPER AVENUE | ASPEN COASPENHOFAll ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
owned by and are the property of David Johnston
Architects, PC and developed for use and in
conjunction with the specified project. None
of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans
shall be used by or disclosed for any purposewhatsoever without the written authorization
of David Johnston Architects, PC.
119 South Spring St.
Suite 203
Aspen, CO 81611
970-925-3444
970-920-2186
TEL
FAX
4.3
MATERIALS
Sheet No.3 PROPOSED SOUTH FACADE
COMPOSITE FASCIA-
SWISS PEARL
TINTED GLASS
GUARDRAIL
LIME-WASH BRICK COMPOSITE SIDINGTRESPA PURA-
AGED ASH
169
Swisspearl Facades
Products and System
Made to create
170
Swisspearl product range
Panel sizes and colors
171
Swisspearl panel sizes
Facades and interior
Swisspearl Largo - large size panels
Swisspearl Linearis - slat panels
Swisspearl Modula - overlap panels
Roof
Swisspearl Roof - R-Color
Max. useable, finished panel size
120 1/16"× 49 3/16"× 5/16" | 1/2"
98 13/16"× 49 3/16"× 5/16" | 1/2"
Max. useable, finished panel size
120 1/16"× 49 3/16"× 5/16"
98 13/16"× 49 3/16"× 5/16"
98 13/16"× 12"× 5/16"
98 13/16"× 5 12/16"× 5/16"
59 1/16"× 12"× 5/16"
59 1/16"× 5 12/16"× 5/16"
98 13/16"× 11 13/16"× 5/16"
59 1/16"× 11 13/16"× 5/16"
Page 4/5: Muttseehuette, Glarus, Switzerland. Architect: Büchel Neubig Architekten GmbH, Weinfelden, Switzerland. Photographer: Jürg Hostettler, Winterberg, Switzerland.
Page 6/7: Linda Ridge, Pasadena, USA. Architect: Montalba Architects, Santa Monica, USA. Photographer: Kevin Scott, Seattle, USA.
Hydropower Plant, Tosbotn, Norway. Architect: Stein Hamre arkitektkontor, Mo i Rana, Norway. Photographer: Meraner & Hauser OHG / SNC, Bozen, Italy.
Swisspearl product range - Panel sizes
172
Swisspearl color overview
Independence and diversity
The Swisspearl facade panels get their independence through countless finishes and colors that offer limitless
diversity. Below is an overview of the surface and color options. They are described in greater detail on the pages
that follow.
Swisspearl product range - Color overview Swisspearl product range - Color overview
VINTAGO
Natural authentic, rough, lively and unique.
The sanded surface highlights the purity of
the fiber cement panel.
VINTAGO -REFLEX
Rough, lively with a shiny look.
The sanded surface combined with a reflective
surface gives a slightly rough, yet lively, shiny look.
GRAVIAL
Unique interplay of light and shadow.
The linear geometrical grooved surface offers
countless options for making a special statement.
CARAT
Unique natural look and timeless beauty.
The translucent lightly pigmented finish adds
a distinguished expression.
AVERA
REFLEX
NOBILIS
TERRA
PLANEA
Authentic and vibrant appearance.
The transparent coating lets the original natural
look of the fiber cement shine through.
Shiny look with metallic character.
The reflective surface coating gives the panels
a sophisticated, shiny look.
Authentic fiber cement look. The translucent light
pigmented surface highlights the fiber cement
texture in its natural beauty and elegance.
Earthy and warm athmosphere. The finely
coordinated colors are a reminiscent of earth
tones and gives the building envelope an
earthy, natural look.
Fresh and colorful creativity. The matte and
smooth finish emphasizes the clear, bright and
strong colors for an overall intense appearance. 173
Swisspearl Terra
Earthy and warm atmosphere
Terra is a grey based fiber cement panel with a translucent, strongly pigmented coating. The finely coordinated colors
are a reminiscent of earth tones and gives the building envelope an earthy, warm look.
With Terra, buildings are able to blend in with their natural environment.
Photographer: Meraner & Hauser OHG / SNC, Bozen, Italy.Amber 756Amber 755Amber 754Amber 753Amber 752Amber 751INFO
Panel size (refer to page 8)
Swisspearl Largo:
Arbitrary panel size up to a maximum size of
120 1/16"× 49 3/16", thickness 5/16". These 1/2" panels are
only available in size 98 13/16"× 49 3/16".
Largo panels can also be used for the interior.
Swisspearl Linearis:
4 different panel sizes, thickness 5/16".
Swisspearl Modula:
2 different panel sizes, thickness 5/16".
For a detailed summary of the sizing and color options,
please refer to our delivery program.
Colors
A wide standard range of 6 colors.
All colors available with HR-Coating.
Installation
The whole range from flat layer to lapped coverings, with
face or concealed fastening.
For detailed information refer to our DIM (Design & Installa-
tion Manual).
Swisspearl product range - Facade, interior and roof colors Swisspearl product range - Facade, interior and roof colors
174
Ventilated facade system
A highly sustainable solution
175
Ventilated facade system - Fasteners
Above: Single family home, Hirzel, Switzerland. Architect: Christa Stutz & Benno Kohli, Switzerland. Photographer: Jürg Zimmermann, Zurich, Switzerland.
Bottom: Villa Faun, Oslo, Norway. Architect: Various Architects, Oslo, Norway. Photographer: Meraner & Hauser OHG / SNC, Bozen, Italy.
Appearance of the cladding
Face fastened
Swisspearl facade panels are installed on timber or metal sub frame. The fastening method using face fastened
screws or rivets allows an efficient attachment to the supporting structures. In fact, the fastener heads are available
in the exact same shade of color as the panels, and are hardly visible even a slight distance away, as they blend with
the overall surface.
Concealed panel attachment methods
The concealed attachment has been designed for applications with the highest aesthetic standards. This high-end
method of use brings out the full attractiveness of the surface finish of the Swisspearl panels.
Sigma
Sigma concealed panel attachment is available for 5/16" and 1/2"panel thickness.
The panels are supplied by the factory or certified fabricator accurately cut to size, including anchoring points to
the panel rear face. Aluminum parts are fitted to the panel on site and the panels are hung to the appropriate
supports on the sub-framing.The sub-framing is made from either timber battens covered by a layer of EPDM for
moisture protection, or by metal, i.e. aluminum or galvanized steel.
Important:Anchoring points for Sigma 8 concealed panel attachment may only be set by Swisspearl directly.
Fischer
It's also possible to fix the concealed facade panels with Fischer FZP II T-PA undercut anchor embedment 5 mm in
coordination with a Fischer certified company.
Adhesive
Panels ordered for adhesive application are called ARSB and are available upon request at time of order.
Standard Swisspearl panels cannot be used for adhesive application.
Page 50/51: House RnEve, Mönchhof, Austria. Architect: ad2 Architekten, Weiden am See, Austria. Photographer: Meraner & Hauser OHG / SNC, Bozen, Italy.
176
EASY INSTALLATION,
DURABLE DESIGN
SMART
SIDING
SYSTEM
177
CREATE FA ÇADES
WITHOUT
CONCERNS
TRESPA PURA NFC® PROVIDES A SOLUTION CONSISTING OF
SIDINGS, FASTENERS AND MATCHING ACCESSORIES. THE
SIDINGS ARE NOT ONLY ATTRACTIVE, BUT ARE ALSO HIGHLY
DURABLE. SIDINGS UNDERGO EXTENSIVE TESTING FOR IMPACT
AND UV RESISTANCE AND COME WITH A 10-YEAR PRODUCT
GUARANTEE, WHICH INCLUDES COLOR STABILITY. THE SYSTEM
GIVES MAXIMUM DESIGN FREEDOM AND A LONG LASTING,
BEAUTIFUL FINISH.
2 | 178
PREFINISHED SIDINGS
No need to cut or router, the sidings are
ready to use.
EASILY INSTALLED
Installed quickly with no mess and no
fuss.
SOLID & STURDY
High scratch and impact resistance
guarantees hassle-free installation and a
beautiful end result.
WEATHER RESISTANT
Performs exceptionally well outdoors and
will stay attractive for many years. Sun
and rain have no significant effect on the
w surface.
NO NEED TO PAINT
EASY TO CLEAN
The closed surface of Trespa Pura NFC®
results in little build-up of dirt. Minimal
maintenance is required, it is easy to
clean, and painting will not be necessary
in the future.
10 YEAR GUARANTEE
Guarantee on product performance,
including color stability.
PREFINISHED
PLANKS
The sidings are made from up to 70%
natural fibres, which are sourced from
sustainable forests. All Trespa Pura NFC®
products are certified according to the
PEFC™ standard.
| 3179
TRESPA PURA NFC® IS A VERSATILE SOLUTION FOR MOST SIDING
PROJECTS. BOTH LAP AND FLUSH SIDINGS CAN BE INSTALLED EITHER
VERTICALLY OR HORIZONTALLY. THE SIDINGS CAN BE EASILY HANDLED
AND ARE SIMPLE TO CUT. TRESPA PURA NFC® IS THE PERFECT ANSWER
FOR BOTH INNOVATIVE AND TRADITIONAL VENTILATED FAÇADE
PROJECTS. VENTILATED FAÇADES ARE MORE THAN JUST A DESIGN
FEATURE, THEY CAN ALSO PROVIDE ENERGY EFFECTIVE SOLUTIONS.
AN EASY AND
VERSATILE SOLUTION
VENTILATED FAÇADE
A continuous airflow draws air through
the cavity, aiding in the removal of heat
and moisture from rain or condensation.
The dry and comfortable conditions of
the building may also have a positive
contribution to the indoor environment.
MATCHING COMPONENTS
Clips ScrewsProfiles
4 | 180
VERTICAL SIDING
Trespa Pura NFC® can also be applied
vertically in different ways. The example
shows alternate lap and flush sidings.
FLUSH SIDING
A flat, flush surface is easily achieved by
mounting Trespa Pura NFC® sidings side by
side, horizontally or vertically.
LAP SIDING
Lap siding is the traditional way of applying
sidings to a wall.
| 5181
TRESPA PURA NFC® IS THE PERFECT CHOICE FOR ANY FAÇADE
SIDING IN EITHER MODERN OR TRADITIONAL FITTING; IT GIVES
MAXIMUM DESIGN FREEDOM.
Trespa Pura NFC® is the perfect choice for siding façades. The beauty of the material can
also benefit other areas of the building like fascias and dormers. Using variations in lengths,
colors and styles can help to protect and enhance the appearance of buildings’ façade.
FITS ANY
RESIDENTIAL STYLE,
ANYWHERE
6 | 182
| 7183
WITH ITS WIDE RANGE OF INSTALLATION OPTIONS, WOOD TONES
AND UNI COLORS, TRESPA PURA NFC® OFFERS GREAT FUNCTIONAL
AND AESTHETIC FREEDOM.
Trespa Pura NFC® is based on Trespa’s decades of leadership in solutions for architects,
construction companies and project developers. Trespa Pura NFC® innovative offering
opens countless opportunities for building, rebuilding and refurbishing: façades and
façade elements for a variety of sectors that includes schools, shops, banks, restaurants,
offices and bars.
CREATIVE FREEDOM
IN ALL AREAS
8 | 184
185
P05.0.0 Pure White
P05.5.0 Quartz Grey
P03.0.0 White
P25.8.1 Anthracite Grey
P03.4.0 Silver Grey
P28.2.1 Aquamarine
P04.0.2 Pale Yellow
P12.6.3 Wine RedPU22 Slate Ebony
PU04 Royal Mahogany
PU08 Romantic Walnut
PU17 Aged Ash
PU28 Siberian Larch
PU24 Mystic Cedar
PU02 Classic Oak
COLOR
CODE
COLOR
NAME
CORE FINISH FIXING SYSTEM
BROWN BLACK MATT SATIN
PU02 Classic Oak ••• •
PU04 Royal Mahogany ••• •
PU08 Romantic Walnut ••• •
PU17 Aged Ash ••• •
PU22 Slate Ebony • •• •
PU24 Mystic Cedar •••
PU28 Siberian Larch •••
PU30 Tropical Ipe •••newPU30 Tropical Ipe
ORDER SAMPLES AT TRESPA.COM
WOOD DECORS UNI COLOURS
COLORS
EASY TO USE: PRE-PACKED SIDINGS
AVAILABLE WITH A VARIETY OF FASTENERS
AND MATCHING ACCESSORIES
PROJECT COLORS
In need of different Uni Colours or Wood Decors? Trespa Pura
NFC® with black core is available in a wide range of standard
Trespa® Uni Colours and Wood Decors. For more information,
please contact your local Trespa representative.
