HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20221109AGENDA
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION
COMMISSION
November 9, 2022
4:30 PM,
I.ROLL CALL
II.MINUTES
II.A Minutes - 10/12/22
III.PUBLIC COMMENTS
IV.COMMISSIONER MEMBER COMMENTS
V.DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
VI.PROJECT MONITORING
VI.A Project Monitor 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: 2556 831 6460
Enter Password: 81611
Click "Join Meeting"
-- OR --
JOIN BY PHONE
Call: 1-408-418-9388
Enter Meeting Number: 2556 831 6460
Enter Password: 81611
minutes.hpc.20221012_DRAFT.docx
PROJECT MONITORING_20220826.doc
1
X.SUBMIT PUBLIC NOTICE FOR AGENDA ITEMS
XI.OLD BUSINESS
XII.NEW BUSINESS
XII.A132 W. Hopkins- Final Major Development, PUBLIC HEARING
XIII.OTHER BUSINESS
XIII.AOutdoor Lighting Standards - Code Update
Presentation and Discussion
XIV.ADJOURN
XV.NEXT RESOLUTION NUMBER
132_W_Hopkins_Final Memo.pdf
132_W_Hopkins_Final Resolution.pdf
Exhibit A_HP Guidelines Criteria.pdf
Exhibit B_Conceptual Review minutes.pdf
Exhibit C_Final Review application.pdf
Staff_Memo_HPC_11_9_22.pdf
Exhibit_A_Draft_Lighting_Code_11_9_22.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 OCTOBER 12TH, 2022
Chairperson Thompson opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission at
4:35pm.
Commissioners in attendance: Jeffrey Halferty, Roger Moyer, Peter Fornell, Barb Pitchford and Kara
Thompson.
Staff present:
Amy Simon, Planning Director
Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney
Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk
Risa Rushmore, Administrative Assistant
MINUTES: Ms. Thompson moved to approve the minutes from 9/14/22. Mr. Moyer seconded. Roll call
vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 5-0,
motion passes. Mr. Fornell moved to approve the minutes from 9/28/22. Mr. Moyer seconded. Roll call
vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes. 3-0, motion passes.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mr. David Scruggs commented that he had received notice of a major
development at 205 W. Main St. which is in his backyard, and he was interested in participating in the
hearing. He heard the Oct. 26th meeting is being held in person and he will be out of town. He asked if he
could call into the meeting or if the meeting could be held virtually. Ms. Simon mentioned that the
standard protocol, being that the meetings used to all in person, is that Mr. Scruggs would be allowed to
submit written comment if he would not be able to attend. Mr. Scruggs said would he avail himself of
written comment, but said that being present, either virtually or by phone would be preferable. He said
if the Commission is not going to have a virtual meeting that they should allow call in to get participation
of citizens. Ms. Thompson said that they are pushing for that, but at the moment the City does not have
the resources to hold in person meetings with WebEx participation. She understood and appreciated his
comments, but that meeting is in person and that the members are very diligent in reading all written
comments. Mr. Scruggs said that he had brought this up to a few City Council members. Ms. Simon said
that the ability to hold hybrid meetings is something that is being discussed but is not something that
they are not able to do. She also mentioned that the Oct. 26th meeting has been publicly noticed as an
in-person meeting and his best option would be to attend in person or submit written comment.
Mr. Fornell asked if written comment from the public can be read during a meeting by staff. Ms.
Johnson said that if written comments come in before the packet is published, they are included in it,
but if comments come after the packet is published, they are usually read into the record during the
meeting.
COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS: Mr. Moyer commented on the building next to the White House
Tavern and that it used to have two employee housing units. He said it was another example of buildings
sitting for a long time with no activity. Ms. Simon mentioned that the units were extinguished with
credits. A permit is in for the redevelopment of the site, and it was granted an extension due to supply
chain issues and that it is just about the time that they need to start taking action on the site.
Mr. Moyer then asked if the City had policies regarding “up-lighting” in the core. Ms. Simon said there a
number of policies in the lighting code and that at the November 9
th HPC meeting, staff will be coming
to the board with an overhaul of the lighting code.
3
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 12TH, 2022
DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: None.
PROJECT MONITORING: None.
STAFF COMMENTS: None.
CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: None.
CALL UP REPORTS: None.
SUBMIT PUBLIC NOTICE FOR AGENDA ITEMS: Ms. Johnson said that she reviewed public notice, and
that notice was provided per the code for both agenda items.
OLD BUSINESS:
422 - 434 E. Cooper Ave. – Substantial Amendment to Major Development, PUBLIC HEARING
CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 14, 2022
Applicant Presentation:Chris Bendon – Bendon Adams
Mr. Bendon started by stating that he would have to leave the meeting at 5:30pm and that Sarah Adams
of Bendon Adams would stand in if needed. He then reviewed the prior 2016 approval of the project and
went over the resubmission of the application reflecting adjustments made from the September 14th
meeting. One of the adjustments made was in response to Guidelines 2.9 and 2.10 regarding recessed
entryways. He noted that in the last meeting Ms. Pitchford called out that the entryways on both the
Galena and Cooper sides were not proposed to be recessed. Mr. Bendon showed a few slides of the
changes made from the last meeting to recess both entryways and noted that staff’s memo mentions
that they do now comply with the two guidelines for recessed entryways. He went on to discuss the
skylights and first showed a rendering of the skylight layout proposed at the last meeting and noted that
there were mixed opinions from commissioners regarding guidelines 2.3 and 2.4 regarding skylights. He
then showed a few examples of existing skylights in the core and talked to the benefits they have. Next,
he showed a rendering of the roof of the building referencing the redesign and reduction of the number
of skylights made since the last meeting from five to two. This showed the main larger skylight and an
additional second skylight remaining. He went over the benefits and reasoning for both skylights that
they kept in the design, mainly being to bring light into all levels of the building. He mentioned that since
the secondary skylight is set back so significantly that any concerns of pedestrian viewpoints were
lessened. Addressing commissioners’ concerns of nighttime glow in the last meeting, he showed a
rendering of what they expect the nighttime conditions to be. He then showed an actual picture of a
building the applicant had built in Napa where there were similar concerns of nighttime glow. They are
intending to use a type of product called dynamic glass which is a new technology that allows the glass
to go from clear to almost a limo glass. He showed a picture of samples of the glass in three different
tint levels and then showed a video of the glass as it changes noting that the darkest tint is about a 98 or
99 percent opacity. He mentioned the product is controlled by a computer program that has many
different timing options. Referencing concerns from neighbors about glare, he said they would be using
an anti-glare coating. He mentioned that the design team used the very lowest pitch possible for the
4
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 12TH, 2022
skylight so that it would not show from pedestrian viewpoints and showed renderings from ground
level. He finished by saying they are looking for HPC’s support of the entryway changes and the skylight
plan.
Ms. Thompson asked if a sidewalk is in their scope of redevelopment and what the material would be in
the recessed area of the entryways. Mr. Bendon said that there is a pedestrian enhancement
requirement that is being handled in part by a fee-in-lieu and that saved pavers from the Cooper Mall
would be used in the recessed entry on Cooper and that the entry on Galena would be an extension of
the pavement of the sidewalk.
Mr. Moyer asked what the roof materials would be and if the mechanicals on the roof would be visible
from the street. Mr. Bendon said the material would be a built-up membrane and that they specifically
pushed the mechanicals toward the back of the building to avoid being seen from the street. Mr. Moyer
asked about the longevity of the glare coating on the glass. The applicant team said it would extend to
the lifetime of the product. Ms. Thompson said she believed it was applied between the panes and not
on the exterior.
Mr. Halferty asked about the dynamic glass details. Mr. Bendon went over the options of how the
program works to change the opacity.
Mr. Fornell asked about the powering of the dynamic glass. Mr. Bendon said the product they are
proposing uses electricity to effect the change. Mr. Fornell then asked if there were skylights proposed
in the 2016 plan and approval. Mr. Bendon said there were not and described the design evolution. Mr.
Fornell asked if the reduction of skylights was in response to neighbor concerns. Mr. Bendon said it was
in response to both neighbor concerns and HPC’s discussion.
Ms. Pitchford asked if the secondary smaller skylight would use the same dynamic glass. Mr. Bendon
said yes.
Staff Presentation:Amy Simon – Planning Director
Ms. Simon started by presenting the proposed resolution and went over the staff recommendations.
Staff finds that the concerns over the recessed entries have been met and that the reduction in skylights
and use of dynamic glass has helped to address concerns that HPC has mentioned. She stated that staff
would have no way to enforce how the dynamic glass is used. She said that staff is supporting the
redesign of the application and went over the conditions of approval in the resolution noting that three
conditions had been stuck from the previous resolution since they had been resolved.
Ms. Thompson asked Ms. Simon to go over condition #8 regarding the brick to be used. Ms. Simon said
in 2016 HPC had not allowed the use of a tumbled brick and had required the steel pilaster caps to be
removed. They are now proposed to be brick.