COLOR
CODE
COLOR
NAME
CORE FINISH FIXING SYSTEM
BROWN BLACK MATT SATIN
P03.0.0 White •• •
P03.4.0 Silver Grey •• •
P05.0.0 Pure White •• •
P04.0.2 Pale Yellow •• •
P05.5.0 Quartz Grey •• •
P12.6.3 Wine Red •• •
P25.8.1 Anthracite Grey •• •
P28.2.1 Aquamarine •• •
10 | 186
TRESPA® INTERNATIONAL
SINCE 1960
Aluminum (PU00)Black (PU90)Slate Ebony (PU22)Aged Ash (PU17)/
Mystic Cedar (PU24)
Royal Mahogany (PU04)
Romantic Walnut (PU08)Classic Oak (PU02)Siberian Larch (PU28)Tropical Ipe (PU30)
FASTENERS AND MATCHING ACCESSORIES
SFS intec HPL fast
fixing screws
SFS intec HPL fast
fixing screws
Proface® start profile
Proface® finish profile
Proface® finish profile
SFS intec Profile screws
Proface® outer-corner
profile
Proface® outer-corner
profile
Proface® inner-corner
profile
Universal clips SFS intec Profile screws
Proface® support
profile
TRESPA. THE ARCHITECTS’ CHOICE FOR OVER 55 YEARS.
Trespa Pura NFC® is designed and created by Trespa, a specialist panelling and
siding company headquartered in the Netherlands. Founded in 1960, Trespa
is the first choice of exterior panelling for many of the world’s leading architects,
who insist on quality, reliability and durability for their projects.
LAP SIDINGSFLUSH SIDINGS
SIZE 3050 x 187 mm
THICKNESS 8 mm
PLANK (GROSS)0,57 m2
PLANK (NET)0,48 m2
1 PALLET 36 Packs / 144 sidings
1 PACK 4 Sidings
SIZE 3050 x 186 mm
THICKNESS 8 mm
PLANK (GROSS)0,57 m2
PLANK (NET)0,55 m2
1 PALLET 36 Packs / 144 sidings
1 PACK 4 Sidings
PROFILES AND HPL SCREWS ARE AVAILABLE IN THE FOLLOWING COLORS:
| 11187
BROCHURE SIZE: 205 x 275 mm
VISIT TRESPA.COM FOR THE MOST
UP TO DATE VERSION OF THIS DOCUMENT.
TRESPA INTERNATIONAL B.V.
P.O. Box 110, 6000 AC Weert
Wetering 20, 6002 SM Weert
Th e Netherlands
www.trespa.com
TRESPA NORTH AMERICA LTD.
350 Fift h Avenue, Ste 4610
New York, NY 10118
United States of America
Tel: +1 800 487-3772
Info.NorthAmerica@Trespa.com
TRESPA UK LTD.
35 Calthorpe Road
Edgbaston
Birmingham, B15 1TS
United Kingdom
Tel: 0808-2340268
Info.UK@Trespa.com
TRESPA DESIGN CENTRE WEERT
Wetering 20
6002 SM Weert
Th e Netherlands
Tel: +31 (0) 495 458 845
TDC.Weert@Trespa.com
www.trespa.com/us/tdc
TRESPA DESIGN CENTRE BARCELONA
Calle Ribera 5,
08003 Barcelona
Spain
Tel: +34 (0) 93 295 4193
TDC.Barcelona@Trespa.com
www.trespa.com/us/tdc
TRESPA DESIGN CENTRE SANTIAGO
Eliodoro Yáñez 2831
Torre A - Local 1
Providencia, Santiago
Chile
Tel: +56 2 4069990
TDC.Santiago@Trespa.com
www.trespa.com/us/tdc
CONTACT US VISIT US
GENERAL
Th ese terms apply to the use of this document and
such use automatically means that the other party
agrees to these terms. Th e information provided
by Trespa International B.V. (“Trespa”) in this
document is solely indicative. Trespa is unable
to warrant the accuracy and completeness of this
information. Trespa may change the information
included in this document at any time and without
further notice. Trespa’s customers and third
parties must ascertain that they have the most
recent document (for the most recent version,
please consult: www.trespa.com). No rights can
be derived from the information provided; the
use of the information is at the other party’s risk
and responsibility. Trespa does not warrant that
the information in this document is suitable
for the purpose for which it is consulted by the
other party. Th is document does not contain any
design, structural calculation, estimate or other
warranty or representation that customers and
third parties may rely on. Th is document does
not guarantee any properties of Trespa products.
Colors used in Trespa’s communications (including
but not limited to printed matter) and in samples
of Trespa’s products may diff er from the colors
of the Trespa products to be supplied. Samples
are not intended for use in product tests and are
not representative of characteristics of the Trespa
products. Trespa’s products and samples are
produced within the specifi ed color tolerances and
the colors (of production batches) may diff er, even
if the same color is used. Th e viewing angle also
infl uences the color perception. Metallics panels
feature a surface whose color appears to change
based on the direction from which it is viewed. Th e
specifi ed color stability and color specifi cations
relate only to the decorative surface of the Trespa
products, not to the core material and samples of
the Trespa products. Trespa products are delivered
ex-works with straight, sawn sides. Customers
and third parties must have a professional adviser
inform them about (the suitability of) the Trespa
products for all desired applications and about
applicable laws and regulations. Trespa does not
warrant the above. Th e most recent version of
the current delivery program and the Material
Properties Datasheet can be found at www.trespa.
info. Only the information in the most recent and
valid Material Properties Datasheet should be
used to select and provide advice regarding Trespa
products. Trespa reserves the right to change (the
specifi cations for) its products without prior notice.
LIABILITY
Trespa is not liable (neither contractual nor
non-contractual) for any damage arising from or
related to the use of this document, except if and to
the extent that such damage is the result of willful
misconduct or gross negligence on the part of
Trespa and/or its management. Th e limitation of
liability applies to all parties affi liated with Trespa,
including but not limited to its offi cers, directors,
employees, affi liated enterprises, suppliers,
distributors, agents, and representatives.
GENERAL CONDITIONS
All oral and written statements, off ers, quotations,
sales, supplies, deliveries and/or agreements
and all related activities of Trespa are governed
by the Trespa General Terms and Conditions
of Sale (Algemene verkoopvoorwaarden Trespa
International B.V.) fi led with the Chamber of
Commerce and Industry for Noord- en Midden-
Limburg in Venlo (NL) on February 20th, 2015
under number 24270677, which can be found
on and downloaded from the Trespa website,
www.trespa.com/documentation. All oral and
written statements, off ers, quotations, sales,
supplies, deliveries and/or agreements and all
related work of Trespa North America, Ltd. are
governed by the Trespa North America General
Terms and Conditions of Sale, which can be found
on and downloaded from the Trespa website,
www.trespa.com/documentation. A copy of these
general conditions of sale will be provided free of
charge on request. All general terms and conditions
other than the conditions mentioned above are
dismissed and do not apply, regardless of whether
such terms and conditions are referred to on
requests for off ers, off er confi rmations, stationery
and/or other documents of the other party, even
if Trespa does not expressly object to such terms
and conditions
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
All intellectual property rights and other rights
regarding the content of this document (including
logos, text and photographs) are owned by Trespa
and/or its licensors. Any use of the content of this
document, including distribution, reproduction,
disclosure, storage in an automated data fi le or the
dispatch of such a fi le without Trespa’s prior written
consent is explicitly prohibited. ® Trespa, Meteon,
Athlon, TopLab, TopLabPLUS, TopLabECO-FIBRE,
TopLab VERTICAL, TopLab BASE, Virtuon, Izeon,
Pura NFC, Volkern, Trespa Essentials and Mystic
Metallics are registered trademarks of Trespa.
QUESTIONS
Should you have any questions or comments,
please do not hesitate to contact Trespa.
DISCLAIMER
FOLLOW US
TRESPA INTERNATIONAL B.V.
P.O. Box 110, 6000 AC Weert
Wetering 20, 6002 SM Weert
The Netherlands
www.trespa.com
CUSTOMER SERVICE DESK
EMEA EXPORT
Tel: +31 (0) 495 458 839
Info.Export@Trespa.com
TRESPA NORTH AMERICA LTD.
350 Fifth Avenue, Ste 4610
New York, NY 10118
United States of America
Tel: +1 800 487-3772
Info.NorthAmerica@Trespa.com
VISIT TRESPA.COM FOR THE MOST UP TO DATE VERSION OF THIS DOCUMENT.
V1090-431477 ■ VERSION 3.3
BROCHURE CODE V1090 ■ DATE 01-2019 188
SHOE™
STRUCTURAL GLASS RAILING SYSTEM
Starting with a staple and workhorse of all glass railing designs, VIVA took this to a
whole another level with its patented “Continuous Compression” dry-set system.
Available in a variety of mounting options, cladding finishes, and cap rail options; the
SHOE™ Structural Glass System lends itself to a clean, barrier-free and solid solution.
PRODUCT: SHOE™ | INFILL: GLASS AMERICAN AIRLINES TRINITY CAMPUS
FT. WORTH, TEXAS
Visit vivarailings.com/shoe for product data,
specifications and drawings.
U.S. PATENT NO. 9127474
S
H
O
E
DESIGN + ENGINEER + FABRICATE + INSTALL vivarailings.com1 189
SHOE™
STRUCTURAL GLASS RAILING SYSTEM
MATERIAL FINISH SIZE / SPACING
BASE Aluminum SHOE with cladding option #6 Satin 2.75"x4" SHOE base, 5'-0" max. O.C. glass infill.
Fascia or Top mount.Powder Coat
INFILL Glass Clear, Tinted or Frit Min. 1/2" SGP laminated glass¹ or
Min. 5/8" PVB laminated glass
TOP RAIL
Stainless Steel U-Cap #6 Satin, Powder Coat 1" Height U-Cap
Stainless Steel U-Cap with LED ²#6 Satin 1" Height U-Cap with LED LINEAR
Stainless Steel Tube with LED #6 Satin Ø1-1/2" tube with LED LINEAR
HAND RAIL
Stainless Steel Tube #6 Satin, Powder Coat Ø1-1/2" or Ø2" tube
Stainless Steel Tube with LED #6 Satin Ø1-1/2" with LED LINEAR, Ø1-1/2" or Ø2" with LED POD
Wood (Red Oak, Cherry or Maple) ³Unstained Ø2"
Wood (Red Oak, Cherry or Maple) with LED Ø2" with LED LINEAR
(1) IBC 2015 & newer requires railing glass to be laminated. VIVA recommends SGP for exterior
applications.
(3) Other species available upon request.
(2) All LED LINEAR products are ETL certified; ETL mark is proof of product compliance to
North American safety standard.
US
Intertek
CM
LISTE D
Technical Data
VIVA RAILINGS, LLC
1454 HALSEY WAY, CARROLLTON, TX 75007
P: 972-353-8482 F: 972-353-0013
e: info@vivarailings.com www.vivarailings.com
V
V
A
TM
I Page 1 of 5SHOE RAILING SYSTEM
Specifications
TECHNICAL DATA
SHOE™ RAILING SYSTEM - SPECIFICATIONS
S
H
O
E
DESIGN + ENGINEER + FABRICATE + INSTALL vivarailings.com
U.S. PATENT NO. 9127474
2 190
LEVEL 1
0'-0"
HAND RAIL
FINISH FLOOR
LAMINATED GLASS
U-CAP
5'-0" MAX5'-0" MAX
1'-0"
1'-0"
Glass Infill
3'-0"3'-7"LAMINATED GLASS
STRINGERSHOE BASE
U-CAP
HAND RAIL
VIVA RAILINGS, LLC
1454 HALSEY WAY, CARROLLTON, TX 75007
P: 972-353-8482 F: 972-353-0013
e: info@vivarailings.com www.vivarailings.com
V
V
A
TM
I Page 2 of 5SHOE RAILING SYSTEM
12"
NOM. GAP
4"412"278"
VIVA RAILINGS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF ANY BUILDING SYSTEMS OR OTHER MATERIALS NOT FURNISHED BY VIVA RAILINGS. VIVA RAILINGS HAS NO WAY OF KNOWING AND SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS WHETHER OR NOT THE BUILDING SYSTEMS TO WHICH VIVA
RAILINGS' PRODUCTS ARE TO BE ATTACHED ARE STRUCTURALLY SOUND OR DESIGNED TO PROPERLY SUPPORT VIVA RAILINGS'S MATERIALS. ANY SUCH DESIGN RESPONSIBILITY BELONGS TO OTHERS FOR WHOM VIVA RAILINGS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE.
THESE DRAWINGS ARE INTENDED FOR THE SOLE USE OF VIVA RAILINGS' CUSTOMER AND THEIR AGENTS FOR THE INSTALLATION OF PRODUCTS FURNISHED BY VIVA RAILINGS. VIVA RAILINGS REMAINS THE SOLE OWNER OF ALL DESIGNS AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONTAINED WITHIN.
REPRODUCTION AND USE OF THESE DESIGNS FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE IS FORBIDDEN. SCALES ARE PROVIDED FOR REFERENCE ONLY. FOR PRODUCT INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT, PLEASE CONTACT VIVA RAILINGS.
Clear
Monolithic
Clear Laminated
(PVB or SGP)
Colored Laminate
(PVB only)
Bent Tinted Satin
Etched
Ceramic Frit
AVAILABLE GLASS
TYPES:
WATERPROOF SHOE SYSTEM APPLICATIONS
VIVA Railings has partnered with Sika for Waterproof SHOE System applications. This solution is
not standard and available upon special request only. Sika polymer grout and sealants provide a
watertight joint between glass and shoe, this solution works in unison with membrane or other
applied waterproofing around the shoe (by others).
VIVA RAILINGS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF ANY BUILDING SYSTEMS OR OTHER MATERIALS NOT FURNISHED BY VIVA RAILINGS. VIVA RAILINGS HAS NO WAY OF KNOWING AND SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS WHETHER OR NOT THE BUILDING SYSTEMS TO WHICH VIVA
RAILINGS' PRODUCTS ARE TO BE ATTACHED ARE STRUCTURALLY SOUND OR DESIGNED TO PROPERLY SUPPORT VIVA RAILINGS'S MATERIALS. ANY SUCH DESIGN RESPONSIBILITY BELONGS TO OTHERS FOR WHOM VIVA RAILINGS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE.
THESE DRAWINGS ARE INTENDED FOR THE SOLE USE OF VIVA RAILINGS' CUSTOMER AND THEIR AGENTS FOR THE INSTALLATION OF PRODUCTS FURNISHED BY VIVA RAILINGS. VIVA RAILINGS REMAINS THE SOLE OWNER OF ALL DESIGNS AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONTAINED WITHIN.
REPRODUCTION AND USE OF THESE DESIGNS FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE IS FORBIDDEN. SCALES ARE PROVIDED FOR REFERENCE ONLY. FOR PRODUCT INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT, PLEASE CONTACT VIVA RAILINGS.
SHOE™GLASS INFILL S
H
O
E
DESIGN + ENGINEER + FABRICATE + INSTALL vivarailings.com
U.S. PATENT NO. 9127474
3 UPDATED: 02/09/2021
191
312"
MIN.
Welded @ Embed Plate - $
Detail# SH-T04
Anchored to Concrete ¹ - $ ²
Detail# SH-T01 ³
Welded @ Steel Channel - $
Detail# SH-T03
Mounting Condition, Top Mounted
3" MIN.434"MIN.312"
MIN.3"MIN.312"
MIN.3"MIN.(1) Min. 4000 PSI concrete, Typ.
(2) $ to $$$: Indicates mounting type comparative cost
Welded @ Embed Angle - $$$
Detail# SH-T05
VIVA RAILINGS, LLC
1454 HALSEY WAY, CARROLLTON, TX 75007
P: 972-353-8482 F: 972-353-0013
e: info@vivarailings.com www.vivarailings.com
V
V
A
TM
I Page 3.1 of 5SHOE RAILING SYSTEM
5"MIN.VIVA RAILINGS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF ANY BUILDING SYSTEMS OR OTHER MATERIALS NOT FURNISHED BY VIVA RAILINGS. VIVA RAILINGS HAS NO WAY OF KNOWING AND SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS WHETHER OR NOT THE BUILDING SYSTEMS TO WHICH VIVA
RAILINGS' PRODUCTS ARE TO BE ATTACHED ARE STRUCTURALLY SOUND OR DESIGNED TO PROPERLY SUPPORT VIVA RAILINGS'S MATERIALS. ANY SUCH DESIGN RESPONSIBILITY BELONGS TO OTHERS FOR WHOM VIVA RAILINGS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE.
THESE DRAWINGS ARE INTENDED FOR THE SOLE USE OF VIVA RAILINGS' CUSTOMER AND THEIR AGENTS FOR THE INSTALLATION OF PRODUCTS FURNISHED BY VIVA RAILINGS. VIVA RAILINGS REMAINS THE SOLE OWNER OF ALL DESIGNS AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONTAINED WITHIN.
REPRODUCTION AND USE OF THESE DESIGNS FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE IS FORBIDDEN. SCALES ARE PROVIDED FOR REFERENCE ONLY. FOR PRODUCT INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT, PLEASE CONTACT VIVA RAILINGS.
4"x1/2" Continuous
Embed Plate
(By others)
4"x1/2" Continuous Plate
(By others)
Continuous Embed Angle
(By others)
Anchored to Concrete Slab on Deck - $$$
Detail# SH-T02
VIVA RAILINGS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF ANY BUILDING SYSTEMS OR OTHER MATERIALS NOT FURNISHED BY VIVA RAILINGS. VIVA RAILINGS HAS NO WAY OF KNOWING AND SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS WHETHER OR NOT THE BUILDING SYSTEMS TO WHICH VIVA
RAILINGS' PRODUCTS ARE TO BE ATTACHED ARE STRUCTURALLY SOUND OR DESIGNED TO PROPERLY SUPPORT VIVA RAILINGS'S MATERIALS. ANY SUCH DESIGN RESPONSIBILITY BELONGS TO OTHERS FOR WHOM VIVA RAILINGS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE.
THESE DRAWINGS ARE INTENDED FOR THE SOLE USE OF VIVA RAILINGS' CUSTOMER AND THEIR AGENTS FOR THE INSTALLATION OF PRODUCTS FURNISHED BY VIVA RAILINGS. VIVA RAILINGS REMAINS THE SOLE OWNER OF ALL DESIGNS AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONTAINED WITHIN.
REPRODUCTION AND USE OF THESE DESIGNS FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE IS FORBIDDEN. SCALES ARE PROVIDED FOR REFERENCE ONLY. FOR PRODUCT INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT, PLEASE CONTACT VIVA RAILINGS.
SHOE™MOUNTING CONDITION-TOP MOUNTED POST
U.S. PATENT NO. 9127474
S
H
O
E
DESIGN + ENGINEER + FABRICATE + INSTALL vivarailings.com4 192
5"MIN.Welded @ Steel Tube - $$
Detail# SH-F04
Anchored to Concrete ¹ - $$$
Detail# SH-F01
Welded @ Embed Plate - $$
Detail# SH-F02
Mounting Condition, Fascia Mounted
(1) Min. 4000 PSI concrete, Typ.
VIVA RAILINGS, LLC
1454 HALSEY WAY, CARROLLTON, TX 75007
P: 972-353-8482 F: 972-353-0013
e: info@vivarailings.com www.vivarailings.com
V
V
A
TM
I Page 3.2 of 5SHOE RAILING SYSTEM
Welded @ Steel Angle
Anchored @ Concrete - $$
Detail# SH-F03512"MIN.6"MIN.VIVA RAILINGS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF ANY BUILDING SYSTEMS OR OTHER MATERIALS NOT FURNISHED BY VIVA RAILINGS. VIVA RAILINGS HAS NO WAY OF KNOWING AND SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS WHETHER OR NOT THE BUILDING SYSTEMS TO WHICH VIVA
RAILINGS' PRODUCTS ARE TO BE ATTACHED ARE STRUCTURALLY SOUND OR DESIGNED TO PROPERLY SUPPORT VIVA RAILINGS'S MATERIALS. ANY SUCH DESIGN RESPONSIBILITY BELONGS TO OTHERS FOR WHOM VIVA RAILINGS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE.
THESE DRAWINGS ARE INTENDED FOR THE SOLE USE OF VIVA RAILINGS' CUSTOMER AND THEIR AGENTS FOR THE INSTALLATION OF PRODUCTS FURNISHED BY VIVA RAILINGS. VIVA RAILINGS REMAINS THE SOLE OWNER OF ALL DESIGNS AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONTAINED WITHIN.
REPRODUCTION AND USE OF THESE DESIGNS FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE IS FORBIDDEN. SCALES ARE PROVIDED FOR REFERENCE ONLY. FOR PRODUCT INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT, PLEASE CONTACT VIVA RAILINGS.
Welded @ Steel Angle
Welded @ Steel Tube - $$
Detail# SH-F05
Welded @ Steel Angle - $$
Detail# SH-F07
Continuous Angle
(By others)
3/8" THICK POUR
STOP
(BY OTHERS)
STUD or
DEFORMED
REBAR
(BY OTHERS)
4"x1/2" Continuous
Embed Plate
(By others)
VIVA RAILINGS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF ANY BUILDING SYSTEMS OR OTHER MATERIALS NOT FURNISHED BY VIVA RAILINGS. VIVA RAILINGS HAS NO WAY OF KNOWING AND SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS WHETHER OR NOT THE BUILDING SYSTEMS TO WHICH VIVA
RAILINGS' PRODUCTS ARE TO BE ATTACHED ARE STRUCTURALLY SOUND OR DESIGNED TO PROPERLY SUPPORT VIVA RAILINGS'S MATERIALS. ANY SUCH DESIGN RESPONSIBILITY BELONGS TO OTHERS FOR WHOM VIVA RAILINGS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE.
THESE DRAWINGS ARE INTENDED FOR THE SOLE USE OF VIVA RAILINGS' CUSTOMER AND THEIR AGENTS FOR THE INSTALLATION OF PRODUCTS FURNISHED BY VIVA RAILINGS. VIVA RAILINGS REMAINS THE SOLE OWNER OF ALL DESIGNS AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONTAINED WITHIN.
REPRODUCTION AND USE OF THESE DESIGNS FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE IS FORBIDDEN. SCALES ARE PROVIDED FOR REFERENCE ONLY. FOR PRODUCT INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT, PLEASE CONTACT VIVA RAILINGS.
SHOE™MOUNTING CONDITION-FASCIA MOUNTED POST S
H
O
E
DESIGN + ENGINEER + FABRICATE + INSTALL vivarailings.com
U.S. PATENT NO. 9127474
5 193
VIVA RAILINGS, LLC
1454 HALSEY WAY, CARROLLTON, TX 75007
P: 972-353-8482 F: 972-353-0013
e: info@vivarailings.com www.vivarailings.com
V
V
A
TM
I Page 4 of 5SHOE RAILING SYSTEM
Shoe Railing Orientation Options
Acute Angle Tilt Perpendicular Panels at Stair
VIVA SHOE BASE
5'-
0
"
M
A
X
.
12"
NOM.
Obtuse Angle Tilt Shoe
EXISTING STRINGER
LAMINATED GLASS
HAND RAIL
U-CAP
VIVA RAILINGS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF ANY BUILDING SYSTEMS OR OTHER MATERIALS NOT FURNISHED BY VIVA RAILINGS. VIVA RAILINGS HAS NO WAY OF KNOWING AND SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS WHETHER OR NOT THE BUILDING SYSTEMS TO WHICH VIVA
RAILINGS' PRODUCTS ARE TO BE ATTACHED ARE STRUCTURALLY SOUND OR DESIGNED TO PROPERLY SUPPORT VIVA RAILINGS'S MATERIALS. ANY SUCH DESIGN RESPONSIBILITY BELONGS TO OTHERS FOR WHOM VIVA RAILINGS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE.
THESE DRAWINGS ARE INTENDED FOR THE SOLE USE OF VIVA RAILINGS' CUSTOMER AND THEIR AGENTS FOR THE INSTALLATION OF PRODUCTS FURNISHED BY VIVA RAILINGS. VIVA RAILINGS REMAINS THE SOLE OWNER OF ALL DESIGNS AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONTAINED WITHIN.
REPRODUCTION AND USE OF THESE DESIGNS FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE IS FORBIDDEN. SCALES ARE PROVIDED FOR REFERENCE ONLY. FOR PRODUCT INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT, PLEASE CONTACT VIVA RAILINGS.AngleAngleVIVA RAILINGS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF ANY BUILDING SYSTEMS OR OTHER MATERIALS NOT FURNISHED BY VIVA RAILINGS. VIVA RAILINGS HAS NO WAY OF KNOWING AND SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS WHETHER OR NOT THE BUILDING SYSTEMS TO WHICH VIVA
RAILINGS' PRODUCTS ARE TO BE ATTACHED ARE STRUCTURALLY SOUND OR DESIGNED TO PROPERLY SUPPORT VIVA RAILINGS'S MATERIALS. ANY SUCH DESIGN RESPONSIBILITY BELONGS TO OTHERS FOR WHOM VIVA RAILINGS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE.
THESE DRAWINGS ARE INTENDED FOR THE SOLE USE OF VIVA RAILINGS' CUSTOMER AND THEIR AGENTS FOR THE INSTALLATION OF PRODUCTS FURNISHED BY VIVA RAILINGS. VIVA RAILINGS REMAINS THE SOLE OWNER OF ALL DESIGNS AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONTAINED WITHIN.
REPRODUCTION AND USE OF THESE DESIGNS FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE IS FORBIDDEN. SCALES ARE PROVIDED FOR REFERENCE ONLY. FOR PRODUCT INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT, PLEASE CONTACT VIVA RAILINGS.