Mr. Halferty asked about the use of airlocks. Ms. Simon described what is allowed and noted that
exterior “tents” were not allowed to achieve an airlock at entries. Mr. Halferty questioned why staff
could not enforce the use of the dynamic glass. Ms. Johnson noted that it may be outside of staff’s
capacity to enforce when it is used, but it would still have to comply to the provisions of the lighting
code.
5
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 12TH, 2022
Mr. Fornell asked Ms. Simon about the difference between “up-lighting” and skylights. Ms. Simon
responded that there are certain requirements that individual light fixtures cannot be pointed towards
the sky but there is no prohibition on skylights.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Jim Horowitz – Founder, President, and CEO of Jazz Aspen Snowmass.
Mr. Horowitz described the planned JAS multiuse facility for performance, education, special events and
recording located adjacent to the RH building and above the Red Onion. On behalf of the board of
directors and staff of JAS, he urged the HPC to give the full approvals needed to begin construction on
the RH gallery and rooftop restaurant. He described the benefits of the project and gave support to RH’S
intent for the space.
Mr. Bart Johnson – Attorney representing a neighbor of the project.
Mr. Johnson stated that while the neighbor sees the skylight changes as an improvement, he remains
concerned about it. He spoke about the comparison of the skylight on the neighboring building that Mr.
Bendon pointed out and the proposed skylight on this project. He noted Ms. Simon’s comment of the
ability to enforce the use of the dynamic glass. He asked that if HPC approves the resolution that they
include language to give the City more teeth to enforce it’s use. He made some suggestions to this
effect.
Ms. Adams addressed the enforcement comments. She referenced section #2 of the resolution, Material
Representations, which talks about all material representations made by the applicant as being
incorporated into the approval. She stated that the applicant is representing that the very expensive
glass will be used as intended will be darkened in order to not have light spill at night.
Ms. Simon responded that she still thought it would be difficult to enforce and said that if something
clearer wanted to be included in the resolution, like a specific time to darken the glass, then HPC could
do that.
Ms. Adams said that the applicant and building owner want to be good neighbors and are willing to
work with the neighbors and community.
BOARD DISCUSSION:Ms. Thompson went over the items for discussion, including the skylights and the
recessed entries.
Mr. Halferty said he believed that guidelines 2.3 and 2.4 were met and he had no issues with this
proposal and would be voting in the affirmative. He wanted to adhere to the neighbor’s concerns but
felt the applicant has expressed a willingness to be neighborly. He was in support of the resolution as
written.
Mr. Fornell said he was very happy with what the applicant has done and was satisfied that they have
made an effort to accommodate the concerns of the neighbors. He suggested that the wording “can be
used” could be changed to “shall be used” when talking about the use of the dynamic glass in the
resolution and added that sunset could be used as a general time for it to be implemented.
Ms. Pitchford agreed with Mr. Fornell and Ms. Thompson and appreciated Mr. Johnson’s comments and
the applicant’s compliance with the recessed entryways. She thought the skylight was very large and
would feel more comfortable in the approval process if the language in the resolution was tighter and
liked the idea of using the word “shall”.
6
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 12TH, 2022
Mr. Moyer agreed with staff on all points and believed the language should not be “can” or “shall” but
rather “will have dynamic glass to be darkened at night”. He would be in support of even stronger
language if possible. He said that if they can change the wording, he would vote in the affirmative and if
they can’t he would vote in the negative.
Ms. Simon showed the resolution as written to allow wording changes and noted that the resolution is
written to only allow the one main skylight and if HPC would like to allow the secondary skylight they
would have to amend the language.
Ms. Thompson appreciated the reduction of skylightsand the revisions to the entryways. She would be
interested in understanding how a mechanical airlock would be installed.
MOTION: Ms. Thompson moved to approve the next resolution in the series with revisions to condition
A as follows. The first sentence shall be stricken and the language of the second sentence should read
“The approved skylights will have dynamic glass to be darkened at night and must have a glare coating
as represented in the October 12th, 2022 application”. Mr. Moyer seconded.
Ms. Pitchford wanted to clarify that Ms. Thompson’s motion included approval of the second skylight.
Ms. Thompson said yes.
Roll call vote:Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes.
5-0: All in favor, motion passes.
Ms. Thompson moved to take a 3-minute break. All in favor. Motion passes.
Ms. Thompson restarted the meeting and noted for the record that she had listened to the entire
recording and read the minutes from the previous HPC meeting and was up to speed on the application
packet for the next item on the agenda.