SHOE™MOUNTING CONDITION-POCKET MOUNTED POST
U.S. PATENT NO. 9127474
S
H
O
E
DESIGN + ENGINEER + FABRICATE + INSTALL vivarailings.com6 194
VIVA RAILINGS, LLC
1454 HALSEY WAY, CARROLLTON, TX 75007
P: 972-353-8482 F: 972-353-0013
e: info@vivarailings.com www.vivarailings.com
V
V
A
TM
I Page 5 of 5SHOE RAILING SYSTEM
Illuminated Railing
Ø112"36" TO FFILLUMINATED
HANDRAIL
238"
Illuminated
Shoe
Option
U-CAP LED
Illuminated
Top rail
Options
iRAIL POD ORIENTATION
OPTIONS
18"
24"
OR 36"
iRAIL POD SPACING
OPTIONS
POD
iRAIL Linear
30° ASYM.
LINEAR
SYM.
LINEAR
iRAIL LINEAR ORIENTATION
OPTIONS
22° ASYM.
POD
SYM. POD
See Viva iRail Railing System
for more info
Illuminated
Handrail
Option
VIVA RAILINGS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF ANY BUILDING SYSTEMS OR OTHER MATERIALS NOT FURNISHED BY VIVA RAILINGS. VIVA RAILINGS HAS NO WAY OF KNOWING AND SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS WHETHER OR NOT THE BUILDING SYSTEMS TO WHICH VIVA
RAILINGS' PRODUCTS ARE TO BE ATTACHED ARE STRUCTURALLY SOUND OR DESIGNED TO PROPERLY SUPPORT VIVA RAILINGS'S MATERIALS. ANY SUCH DESIGN RESPONSIBILITY BELONGS TO OTHERS FOR WHOM VIVA RAILINGS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE.
THESE DRAWINGS ARE INTENDED FOR THE SOLE USE OF VIVA RAILINGS' CUSTOMER AND THEIR AGENTS FOR THE INSTALLATION OF PRODUCTS FURNISHED BY VIVA RAILINGS. VIVA RAILINGS REMAINS THE SOLE OWNER OF ALL DESIGNS AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONTAINED WITHIN.
REPRODUCTION AND USE OF THESE DESIGNS FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE IS FORBIDDEN. SCALES ARE PROVIDED FOR REFERENCE ONLY. FOR PRODUCT INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT, PLEASE CONTACT VIVA RAILINGS.
SHOE™ILLUMINATED RAILING OPTIONS
For more info: vivarailings.com/products/led-illuminated-railing-system
U.S. PATENT NO. 9127474
S
H
O
E
DESIGN + ENGINEER + FABRICATE + INSTALL vivarailings.com7 195
Aluminum provides excellent strength to weight ratio while keeping costs down. The shorter lead times, economy
and quick prototyping make Aluminum Railing Systems appealing to architects and contractors alike.
Aluminum being extremely flexible and workable allows for multiple design options for any of your custom needs.
Not only that, you can have almost as many finishing options with aluminum that you can with stainless steel.
The durability of aluminum means it can withstand numerous weather conditions and environments and is
extremely resistant to corrosion and rust.
The energy to produce one ton of aluminum for fabrication is only 5% that of other materials, saving nearly 10 tons
of CO2 emissions – an extra benefit that enhances LEEDS ratings for a project.
Powder coating is a dry film process, using finely ground particles of pigment and resin which are electrostatically
charged and sprayed onto electrically grounded parts to be coated. The charged powder particles adhere to the
parts and are held there until melted and fused into a uniformly flowing coating in a cure oven. Before coating, the
parts must be pretreated similar to liquid coated parts.
Designed to withstand extreme temperatures, powder-coating protects against rust and staining, making it a
weather-resistant finish for our stainless steel and aluminum railings. It helps in regards to LEED requirements and
in addition, it meets AAMA specifications.
SHOE™ STRUCTURAL GLASS RAILING SYSTEMS - FINISHING OPTIONS
STAINLESS STEEL POWDER COAT
S
H
O
E
S
H
O
E
DESIGN + ENGINEER + FABRICATE + INSTALL vivarailings.com
U.S. PATENT NO. 9127474
8 196
U.S. PATENT NO. 9127474
PRODUCT: SHOE™ | INFILL: TEMPERED GLASS
AMERICAN AIRLINES TRINITY CAMPUS
FT. WORTH, TX
The new AMERICAN AIRLINES TRINITY CAMPUS spans over
300 acres and stands in the same property as the original
headquarters once stood. This massive campus features
over 1.8 million square feet of office space, training areas
and unique architecture. The second floor balconies on the
main building features our SHOE™ Frameless Glass Railing
System. For this project, the VIVA Railings team engineered
a unique "pocket" SHOE™ System that matches the
slanted structure of the entire campus.
Project Details:
Location: Ft. Worth, TX
General Contractor: StructureTone Southwest
Architect: Kendall/Heaton Associates
Finish: Aluminium
Project Scope: 1,710 Linear Feet of Railings
Infill: Tempered Glass
Design & Installation Hours: 12535
S
H
O
E
DESIGN + ENGINEER + FABRICATE + INSTALL vivarailings.com9 197
PRODUCT: SHOE™ | INFILL: TEMPERED GLASS
TOYOTA U.S. HEADQUARTERS
PLANO, TX
The new Toyota Headquarters features a massive 100-acre
campus and has nearly 500 years worth of work completed
in less than three years!
Over 15,000 linear feet of railings were installed featuring
SHOE™, along with SOLO™, iRAIL™ LED Illuminated
Railing, FSR™ and SMOKE BAFFLE™.
VIVA Railings was also asked to design, engineer, fabricate
and install custom gates, a glass wall and a back painted
glass panel for the reception desk. It was an honor to be a
part of the LEED Platinum certification recently awarded to
Toyta via our stainless steel material and recycled content.
Project Details:
Location: Plano, TX
General Contractor: Austin Commercial
Architect: Corgan Associates, Inc.
Finish: Aluminium, Maple Wood
Project Scope: 15,515 Linear Feet of Railings
Infill: Monolithic Tempered Glass
Design & Installation Hours: 14,800
S
H
O
E
DESIGN + ENGINEER + FABRICATE + INSTALL vivarailings.com10
L E E D PLATINUM
198
PRODUCT: SHOE™ | INFILL: TEMPERED GLASS
BLUE STAR FORD CENTER
FRISCO, TX
The brand new Blue Star Retail Ford Center is already
becoming a huge hit with the residents of Frisco and
surrounding cities. The main attraction is the massive
screen that plays the Dallas Cowboys clips 24/7 and a
football field right in the heart of the square. After a few
games of catch you can visit the restaurant strip serving
everything from burgers to sushi and right in the heart of it
all the Ring of Honor. Housing our SHOE™ System the oval
commemorates the Dallas Cowboys' greatest players past
and present.
Project Details:
Location: Frisco, TX
General Contractor: Manhattan Construction
Architect: O'Brien Architects
Finish: Aluminium
Project Scope: 1258 Linear Feet of Railings
Infill: Monolithic Tempered Glass
Design & Installation Hours: 1798
S
H
O
E
DESIGN + ENGINEER + FABRICATE + INSTALL vivarailings.com11 199
PRODUCT: SHOE™ | INFILL: TEMPERED GLASS
SOUTHWEST ADVENTIST UNIVERSITY
NURSING AND ADMINISTRATION
KEENE, TX
The Southwest Adventist University Nursing and Admin
building feature small class sizes and dedicated professors
so that students are well prepared for a career in nursing.
The $16 million dollar building is a state-of-the-art facility
with simulation labs, meeting rooms and traditional
classrooms. The main entrance features a gorgeous
cylindrical stairwell with our SHOE™ Glass Railing System
and beautiful ceramic frit pattern along the stairwell and
balcony.
Project Details:
Location: Keene, TX
General Contractor: Steele and Freeman Inc.
Architect: BECK Group Dallas
Finish: Ceramic Frit Curved Glass, Aluminum
Project Scope: 195 Linear Feet of Railings
Infill: Tempered Glass
Design & Installation Hours: 1555
S
H
O
E
DESIGN + ENGINEER + FABRICATE + INSTALL vivarailings.com12 200
PRODUCT: SHOE™ | INFILL: TEMPERED GLASS
NBA EXPERIENCE AT DISNEY SPRINGS
ORLANDO, FL
One of the latest attractions to hit Disney Springs in
Orlando, the new facility opened in Summer of 2019.
Adults and kids alike can live out their basketball dreams
with a miniature hard court at the entrance, a locker room
replica and even and learn about the history of basketball.
The stunning LED screens and historical photographs are
within easy view via our SHOE™ Glass Railing System
surrounding the balcony and main entrance.
Project Details:
Location: Orlando, FL
General Contractor: Altamonte Glass & Mirror
Architect: Stantec - Orlando
Finish: Curved Glass, Aluminum
Project Scope: 443 Linear Feet of Railings
Infill: Tempered Glass
S
H
O
E
DESIGN + ENGINEER + FABRICATE + INSTALL vivarailings.com13 201
PRODUCT: SHOE™ | INFILL: TEMPERED GLASS
GATHERING PLACE PARK
TULSA, OK
Over 100 acres of activities, parks, lodges, trails and
playground areas surround the Gathering Place Park.
Weekly events, an overnight lodge, and a massive
boathouse are just some of the amenities that make this
such a unique place to visit. Recently awarded one of the
top 100 places to visit by TIME Magazine, we are proud to
be a part of massive Oklahoma landmark via our SHOE™
Glass Railing System at both the Boathouse and Williams
Lodge.
Project Details:
Location: Tulsa, OK
General Contractor: Crossland Construction
Architect: Mack Scogin Merrill Elam Architects
Finish: Aluminum
Project Scope: 443 Linear Feet of Railings
Infill: Tempered Glass
Design & Installation Hours: 4503
S
H
O
E
DESIGN + ENGINEER + FABRICATE + INSTALL vivarailings.com14 202
VIEW™
STRUCTURAL GLASS RAILING SYSTEM
Looking beyond never got easier! A popular design in all public and private applications,
this point supported structural glass system is the most seamless railing option available.
The minimalist design and floating glass panels make it a favorite for large sweeping
spaces.
PRODUCT: VIEW™ | INFILL: GLASS UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA-KEARNEY
KEARNEY, NEBRASKA
Visit vivarailings.com/view for product data, specifications and drawings.
V
I
E
W
DESIGN + ENGINEER + FABRICATE + INSTALL vivarailings.com1 203
VIEW™
STRUCTURAL GLASS RAILING SYSTEM
US
Intertek
CM
LISTE D
Technical Data
VIVA RAILINGS, LLC
1454 HALSEY WAY, CARROLLTON, TX 75007
P: 972-353-8482 F: 972-353-0013
e: info@vivarailings.com www.vivarailings.com
V
V
A
TM
I Page 1 of 4VIEW RAILING SYSTEM
MATERIAL FINISH SIZE / SPACING
STANDOFF Stainless Steel (304 or 316)
#6 Satin, #8 Mirror
Ø2" Fascia mount, 4'-6" max.* Glass infill
* Max. spacing changes upon glass thickness.
ECM
Powder CoatSteel
INFILL Glass Clear, Tinted or Frit Min. 1/2" SGP laminated glass¹ or
Min. 5/8" PVB laminated glass
TOP RAIL
Stainless Steel U-Cap #6 Satin, Powder Coat 1" Height U-Cap
Stainless Steel U-Cap with LED ³#6 Satin 1" Height U-Cap with LED LINEAR
Stainless Steel Tube with LED #6 Satin Ø1-1/2" tube with LED LINEAR
HAND RAIL
Stainless Steel Tube #6 Satin, Powder Coat Ø1-1/2" or Ø2" tube
Stainless Steel Tube with LED #6 Satin Ø1-1/2" with LED LINEAR, Ø1-1/2" or Ø2" with LED POD
Wood (Red Oak, Cherry or Maple) ²Unstained Ø2"
Wood (Red Oak, Cherry or Maple) with LED Ø2" with LED LINEAR
(1) IBC 2015 & newer requires railing glass to be laminated. VIVA recommends SGP for exterior
applications.
(2) Other species available upon request.
(3) All LED LINEAR products are ETL certified; ETL mark is proof of product compliance to
North American safety standard.
Specifications
TECHNICAL DATA
VIEW™ RAILING SYSTEM - SPECIFICATIONS
V
I
E
W
DESIGN + ENGINEER + FABRICATE + INSTALL vivarailings.com2 204
LEVEL 1
0'-0"
HAND RAIL
FINISH FLOOR
LAMINATED GLASSU-CAP
4'-6" MAX*4'-6" MAX*
1'-0"
1'-0"
Glass Infill
3'-0"3'-7"STRINGERSTANDOFF
U-CAP
HAND RAIL
VIVA RAILINGS, LLC
1454 HALSEY WAY, CARROLLTON, TX 75007
P: 972-353-8482 F: 972-353-0013
e: info@vivarailings.com www.vivarailings.com
V
V
A
TM
I Page 2 of 4VIEW RAILING SYSTEM
LAMINATED GLASS
12"
NOM. GAP
VIVA RAILINGS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF ANY BUILDING SYSTEMS OR OTHER MATERIALS NOT FURNISHED BY VIVA RAILINGS. VIVA RAILINGS HAS NO WAY OF KNOWING AND SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS WHETHER OR NOT THE BUILDING SYSTEMS TO WHICH VIVA
RAILINGS' PRODUCTS ARE TO BE ATTACHED ARE STRUCTURALLY SOUND OR DESIGNED TO PROPERLY SUPPORT VIVA RAILINGS'S MATERIALS. ANY SUCH DESIGN RESPONSIBILITY BELONGS TO OTHERS FOR WHOM VIVA RAILINGS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE.
THESE DRAWINGS ARE INTENDED FOR THE SOLE USE OF VIVA RAILINGS' CUSTOMER AND THEIR AGENTS FOR THE INSTALLATION OF PRODUCTS FURNISHED BY VIVA RAILINGS. VIVA RAILINGS REMAINS THE SOLE OWNER OF ALL DESIGNS AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONTAINED WITHIN.
REPRODUCTION AND USE OF THESE DESIGNS FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE IS FORBIDDEN. SCALES ARE PROVIDED FOR REFERENCE ONLY. FOR PRODUCT INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT, PLEASE CONTACT VIVA RAILINGS.
* Max. spacing changes upon glass thickness.
6"
TYP.218"
Clear
Monolithic
Clear Laminated
(PVB or SGP)
Colored Laminate
(PVB only)
Bent Tinted Satin
Etched
Ceramic Frit
AVAILABLE GLASS
TYPES:
VIVA RAILINGS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF ANY BUILDING SYSTEMS OR OTHER MATERIALS NOT FURNISHED BY VIVA RAILINGS. VIVA RAILINGS HAS NO WAY OF KNOWING AND SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS WHETHER OR NOT THE BUILDING SYSTEMS TO WHICH VIVA
RAILINGS' PRODUCTS ARE TO BE ATTACHED ARE STRUCTURALLY SOUND OR DESIGNED TO PROPERLY SUPPORT VIVA RAILINGS'S MATERIALS. ANY SUCH DESIGN RESPONSIBILITY BELONGS TO OTHERS FOR WHOM VIVA RAILINGS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE.
THESE DRAWINGS ARE INTENDED FOR THE SOLE USE OF VIVA RAILINGS' CUSTOMER AND THEIR AGENTS FOR THE INSTALLATION OF PRODUCTS FURNISHED BY VIVA RAILINGS. VIVA RAILINGS REMAINS THE SOLE OWNER OF ALL DESIGNS AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONTAINED WITHIN.
REPRODUCTION AND USE OF THESE DESIGNS FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE IS FORBIDDEN. SCALES ARE PROVIDED FOR REFERENCE ONLY. FOR PRODUCT INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT, PLEASE CONTACT VIVA RAILINGS.
VIEW™GLASS INFILL V
I
E
W
DESIGN + ENGINEER + FABRICATE + INSTALL vivarailings.com3 205
6"6"Anchored to Concrete ¹ - $$$ ²
Detail# VA-F01
Welded @ Steel Tube - $$
Detail# VA-F03
Welded @ Embed Plate - $$
Detail# VA-F02
Mounting Condition
6"MIN.6"MIN.6"VIVA RAILINGS, LLC
1454 HALSEY WAY, CARROLLTON, TX 75007
P: 972-353-8482 F: 972-353-0013
e: info@vivarailings.com www.vivarailings.com
V
V
A
TM
I Page 3 of 4VIEW RAILING SYSTEM
6" Embed Plate
(By others)
(1) Min. 4000 PSI concrete, Typ.
(2) $ to $$$: Indicates mounting type comparative cost
VIVA RAILINGS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF ANY BUILDING SYSTEMS OR OTHER MATERIALS NOT FURNISHED BY VIVA RAILINGS. VIVA RAILINGS HAS NO WAY OF KNOWING AND SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS WHETHER OR NOT THE BUILDING SYSTEMS TO WHICH VIVA
RAILINGS' PRODUCTS ARE TO BE ATTACHED ARE STRUCTURALLY SOUND OR DESIGNED TO PROPERLY SUPPORT VIVA RAILINGS'S MATERIALS. ANY SUCH DESIGN RESPONSIBILITY BELONGS TO OTHERS FOR WHOM VIVA RAILINGS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE.
THESE DRAWINGS ARE INTENDED FOR THE SOLE USE OF VIVA RAILINGS' CUSTOMER AND THEIR AGENTS FOR THE INSTALLATION OF PRODUCTS FURNISHED BY VIVA RAILINGS. VIVA RAILINGS REMAINS THE SOLE OWNER OF ALL DESIGNS AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONTAINED WITHIN.
REPRODUCTION AND USE OF THESE DESIGNS FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE IS FORBIDDEN. SCALES ARE PROVIDED FOR REFERENCE ONLY. FOR PRODUCT INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT, PLEASE CONTACT VIVA RAILINGS.
VIVA RAILINGS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF ANY BUILDING SYSTEMS OR OTHER MATERIALS NOT FURNISHED BY VIVA RAILINGS. VIVA RAILINGS HAS NO WAY OF KNOWING AND SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS WHETHER OR NOT THE BUILDING SYSTEMS TO WHICH VIVA
RAILINGS' PRODUCTS ARE TO BE ATTACHED ARE STRUCTURALLY SOUND OR DESIGNED TO PROPERLY SUPPORT VIVA RAILINGS'S MATERIALS. ANY SUCH DESIGN RESPONSIBILITY BELONGS TO OTHERS FOR WHOM VIVA RAILINGS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE.
THESE DRAWINGS ARE INTENDED FOR THE SOLE USE OF VIVA RAILINGS' CUSTOMER AND THEIR AGENTS FOR THE INSTALLATION OF PRODUCTS FURNISHED BY VIVA RAILINGS. VIVA RAILINGS REMAINS THE SOLE OWNER OF ALL DESIGNS AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONTAINED WITHIN.
REPRODUCTION AND USE OF THESE DESIGNS FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE IS FORBIDDEN. SCALES ARE PROVIDED FOR REFERENCE ONLY. FOR PRODUCT INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT, PLEASE CONTACT VIVA RAILINGS.
VIEW™MOUNTING CONDITIONS V
I
E
W
DESIGN + ENGINEER + FABRICATE + INSTALL vivarailings.com4 206
VIVA RAILINGS, LLC
1454 HALSEY WAY, CARROLLTON, TX 75007
P: 972-353-8482 F: 972-353-0013
e: info@vivarailings.com www.vivarailings.com
V
V
A
TM
I Page 4 of 4VIEW RAILING SYSTEM
Illuminated Railing
Ø112"36" TO FFU-CAP
ILLUMINATED
HANDRAIL
238"
Illuminated
Handrail
Option
iRAIL POD ORIENTATION
OPTIONS
18"
24"
OR 36"
iRAIL POD SPACING
OPTIONS
POD
iRAIL Linear
30° ASYM.
LINEAR
SYM.
LINEAR
iRAIL LINEAR ORIENTATION
OPTIONS
22° ASYM.
POD
SYM. POD
See Viva iRail Railing System
for more info
LED
Illuminated
Top rail
Options
VIVA RAILINGS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF ANY BUILDING SYSTEMS OR OTHER MATERIALS NOT FURNISHED BY VIVA RAILINGS. VIVA RAILINGS HAS NO WAY OF KNOWING AND SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS WHETHER OR NOT THE BUILDING SYSTEMS TO WHICH VIVA
RAILINGS' PRODUCTS ARE TO BE ATTACHED ARE STRUCTURALLY SOUND OR DESIGNED TO PROPERLY SUPPORT VIVA RAILINGS'S MATERIALS. ANY SUCH DESIGN RESPONSIBILITY BELONGS TO OTHERS FOR WHOM VIVA RAILINGS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE.
THESE DRAWINGS ARE INTENDED FOR THE SOLE USE OF VIVA RAILINGS' CUSTOMER AND THEIR AGENTS FOR THE INSTALLATION OF PRODUCTS FURNISHED BY VIVA RAILINGS. VIVA RAILINGS REMAINS THE SOLE OWNER OF ALL DESIGNS AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONTAINED WITHIN.
REPRODUCTION AND USE OF THESE DESIGNS FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE IS FORBIDDEN. SCALES ARE PROVIDED FOR REFERENCE ONLY. FOR PRODUCT INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT, PLEASE CONTACT VIVA RAILINGS.
VIEW™ILLUMINATED RAILING OPTIONS
For more info: vivarailings.com/products/led-illuminated-railing-system
V
I
E
W
DESIGN + ENGINEER + FABRICATE + INSTALL vivarailings.com5 207
#6 Satin is a silver-white finish with relatively short linear directional
polishing lines. This finish is quite common with SS architectural
applications. It is a two-step abrasive polish finish with the equivalent of a
240 grit abrasive.
#8 Mirror is the most reflective finish covered by ASTM Standards.
Produced in a similar way as the #6 finish with further buffing. The grit
lines are much less visible than the #6 finish but can be seen upon close
inspection. The final product is a mirror-like finish.
*#8 Mirror Finish comes at an additional cost to our #6 Finish.
ECM is a new finish offered by VIVA Railings and can be applied to nearly all
of our modular railing systems. This method of electroplated coating offers
an environmentally friendly process that includes an even better abrasion
and weather resistance to our already durable stainless steel railing
systems. Although ECM is only a few microns thick, the bonding process
once applied, is extremely durable, hard and heat resistant, which is a plus
for outdoor modular railing systems.
ECM offers a low maintenance, high durability and one of the best corrosion
resistant materials on the market today. Parts are sealed in an airtight
chamber where a vacuum is created and the negative voltage attracts
the positive ions and inert a gas to create the environment in which the
deposition process occurs.
Powder coating is a dry film process, using finely ground particles of
pigment and resin which are electrostatically charged and sprayed onto
electrically grounded parts to be coated. The charged powder particles
adhere to the parts and are held there until melted and fused into a
uniformly flowing coating in a cure oven. Before coating, the parts must be
pretreated similar to liquid coated parts.
Designed to withstand extreme temperatures, powder-coating protects
against rust and staining, making it a weather-resistant finish for
our stainless steel and aluminum railings. It helps in regards to LEED
requirements and in addition, it meets AAMA specifications.
VIEW™ STRUCTURAL GLASS RAILING SYSTEMS - FINISHING OPTIONS
#6 SATIN - #8 MIRROR ECM POWDER COAT
new fr o m viva railings!
e-colored metallic
V
I
E
W
V
I
E
W
DESIGN + ENGINEER + FABRICATE + INSTALL vivarailings.com6 208
PRODUCT: VIEW™ | INFILL: TEMPERED GLASS
BAYLOR UNIVERSITY PAUL FOSTER
CAMPUS FOR BUSINESS AND INNOVATION
WACO, TX
The Hankamer School of Business was designed with
gorgeous oak trim bevelled details, conference rooms
and study areas that appear to be suspended in the
air! Inspiration, determination and perseverance all
reside within the minds of the students that seek a
business degree at Baylor University. With VIVA's VIEW™
Railing System, students can enjoy the full atmosphere
that surrounds the 2,000 square foot facility while still
complementing the architecture seamlessly.
Project Details:
Location: Waco, TX
General Contractor: Flintco, L.L.C.
Architect: Overland Partners
Finish: #6 Satin Stainless Steel
Project Scope: 2331 Linear Feet of Railings
Infill: Clear Tempered Glass w/ Etched Band
Design & Installation Hours: 3000
LEED Gold Certified
V
I
E
W
DESIGN + ENGINEER + FABRICATE + INSTALL vivarailings.com7 209
PRODUCT: VIEW™ | INFILL: TEMPERED GLASS
AAA HEADQUARTERS
COPPELL, TX
After nearly two years and 250,000 square feet, the new
Triple A’s headquarters in Coppell is the largest single-
tenant office building within the city. The new facility will
house over 100 new jobs and multiple floors of unique
seating areas, a mural with the history of Texas and a 1958
Bel Air Chevy Convertible within the lobby. VIVA's VIEW™
system allows clients to take it all the beautiful architecture
without obstructing the view.
Project Details:
Location: Coppell, TX
General Contractor: StructureTone Southwest
Architect: Corgan Associates
Finish: #6 Satin Stainless Steel
Project Scope: 238 Linear Feet of Railings
Infill: Clear Tempered Glass
Design & Installation Hours: 400
V
I
E
W
DESIGN + ENGINEER + FABRICATE + INSTALL vivarailings.com8 210
PRODUCT: VIEW™ | INFILL: TEMPERED GLASS
ST. EDWARDS UNIVERSITY
NATURAL SCIENCES BUILDING
AUSTIN, TX
St. Edwards houses over 20 universities across the globe.