520 E. Cooper St – Minor Development Review, Commercial Design Review, PUBLIC HEARING
CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 28, 2022
Ms. Simon reviewed the status of this application which was continued at the applicant’s request in
order to discuss the proposed conditions of approval with the HOA.
Applicant Presentation: Sara Adams – Bendon Adams
Ms. Adams started by mentioning she would be going over the two options for consideration at this
meeting and not be spending a lot of time going over the details from the last meeting. She then
reviewed the history of the building and the architect Ted Mularz. Next, she reviewed HPC’s feedback
from the last meeting and what aspects received support. These included the triangle windows; bringing
the vertical windows to the ground; no horizontal banding on the brick; the storefront; the removal of
the flue; the proposed materials, awnings, and architectural details. She then showed a picture of the
building in its current condition for reference. She said they have come back with two proposed options
for triangle windows and showed renderings and up-close architectural drawings of the two window
designs. She noted that option #1 cannot be mitered glass and would have to have a metal section to
join the two pieces of glass. She also noted that option #2 was the preferred option of the HOA and
while it is a slightly different kind of window design, still captures the essence of what Ted Mularz was
doing. She then went over each option, showing renderings at different angles of the building façade.
7
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 12TH, 2022
Moving on, she went over guidelines 1.35 and 2.14 noting that 1.35 was what HPC was most focused on
previously. She finished by noting that staff is recommending option #1 and while the applicant can live
with either option, they would prefer option #2. She asked HPC to consider removing the condition that
there is an onsite mockup for the entire board to review, noting the importance of ordering materials
early and the delays that a full HPC board site visit could cause.
Mr. Bill Guth introduced himself as representing the owner’s association. He thanked Ms. Simon and the
HPC members and said they were excited to enhance this building which is needed due to it not being
maintained as it should have been.
Ms. Thompson asked for the renderings of the two options be show again and asked for some more
details of the window construction on option #2. These were shown and details were given.
Mr. Halferty asked about the differences in the metal cap construction at the top of the windows for
each option. The applicant team described the differences.
Mr. Fornell asked if the applicant preferred option #2 for functional or aesthetic reason. The applicant
said both.
Staff Presentation:Amy Simon – Planning Director
Ms. Simon started by showing the resolution and going over the staff recommendations. She said that
staff is recommending approval as proposed and are supporting option #1, being that it is closest to the
appearance of the existing condition of the windows. She then went over some of HPC’s concerns from
the last meeting regarding the proposed lime wash and use of Trespa composite wood materials. Staff is
requesting a site visit to verify those materials.
Mr. Moyer asked Ms. Simon if staff is now approving the lime wash of the brick. Ms. Simon said she is
repeating the direction of HPC from the last meeting, but that staff is still concerned about adding any
type of new finish to brick, reiterating the importance of a site visit. Mr. Moyer suggested that instead of
a mockup, since the brick flue tower is to be demolished, maybe a section of it could be used to apply
the lime wash for better viewing.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
BOARD DISCUSSION: Ms. Thompson again said she had listened to the last meeting and agreed with
where the board landed. She opened it up for member thoughts on the shape of the windows.
Ms. Pitchford appreciated the applicant’s response to their concerns and understood that the current
windows are not functional and need to be replaced. She said she would be ok with either of the two
window design options and is more concerned about the lime wash at the moment.
Mr. Fornell was satisfied with either option and would go with the board majority here. As far as the
lime wash, he said he was not attached to the idea of consistency in the color of brick work in a non-
historic building and that the lime wash was acceptable to him.
Mr. Moyer said he favored option #2 and was fine with all the other issues except the lime wash and
that he was torn on the lime wash, being that it is such a dramatic change to the building. He noted that
the building is non-historic and that he would probably go along with the board majority.
8
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 12TH, 2022
Mr. Halferty said he would be favor of option #1 as that was the original design intent. He said he was
torn on the lime wash as there is a good amount of brick, but it is not a historic building. He said a site
visit would help him and that he was still in favor of leaving the brick flue tower. He said he could
support the application with the alterations made and thought it does comply with guidelines 1.35 and
2.14.
There was then some discussion about the possibility and location of a section of the building to be used
for a mockup of the lime wash. Ms. Adams did ask for the Trespa material to be approved so it could be
ordered.