The main campus, featuring the new Natural Sciences
building is AEGB Green Certified and features several large
laboratories and all the latest chemistry equipment. The
building was even constructed so that the natural sunlight
would shine through the majority of the campus. What
better way to see the gorgeous 64,000 sq. ft of space
than with our VIEW™ Railing System. Our tempered glass
shines beautifully with the calming green atmosphere that
surrounds the stairwell.
Project Details:
Location: Austin, TX
General Contractor: DPR Austin
Architect: Moore Ruble Yudell Architects & Planners
Finish: #6 Satin Stainless Steel
Project Scope: 273 Linear Feet of Railings
Infill: Clear Tempered Glass
V
I
E
W
DESIGN + ENGINEER + FABRICATE + INSTALL vivarailings.com9 211
PRODUCT: VIEW™ | INFILL: TEMPERED GLASS
ESPLANADE OTONOMY LAB
SAN DIEGO, CA
Esplanade is a 62,000 sq. foot bioscience and vivarium in
the heart of San Diego. The main company housed within
Esplanade is Otonomy, which specializes in medicine for
the Ear. The massive 3 story office and lab features a
gorgeous main stairwell that wraps around from top to
bottom. VIVA's VIEW™ System was the perfect choice to
offer the clearest view for employees walking up and down
the stairs.
Project Details:
Location: San Diego, CA
General Contractor: BNB Builders
Architect: Gensler
Finish: #6 Satin Stainless Steel
Project Scope: 403 Linear Feet of Railings
Infill: Clear Tempered Glass
Design & Installation Hours: 55
V
I
E
W
DESIGN + ENGINEER + FABRICATE + INSTALL vivarailings.com10 212
VISIO™
STRUCTURAL GLASS RAILING SYSTEM
Clean and Clear! The Visio System combines the versatility of a base shoe system with
the floating design of a standoff system. This structural glass point supported railing
system makes installation a breeze. Easily adaptable to interior or exterior applications,
open atriums and floating staircases, it is solid favorite!
PRODUCT: VISIO™ | INFILL: GLASS RICHARD J. LEE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
COPPELL, TX
Visit vivarailings.com/visio for product data, specifications and drawings.
V
I
S
I
O
DESIGN + ENGINEER + FABRICATE + INSTALL vivarailings.com1 213
VISIO™
STRUCTURAL GLASS RAILING SYSTEM
MATERIAL FINISH SIZE / SPACING
CLAMP Stainless Steel (304 or 316)
#6 Satin, #8 Mirror
Clamp @ 4'-0" max. O.C. Spacing for Glass Panels.
Fascia or Top mount.
ECM
Powder CoatSteel
INFILL Glass Clear, Tinted or Frit Min. 1/2" SGP laminated glass¹ or
Min. 5/8" PVB laminated glass
TOP RAIL
Stainless Steel U-Cap #6 Satin, Powder Coat 1" Height U-Cap
Stainless Steel U-Cap with LED ²#6 Satin 1" Height U-Cap with LED LINEAR
Stainless Steel Tube with LED #6 Satin Ø1-1/2" tube with LED LINEAR
HAND RAIL
Stainless Steel Tube #6 Satin, Powder Coat Ø1-1/2" or Ø2" tube
Stainless Steel Tube with LED #6 Satin Ø1-1/2" with LED LINEAR, Ø1-1/2" or Ø2" with LED POD
Wood (Red Oak, Cherry or Maple) ³Unstained Ø2"
Wood (Red Oak, Cherry or Maple) with LED Ø2" with LED LINEAR
(1) IBC 2015 & newer requires railing glass to be laminated. VIVA recommends SGP for exterior
applications.
(3) Other species available upon request.
(2) All LED LINEAR products are ETL certified; ETL mark is proof of product compliance to
North American safety standard.
US
Intertek
CM
LISTE D
Technical Data
VIVA RAILINGS, LLC
1454 HALSEY WAY, CARROLLTON, TX 75007
P: 972-353-8482 F: 972-353-0013
e: info@vivarailings.com www.vivarailings.com
V
V
A
TM
I Page 1 of 4VISIO RAILING SYSTEM
Specifications
TECHNICAL DATA
VISIO™ RAILING SYSTEM - SPECIFICATIONS
V
I
S
I
O
DESIGN + ENGINEER + FABRICATE + INSTALL vivarailings.com2 214
LEVEL 1
0'-0"
HAND RAIL
FINISH FLOOR
LAMINATED GLASS
U-CAP
4'-0" MAX4'-0" MAX
1'-0"
1'-0"
Glass Infill
3'-0"3'-7"LAMINATED GLASS
STRINGERVISIO CLAMP
U-CAP
HAND RAIL
VIVA RAILINGS, LLC
1454 HALSEY WAY, CARROLLTON, TX 75007
P: 972-353-8482 F: 972-353-0013
e: info@vivarailings.com www.vivarailings.com
V
V
A
TM
I Page 2 of 4VISIO RAILING SYSTEM
12"
NOM. GAP
2"238"7116"VIVA RAILINGS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF ANY BUILDING SYSTEMS OR OTHER MATERIALS NOT FURNISHED BY VIVA RAILINGS. VIVA RAILINGS HAS NO WAY OF KNOWING AND SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS WHETHER OR NOT THE BUILDING SYSTEMS TO WHICH VIVA
RAILINGS' PRODUCTS ARE TO BE ATTACHED ARE STRUCTURALLY SOUND OR DESIGNED TO PROPERLY SUPPORT VIVA RAILINGS'S MATERIALS. ANY SUCH DESIGN RESPONSIBILITY BELONGS TO OTHERS FOR WHOM VIVA RAILINGS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE.
THESE DRAWINGS ARE INTENDED FOR THE SOLE USE OF VIVA RAILINGS' CUSTOMER AND THEIR AGENTS FOR THE INSTALLATION OF PRODUCTS FURNISHED BY VIVA RAILINGS. VIVA RAILINGS REMAINS THE SOLE OWNER OF ALL DESIGNS AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONTAINED WITHIN.
REPRODUCTION AND USE OF THESE DESIGNS FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE IS FORBIDDEN. SCALES ARE PROVIDED FOR REFERENCE ONLY. FOR PRODUCT INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT, PLEASE CONTACT VIVA RAILINGS.
8"
Clear
Monolithic
Clear Laminated
(PVB or SGP)
Colored Laminate
(PVB only)
Bent Tinted Satin
Etched
Ceramic Frit
AVAILABLE GLASS
TYPES:
VIVA RAILINGS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF ANY BUILDING SYSTEMS OR OTHER MATERIALS NOT FURNISHED BY VIVA RAILINGS. VIVA RAILINGS HAS NO WAY OF KNOWING AND SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS WHETHER OR NOT THE BUILDING SYSTEMS TO WHICH VIVA
RAILINGS' PRODUCTS ARE TO BE ATTACHED ARE STRUCTURALLY SOUND OR DESIGNED TO PROPERLY SUPPORT VIVA RAILINGS'S MATERIALS. ANY SUCH DESIGN RESPONSIBILITY BELONGS TO OTHERS FOR WHOM VIVA RAILINGS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE.
THESE DRAWINGS ARE INTENDED FOR THE SOLE USE OF VIVA RAILINGS' CUSTOMER AND THEIR AGENTS FOR THE INSTALLATION OF PRODUCTS FURNISHED BY VIVA RAILINGS. VIVA RAILINGS REMAINS THE SOLE OWNER OF ALL DESIGNS AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONTAINED WITHIN.
REPRODUCTION AND USE OF THESE DESIGNS FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE IS FORBIDDEN. SCALES ARE PROVIDED FOR REFERENCE ONLY. FOR PRODUCT INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT, PLEASE CONTACT VIVA RAILINGS.
VISIO™GLASS INFILL V
I
S
I
O
DESIGN + ENGINEER + FABRICATE + INSTALL vivarailings.com3 215
6"MIN.
Welded @ Embed Plate - $
Detail# ZA-T04
Anchored to Concrete ¹ - $ ²
Detail# ZA-T01 ³
Welded @ Steel Channel - $
Detail# ZA-T03
Embed Plate
(By others)
Mounting Condition, Top Mounted Clamp
3" MIN.5"MIN.5"MIN.5"MIN.(1) Min. 4000 PSI concrete, Typ.
(2) $ to $$$: Indicates mounting type comparative cost
612"
MIN.3"MIN.VIVA RAILINGS, LLC
1454 HALSEY WAY, CARROLLTON, TX 75007
P: 972-353-8482 F: 972-353-0013
e: info@vivarailings.com www.vivarailings.com
V
V
A
TM
I Page 3.1 of 4VISIO RAILING SYSTEM
VIVA RAILINGS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF ANY BUILDING SYSTEMS OR OTHER MATERIALS NOT FURNISHED BY VIVA RAILINGS. VIVA RAILINGS HAS NO WAY OF KNOWING AND SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS WHETHER OR NOT THE BUILDING SYSTEMS TO WHICH VIVA
RAILINGS' PRODUCTS ARE TO BE ATTACHED ARE STRUCTURALLY SOUND OR DESIGNED TO PROPERLY SUPPORT VIVA RAILINGS'S MATERIALS. ANY SUCH DESIGN RESPONSIBILITY BELONGS TO OTHERS FOR WHOM VIVA RAILINGS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE.
THESE DRAWINGS ARE INTENDED FOR THE SOLE USE OF VIVA RAILINGS' CUSTOMER AND THEIR AGENTS FOR THE INSTALLATION OF PRODUCTS FURNISHED BY VIVA RAILINGS. VIVA RAILINGS REMAINS THE SOLE OWNER OF ALL DESIGNS AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONTAINED WITHIN.
REPRODUCTION AND USE OF THESE DESIGNS FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE IS FORBIDDEN. SCALES ARE PROVIDED FOR REFERENCE ONLY. FOR PRODUCT INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT, PLEASE CONTACT VIVA RAILINGS.
Anchored to Concrete Slab on Deck - $$
Detail# ZA-T05
VIVA RAILINGS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF ANY BUILDING SYSTEMS OR OTHER MATERIALS NOT FURNISHED BY VIVA RAILINGS. VIVA RAILINGS HAS NO WAY OF KNOWING AND SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS WHETHER OR NOT THE BUILDING SYSTEMS TO WHICH VIVA
RAILINGS' PRODUCTS ARE TO BE ATTACHED ARE STRUCTURALLY SOUND OR DESIGNED TO PROPERLY SUPPORT VIVA RAILINGS'S MATERIALS. ANY SUCH DESIGN RESPONSIBILITY BELONGS TO OTHERS FOR WHOM VIVA RAILINGS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE.
THESE DRAWINGS ARE INTENDED FOR THE SOLE USE OF VIVA RAILINGS' CUSTOMER AND THEIR AGENTS FOR THE INSTALLATION OF PRODUCTS FURNISHED BY VIVA RAILINGS. VIVA RAILINGS REMAINS THE SOLE OWNER OF ALL DESIGNS AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONTAINED WITHIN.
REPRODUCTION AND USE OF THESE DESIGNS FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE IS FORBIDDEN. SCALES ARE PROVIDED FOR REFERENCE ONLY. FOR PRODUCT INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT, PLEASE CONTACT VIVA RAILINGS.
VISIO™MOUNTING CONDITIONS-TOP MOUNT V
I
S
I
O
DESIGN + ENGINEER + FABRICATE + INSTALL vivarailings.com4 216
6"6"Welded @ Steel Tube - $$
Detail# ZA-F04
Welded @ Embed Plate - $$
Detail# ZA-F02
Mounting Condition, Fascia Mounted Clamp
(1) Min. 4000 PSI concrete, Typ.6"VIVA RAILINGS, LLC
1454 HALSEY WAY, CARROLLTON, TX 75007
P: 972-353-8482 F: 972-353-0013
e: info@vivarailings.com www.vivarailings.com
V
V
A
TM
I Page 3.2 of 4VISIO RAILING SYSTEM
6" Embed Plate
(By others)
VIVA RAILINGS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF ANY BUILDING SYSTEMS OR OTHER MATERIALS NOT FURNISHED BY VIVA RAILINGS. VIVA RAILINGS HAS NO WAY OF KNOWING AND SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS WHETHER OR NOT THE BUILDING SYSTEMS TO WHICH VIVA
RAILINGS' PRODUCTS ARE TO BE ATTACHED ARE STRUCTURALLY SOUND OR DESIGNED TO PROPERLY SUPPORT VIVA RAILINGS'S MATERIALS. ANY SUCH DESIGN RESPONSIBILITY BELONGS TO OTHERS FOR WHOM VIVA RAILINGS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE.
THESE DRAWINGS ARE INTENDED FOR THE SOLE USE OF VIVA RAILINGS' CUSTOMER AND THEIR AGENTS FOR THE INSTALLATION OF PRODUCTS FURNISHED BY VIVA RAILINGS. VIVA RAILINGS REMAINS THE SOLE OWNER OF ALL DESIGNS AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONTAINED WITHIN.
REPRODUCTION AND USE OF THESE DESIGNS FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE IS FORBIDDEN. SCALES ARE PROVIDED FOR REFERENCE ONLY. FOR PRODUCT INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT, PLEASE CONTACT VIVA RAILINGS.
VIVA RAILINGS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF ANY BUILDING SYSTEMS OR OTHER MATERIALS NOT FURNISHED BY VIVA RAILINGS. VIVA RAILINGS HAS NO WAY OF KNOWING AND SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS WHETHER OR NOT THE BUILDING SYSTEMS TO WHICH VIVA
RAILINGS' PRODUCTS ARE TO BE ATTACHED ARE STRUCTURALLY SOUND OR DESIGNED TO PROPERLY SUPPORT VIVA RAILINGS'S MATERIALS. ANY SUCH DESIGN RESPONSIBILITY BELONGS TO OTHERS FOR WHOM VIVA RAILINGS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE.
THESE DRAWINGS ARE INTENDED FOR THE SOLE USE OF VIVA RAILINGS' CUSTOMER AND THEIR AGENTS FOR THE INSTALLATION OF PRODUCTS FURNISHED BY VIVA RAILINGS. VIVA RAILINGS REMAINS THE SOLE OWNER OF ALL DESIGNS AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONTAINED WITHIN.
REPRODUCTION AND USE OF THESE DESIGNS FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE IS FORBIDDEN. SCALES ARE PROVIDED FOR REFERENCE ONLY. FOR PRODUCT INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT, PLEASE CONTACT VIVA RAILINGS.
VISIO™MOUNTING CONDITIONS-FASCIA MOUNT V
I
S
I
O
DESIGN + ENGINEER + FABRICATE + INSTALL vivarailings.com5 217
VIVA RAILINGS, LLC
1454 HALSEY WAY, CARROLLTON, TX 75007
P: 972-353-8482 F: 972-353-0013
e: info@vivarailings.com www.vivarailings.com
V
V
A
TM
I Page 4 of 4VISIO RAILING SYSTEM
Illuminated Railing
Ø112"36" TO FFU-CAP
ILLUMINATED
HANDRAIL
238"
Illuminated
Handrail
Option
iRAIL POD ORIENTATION
OPTIONS
18"
24"
OR 36"
iRAIL POD SPACING
OPTIONS
POD
iRAIL Linear
30° ASYM.
LINEAR
SYM.
LINEAR
iRAIL LINEAR ORIENTATION
OPTIONS
22° ASYM.
POD
SYM. POD
See Viva iRail Railing System
for more info
LED
Illuminated
Top rail
Options
VIVA RAILINGS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF ANY BUILDING SYSTEMS OR OTHER MATERIALS NOT FURNISHED BY VIVA RAILINGS. VIVA RAILINGS HAS NO WAY OF KNOWING AND SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS WHETHER OR NOT THE BUILDING SYSTEMS TO WHICH VIVA
RAILINGS' PRODUCTS ARE TO BE ATTACHED ARE STRUCTURALLY SOUND OR DESIGNED TO PROPERLY SUPPORT VIVA RAILINGS'S MATERIALS. ANY SUCH DESIGN RESPONSIBILITY BELONGS TO OTHERS FOR WHOM VIVA RAILINGS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE.
THESE DRAWINGS ARE INTENDED FOR THE SOLE USE OF VIVA RAILINGS' CUSTOMER AND THEIR AGENTS FOR THE INSTALLATION OF PRODUCTS FURNISHED BY VIVA RAILINGS. VIVA RAILINGS REMAINS THE SOLE OWNER OF ALL DESIGNS AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONTAINED WITHIN.
REPRODUCTION AND USE OF THESE DESIGNS FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE IS FORBIDDEN. SCALES ARE PROVIDED FOR REFERENCE ONLY. FOR PRODUCT INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT, PLEASE CONTACT VIVA RAILINGS.
VISIO™ILLUMINATED RAILING OPTIONS
For more info: vivarailings.com/products/led-illuminated-railing-system
V
I
S
I
O
DESIGN + ENGINEER + FABRICATE + INSTALL vivarailings.com6 218
#6 Satin is a silver-white finish with relatively short linear directional
polishing lines. This finish is quite common with SS architectural
applications. It is a two-step abrasive polish finish with the equivalent of a
240 grit abrasive.
#8 Mirror is the most reflective finish covered by ASTM Standards.
Produced in a similar way as the #6 finish with further buffing. The grit
lines are much less visible than the #6 finish but can be seen upon close
inspection. The final product is a mirror-like finish.
*#8 Mirror Finish comes at an additional cost to our #6 Finish.
ECM is a new finish offered by VIVA Railings and can be applied to nearly all
of our modular railing systems. This method of electroplated coating offers
an environmentally friendly process that includes an even better abrasion
and weather resistance to our already durable stainless steel railing
systems. Although ECM is only a few microns thick, the bonding process
once applied, is extremely durable, hard and heat resistant, which is a plus
for outdoor modular railing systems.
ECM offers a low maintenance, high durability and one of the best corrosion
resistant materials on the market today. Parts are sealed in an airtight
chamber where a vacuum is created and the negative voltage attracts
the positive ions and inert a gas to create the environment in which the
deposition process occurs.
Powder Coated Finishing is a non-toxic industrial finish with incomparable
durability. Applied as a dry powder and then cured and hardened under
heat, a powder-coated finish can be as bright and colorful as paint but is
much more durable. Since the process does not use solvents, emission
problems are eliminated.
Designed to withstand extreme temperatures, powder-coating protects
against rust and staining, making it a weather-resistant finish for
our stainless steel and aluminum railings. It helps in regards to LEED
requirements and in addition, it meets AAMA specifications.
VISIO™ STRUCTURAL GLASS RAILING SYSTEMS - FINISHING OPTIONS
#6 SATIN - #8 MIRROR ECM POWDER COAT
new fr o m viva railings!
e-colored metallic
V
I
S
I
O
DESIGN + ENGINEER + FABRICATE + INSTALL vivarailings.com7 219
RICHARD J. LEE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
COPPELL, TX
Part of Coppell Independent School District, Lee
Elementary's new campus houses solar panels and recycle
materials to be as environmentally friendly as possible.
Featured in D Magazine, Coppell ISD's newest building
is the very first to be a 'net-zero' energy school in Texas.
Housing our VISIO™ line along the stairwell and second
floor balcony, the all stainless steel system that provides
a unique look without the typical top to bottom railing
structure.
Project Details:
Location: Dallas, TX
General Contractor: Balfour Beatty
Architect: Stantec Group
Finish: #6 Satin Stainless Steel
Project Scope: 1335 Linear Feet of Railings
Infill: Clear Tempered Glass
Design & Installation Hours: 1770
LEED Gold Certified
PRODUCT: VISIO™ | INFILL: TEMPERED GLASS V
I
S
I
O
DESIGN + ENGINEER + FABRICATE + INSTALL vivarailings.com8
L E E D GOLD
220
PRODUCT: VISIO™ | INFILL: TEMPERED GLASS
AAA HEADQUARTERS
COPPELL, TX
After nearly two years and 250,000 square feet, the new
Triple A’s headquarters in Irving is the largest single-tenant
office building within the city. The new facility will house
over 100 new jobs and multiple floors of unique seating
areas and a unique Tripe A sculpture The second floor
features our VISIO™ line to coincide with the VIEW™
system to provide a similar maximum viewing aspect while
having two unique railing systems that work seamlessly
together.
Project Details:
Location: Irving, TX
General Contractor: Structure Tone
Architect: Corgan Associates
Finish: #6 Satin Stainless Steel
Project Scope: 110 Linear Feet of Railings
Infill: Clear Tempered Glass
Design & Installation Hours: 735
V
I
S
I
O
DESIGN + ENGINEER + FABRICATE + INSTALL vivarailings.com9 221
PRODUCT: VISIO™ | INFILL: TEMPERED GLASS
MANOR ISD NEW TECH MIDDLE SCHOOL
MANOR, TX
The Manor ISD New Tech Middle School features a more
hands on, project oriented learning experience. Students
are able to choose how to execute their ideas through
dedicated teachers and a close knit community. Drawing
inspiration from the Sacramento New Tech High School,
students enjoy a one-to-one computer ratio and learn
skills that will help them in college and gain real world
experience. The VISIO™ glass railing is the perfect modern
addition to this contemporary school.
Project Details:
Location: Houston, TX
General Contractor: Joeris General Contractors
Architect: Stantec
Finish: Stainless Steel
Project Scope: 328 Linear Feet of Railings
Infill: 1/2" Clear Tempered Glass
Design & Installation Hours: 526
V
I
S
I
O
DESIGN + ENGINEER + FABRICATE + INSTALL vivarailings.com10 222
Neighborhood Uses
1 - 531 E Cooper (Commercial - Skye Gallery on corner street level)
2 - 525 E Cooper (Commercial, Betula on second floor)
3 - 404 S Galena (Condos - Ralph Lauren on street level)
4 - 500 E Cooper (Commercial - Paradise Bakery on street level)
5 - 508 E Cooper (Commercial/Residential - Bruno Cucinelli on street
level)
6 - 520 E Cooper (Commercial/Residential - Pitkin County Dry
Goods on street level; 520 Grill below street level)
7 - 534 E Cooper (Commercial - Eden Gallery on street level)
33
44
11 22
776655
1122
33
44 55 66 77
223
DRAWING ISSUE
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:2108
CPF
HPC MEETING 2022-09-28520 E COOPER AVENUE | ASPEN COASPENHOFAll ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing areowned by and are the property of David Johnston
Architects, PC and developed for use and in
conjunction with the specified project. None
of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans
shall be used by or disclosed for any purposewhatsoever without the written authorization
of David Johnston Architects, PC.
119 South Spring St.
Suite 203
Aspen, CO 81611
970-925-3444
970-920-2186
TEL
FAX
4.4
AWNINGS
Sheet No.1 AWNING DRAINAGE DESIGN
2 ENTRY AWNING DRAINAGE
STEEL AWNING TO PITCH TO
PLANTER AND SHEET FLOW
DOWN STEEL PANEL
STEEL AWNING TO PITCH TO CENTER
GUTTER AT BUILDING FACE
DOWNSPOUNT INTERNAL
TO BRICK CLOLUMN
DRAIN TO PLANTER
DOWNSPOUNT INTERNAL TO
BRICK CLOLUMN
STEEL AWNING TO PITCH TO
PLANTER AND SHEET FLOW
DOWN STEEL PANEL
224
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 28TH, 2022
Vice Chair Halferty opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission at
4:35pm.
Commissioners in attendance: Jeffrey Halferty, Roger Moyer, Jodi Surfas, Peter Fornell and Barb
Pitchford.
Staff present:
Amy Simon, Planning Director (virtual)
Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner
Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney
Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk
Risa Rushmore, Administrative Assistant
MINUTES: Mr. Fornell motioned to approve the minutes from 8/10/22 and 8/24/22. Mr. Moyer
seconded. All in favor, motion passes.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: None.
COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS: Mr. Moyer made some comments related to dark sky issues. He
talked about the amount of birds that are killed at night flying into a lit window. He wanted to make
sure these aspects are taking into account when making decisions.
Mr. Halferty thanked Ms. Yoon for all her hard work and wished her luck in her new job in California.
DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: Mr. Fornell mentioned that he was an owner at the Aspenhof
for about 10 years and sold the property about 4 years ago. He was responsible for placing some of the
tenants that are still there. He asked Ms. Johnson if that would be a conflict of interest. Ms. Johnson said
that as long as he did not have any direct financial interest with the applicant, nothing that he
mentioned would conflict him from hearing this particular application.
PROJECT MONITORING: None.
STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon mentioned that there had been some transition in staffing which may
lead to a difficult to manage 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 both agenda items.
NEW BUSINESS:
413 E. Main St – Minor Development Review, Commercial Design Review, PUBLIC HEARING
Ms. Yoon introduced this agenda item as 413 E. Main St. – Jing Restaurant.
225
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 28TH, 2022
Applicant Presentation: Gavin Merlino – Kuullastudio
Mr. Merlino stated that the goal of the application is to replace the front four panel slider which is
pretty dilapidated and doesn’t open very well. It also has a step up to get up and over it. The plan is to
replace it with a more modern four panel slider and bring the threshold down to the actual floor. They
would also like to replace the window on the right side of the building. He showed pictures at different
angles of the exterior of the building. These will match the black trim that is already in place on the
upper part of the building.
Staff Presentation: Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner
Ms. Yoon started by reviewing the applicant request and details of the building. She showed pictures of
the current conditions and described the details of the slider and window replacement. She sighted
guideline 10.6 and stated that staff believes the changes comply. Staff recommends approval of this
application as proposed.
Ms. Surfas asked about the ADA compliance. Ms. Yoon said that would be something reviewed by the
building department, making sure the threshold would comply.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
BOARD DISCUSSION: Mr. Halferty went over the considerations for HPC to discuss. There was no
discussion. Mr. Halferty asked if there was a motion.
MOTION: Ms. Pitchford moved to approve the next resolution in the series. Mr. Moyer seconded.
Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes. 5-0:
All in favor, motion passes.
520 E. Cooper St – Minor Development Review, Commercial Design Review, PUBLIC HEARING
Ms. Pitchford brought up that her son is a partner with the owner but not in this property. Ms. Johnson
asked if Ms. Pitchford had any direct financial interest in the outcome of the application or this property.
Ms. Pitchford said no. Ms. Johnson also asked if Ms. Pitchford felt she could be impartial, to which Ms.
Pitchford said yes. Ms. Johnson said what was disclosed did not represent a conflict of interest according
to the code.
Ms. Simon apologized for the late packet and accidental omission of the application. She said she had
spoken to Sara Adams and again apologized to her and Mr. Guth.
Applicant Presentation: Sara Adams – Bendon Adams
Ms. Adams mentioned that Brian Beazley (DJ Architects) was on his way with material samples. She then
introduced the application and project and mentioned that she is representing the Aspenhof HOA and
HOA president, Bill Guth. She then described the property as being in the Commercial Core historic
district but is not a contributing structure. She said all HOA member tenants are on board with the
application and proposed changes to the façade.
Ms. Adams went on to describe some of the background of the building, noting that it was built in 1970
and designed by Ted Mularz. She believed this building was not one of his best works and that it is not
on the listed on the AspenModern map. The proposal is to remodel the existing façade, modernizing it a
226
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 28TH, 2022
bit. She then went over the prosed changes by showing the existing and proposed line drawings and
renderings. They are proposing to replace the failing triangle windows with flat ones, to remove the
vertical flue and replace some existing materials. There is also a reconfiguration of the Pitkin County Dry
Goods storefront, including new awnings.
Mr. Beazley arrived.
She went over the existing and proposed floor plans and mentioned that the removal of the flue lets
them expand the planter to include a new bench. She also mentioned the change of two windows to
doors on the second floor. She continued to go over proposed changes to the façade including a warm
lime wash of the brick, replacement of the existing stucco with a composite wood, and replacement of
the existing metal railings with clear glass. She described the awning drainage details. She then went
over the design guidelines referenced in the staff memo in detail and how the applicant team
interpreted them in relation to this project. Details of the proposed materials were described, and
samples were shown to board members. She also showed examples of other brick in the downtown
core. The applicant team feels strongly that the building will still be recognizable as the same form and
that the changes relate to what’s already there. Ms. Adams said that they are ok with the resolution that
was included in the packet but would request amendments to the conditions of approval and staff and
monitor approval of the lime wash.
Mr. Fornell asked if the proposed new brick above the Pitkin County Dry Goods space and the proposed
lime washing of existing brick would cause a matching situation. Ms. Adams said they did not have any
concerns about this. Mr. Fornell then asked if any changes were to be made to the north elevation, if
that would come back to HPC, to which Ms. Adams said yes.
Ms. Surfas asked for more details about the glass proposed for the railings. Mr. Beasley said the sample
that was shown was the exact material that would be used. Ms. Surfas then asked if the railing cap
material would be real wood, to which Mr. Beasley said yes. Ms. Surfas asked if the glass proposed to
replace the existing triangle windows the same as proposed for the railing. Mr. Beasley said no and that
it would be a storefront commercial grade window glass.
Ms. Pitchford asked if they could explain why they wanted the triangle windows to go away. Mr. Beasley
went on to explain their dilapidated condition and the difficulties in their maintenance. They still want
to have the natural light and windows to be in the same configuration, but that the current design is not
working for the functionality. Ms. Pitchford said that the original triangle design seems to be a signature
part of the building and asked if there was any consideration to keeping the original design. Mr. Beasley
said they had looked into keeping it just on the face, but it just wasn’t working. Ms. Pitchford then asked
(not directed to the applicant) if this building would in the future choose to be landmarked as
AspenModern if the removal of the triangle windows would affect that. Mr. Halferty said they could
address that in staff’s presentation. Ms. Pitchford asked if the limewash in any way would damage and
or keep the brick healthy. Mr. Beasley explained it’s application, that it does not damage the brick and
that it can be completely taken off if needed.
Mr. Moyer asked if the composite wood materials proposed would be exposed to the weather, to which
Mr. Beasley said yes. Mr. Moyer asked if the material had been used enough to know that it won’t self-
destruct. Mr. Beasley described the material and mentioned it had a 50-year warranty. Mr. Moyer asked
if the composite wood materials would be installed over the existing stucco, to which Mr. Beasley said
that was yet to be determined. Mr. Moyer asked a few questions about the durability of the wood
227
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 28TH, 2022
railing cap material. He then asked about the slope of the awnings. Mr. Beasley went over the details of
the awning slopes. Mr. Moyer asked about the current condition of the existing brick. Mr. Beasley said
there may be some type of sealant that might need to be removed before applying the lime wash. Mr.
Moyer asked a few questions about the application and make-up of the lime wash. Ms. Adams said it is
hard because they can’t do any testing on its application until they get approval of the concept of using
lime wash.
Ms. Surfas asked if the applicant is planning on adding the horizontal relief elements on the brick as seen
in the renderings. Mr. Beasley said they were planning on these to pay homage to the many historic
horizontal elements in the façade.
Mr. Halferty asked about the fire rating of the windows proposed for the stair tower because it is an
egress. Mr. Beasley said they would be able to use fire rated glass. Next Mr. Halferty asked the
reasoning for the two different heights of the vertical window elements. Mr. Beasley said again it was
intended to tie into the other horizontal elements in the building. Mr. Halferty asked if the proposed
routering of the brick will cause any further deterioration of the brick. Mr. Beasley said it was an
experiment and if it doesn’t work, they would replace the brick. There was some discussion about the
vertical tower flue regarding its original intent and architecture. Mr. Beasley said he believed it was only
designed there originally out of function and necessity.
Staff Presentation: Amy Simon – Planning Director
Ms. Simon started by going over the difference in required standards versus guidelines when it comes to
Commercial Design Reviews. She then showed a slide of and reviewed the proposed materials. She
mentioned that staff had reached out to the HOA about the potential for AspenModern designation and
encouraged it. While this review does not apply a preservation lens, there are compatibility topics that
should be met in the downtown historic district. She pointed to a guideline that speaks to, when in a
renovation, respecting the underlining character of the building. Ms. Simon said historic or not, this
building has certain architectural statements. She stated that staff does not support the proposed use of
lime wash for several reasons. The preservation staff has been resisting for many years, any kind of
coating applied to masonry for several reason including the possibility of causing deterioration and in
their opinion, the “dumbing” down of the masonry where the distinction between the masonry and the
grout lines gets erased. She noted that the downtown core is predominantly red toned masonry, and
that new or remodeled architecture is to respect that. Staff does not support moving away from that.
She then spoke to the use of the composite wood material and noted that HPC has allowed it to be used
in a residential project on a new construction element, but the guidelines talk about relating to the
materials of the surrounding district and any new materials need to be carefully considered. She noted
that this material is not, to her knowledge, been used in the downtown historic district and asked HPC to
consider this when it comes to the characteristic of the downtown. Ms. Simon said that the proposed
use of clear glass for the railings as opposed to a tinted glass resolves staff’s concerns there. She then
presented a few slides going over mandatory standards and guidelines for materials and described
staff’s related thoughts and concerns. She stated that staff is recommending continuation of this. Staff
does not believe these elements, particularly the lime wash to be something to be pushed to staff and
monitor to resolve.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
228
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 28TH, 2022
Ms. Adams pointed out that one of the guidelines (2.14) Ms. Simon mentioned only requires for two of
the qualities to be met.
BOARD DISCUSSION: Mr. Halferty went over the relevant guidelines for discussion.
Mr. Fornell stated he believed that the mandatory standards are being met and was satisfied with the
lime washing of the brick. He thought that if we like different heights of buildings in downtown why do
we not like different colors of buildings. He appreciates the difference and was willing to approve this as
presented. He thought that if the owners, in changing the color to their satisfaction, actually shorten the
life of the bricks, it is a financial matter for them only.
Ms. Surfas didn’t have any issue with the use of the Trespa (composite wood material), due to its
sustainability. She wasn’t crazy about the horizontal lines on the brick. She thought it was an interesting
update to the building.
Ms. Pitchford didn’t have any issue with the use of Trespa but did have an issue with the brick towers.
She thought the proposed changes really change the feel of the building and referenced guideline 1.35,
which says the design should relate to the existing design and form. She was ok with the lime wash and
materials, but the flattening out of the triangle windows goes against the guideline.
Mr. Moyer was not opposed to the lime wash, providing its real lime wash. He commented on the
addition of composite materials in the downtown. He wasn’t sure if it was good or bad for the
community. He was ok with the removal of the flue tower and thought the building was better off
without the triangle windows.
Mr. Halferty acknowledged that this is a challenge. He supported keeping the flue as it is a vertical
feature that was a design feature. He discussed his thoughts on the required standards versus the
guidelines. He was not sold on the lime washing because of concerns of the ability to take it off without
damaging the brick and that it does not appear in the downtown. He thought the majority of the
application complies with the guidelines, but the challenge for him was the lime wash and the vertical
flue. He thought that the amount of glass railings proposed will alter the appearance. He agreed with
staff that the lime wash would make the brick look more monochromatic and that the entire board
should be voting on the lime wash and not just a monitor. He could support the majority of this project
but thought that the triangle windows were an architectural feature that were intended by the architect
and not a mistake. He would recommend that these stay the same in scale and appearance. He thought
the routering of the brick was an interesting concept, but he had serious concerns.
Mr. Fornell mentioned that there is at least one other building on the block that has glass railings and
not all buildings in the downtown are red brick. He reminded everyone that this is not a historic asset.
Ms. Adams stated the two most important things to make this project happen are the removal of the
flue tower and the lime wash of the brick. They can do the triangle windows and use real wood as
opposed to composite, but the removal of the flue and the lime wash are non-negotiable. She said the
HOA does not want to replace the brick and the City talks about working with what you have and the
best way to do this is to lime wash the brick. She acknowledged that it does aesthetically change what it
looks like, but that this is not a landmark and not one of Ted’s best buildings.
Ms. Simon repeated that the boards main concern here is the historic district.
Mr. Moyer asked if the board could take a straw poll of where the members stood on the various issues.
229
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 28TH, 2022
As for the flue tower Mr. Fornell, Mr. Moyer, Ms. Pitchford, and Ms. Surfas were ok with the removal of
the tower. Mr. Halferty was in favor of keeping it.
All members were ok with the use of composite wood materials.
Ms. Pitchford, Mr. Fornell and Ms. Surfas were in support of keeping the triangle windows. Other
members did not comment.
Mr. Fornell and Mr. Moyer were ok with the glass railings. Other members did not comment.
Mr. Moyer and Mr. Halferty were against the routering of the brick. Mr. Fornell agreed. No other
members commented.
Mr. Fornell, Mr. Moyer, and Ms. Surfas were ok with the lime wash as long as it did not deteriorate the
brick. Ms. Pitchford would prefer to keep the original brick, but it was more important to keep the
triangle windows. Mr. Halferty was concerned with what the lime washing of this building would do to
the district. Mr. Fornell said he thinks this represents a change of character and considers it a positive.
MOTION: Mr. Fornell motioned to approve the next resolution in the series with added conditions.
Condition #1: That the triangle windows remain or are replaced in kind with the exception of the skylight
feature at the top. Condition #2: The removal of the horizontal routering of the brick. Mr. Moyer
seconded.
Ms. Adams asked for a short break to discuss with her client. The board said OK.
Ms. Adams returned and requested a continuation to October 12th.
There was discussion about how to handle the first motion.
Ms. Adams asked if the HPC approves this resolution with conditions, can the applicant request that
they rescind it at the next meeting. Ms. Johnson said that was correct.
Ms. Yoon asked Ms. Simon the question about the applicant asking the board to rescind the approval.
Ms. Simon responded that she believed a board member who approved the resolution would have to
motion for reconsideration and that it is not at the applicant’s discretion.
Ms. Johnson stated that the way the code is designed is that if a board member has regret or feels that a
wrong decision was made, they can call that issue back up, but not at the request of the applicant.
Mr. Beasley commented on a discussion he had with Mr. Bill Guth over the phone about the details of
the replacement of the triangle windows.
Mr. Fornell moved to rescind his original motion. Mr. Moyer seconded. All in favor, motion passes.
Mr. Moyer moved to continue this item to the October 12th meeting. Ms. Pitchford seconded.
Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; 5-0,
motion passes.
ADJOURN: Mr. Moyer motioned to adjourn the regular meeting. Mr. Halferty seconded. All in favor;
motion passes.
____________________
Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk
230