Ms. Thompson said while she didn’t see the sample at the last meeting, she was familiar with the
product and did not have an issue with approving it. She also asked Ms. Adams if it would be acceptable
if a site visit is scheduled at the applicant’s convenience. Ms. Adams and Mr. Guth Mr. Moyer thought
that would be fine.
Mr. Moyer said that the composite wood materials were really an issue. He went on to explain his issues
with using them and mentioned that in his business he has not seen one that hasn’t failed. He said he
was very hesitant to approve any type of composite material.
Ms. Thompson thought Mr. Moyer had some good thoughts on it, but that HPC’s primary focus is on the
aesthetics of thematerials and that it was more on the development group to select a material that will
last.
Mr. Halferty suggested that if there is a site visit to see an example of the lime wash that it should be
done on a south facing section of the building as something done on the alley side would not have the
same light.
Mr. Guth voiced some hesitancy about using a south facing section as the full construction may not
happen for some time and didn’t want the sample section to be visible to the street for that long.
Ms. Simon mentioned that at the last meeting it was discussed that the lime wash was removable. There
was then some discussion about the ability to remove the lime wash without leaving a residue.
MOTION: Ms. Thompson moved to approve the next resolution in the series with the following
amendments to the conditions. Condition #1…the window columns as shown in option #2 of the Oct.
12th application be approved. To add a condition that an onsite mockup of the lime wash to be applied
to the masonry shall be coordinated with staff and monitor for board approval prior to construction. Ms.
Pitchford seconded.
Roll call vote:Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes.
5-0: All in favor, motion passes.
ADJOURN: Mr. Fornell motioned to adjourn the regular meeting. Mr. Moyer seconded. All in favor;
motion passes.
____________________
Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk
9
HPC PROJECT MONITORS -projects in bold are permitted or under construction
C:\Users\EASYPD~1\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF
8\@BCL@EC0B0BA0\@BCL@EC0B0BA0.doc
11/4/2022
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
10
HPC PROJECT MONITORS -projects in bold are permitted or under construction
C:\Users\EASYPD~1\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF
8\@BCL@EC0B0BA0\@BCL@EC0B0BA0.doc
11/4/2022
Peter Fornell 304 E. Hopkins
930 King
135 W. Francis
233 W. Bleeker
Barb Pitchford 121 W. Bleeker
312 W. Hyman
Need to assign: 520 E. Cooper
11
Page 1 of 3
437 Rio Grande, Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Amy Simon, Planning Director
MEMO DATE: November 4, 2022
MEETING DATE: November 9, 2022
RE: 132 W. Hopkins- Final Major Development, PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICANT /OWNER:
Michael R. Berghoff Trust & Kristian
Berghoff Trust
REPRESENTATIVE:
Gretchen Greenwood
LOCATION:
Street Address:
132 W. Hopkins
Legal Description:
Lot 2, 134 and 134 ½ W Hopkins
Landmark Lot Split, Block 59, City
and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado
Parcel Identification Number:
PID# 2735-124-19-002
CURRENT ZONING & USE
R-6 (Moderate-Density Residential);
Single-family home
PROPOSED ZONING & USE:
No change
SUMMARY: 132 W. Hopkins is a landmark designated property
containing a Victorian miner’s cottage. The resource was moved
to its current site and expanded in the 80s. HPC recently granted
Conceptual, Relocation and Variation approval for a proposal to
demolish the thirty year old addition, to reposition the house on
a new basement, and expand with new construction. City
Council upheld HPC’s decision at Notice of Call Up. HPC is now
asked to grant Final approval
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval with
conditions outlined in the proposed resolution.
Site Locator Map – 132 W Hopkins
12
Page 2 of 3
437 Rio Grande, Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
BACKGROUND:
132 W. Hopkins is a 3,000 square foot lot in the R-6 zone district. It contains a Victorian era
miner’s cabin that was moved to the subject site from Spring Street in 1988, in association with
the moving of another Victorian to the lot immediately west; 134 W. Hopkins.
The two relocated homes were historically designated, expanded, and condomiumized into
separate ownerships. Subsequently in 2003, each home was established on a fee simple 3,000
square foot lot through a Historic Landmark Lot Split. At the time of the lot split, Lot 2 (132 W.
Hopkins) was allocated 1,704 square feet of floor area which included a floor area bonus to
legalize the existing floor area overage on the site (1,620 square feet + 84 square feet = 1,704
square feet). In 2010 a Floor Area Allocation Agreement was made between the owners of the lot
split properties and the City of Aspen to clarify floor area discrepancies that occurred from a
misrepresentation during the subdivision review. The result was a determination that Lot 2 has an
allowable floor area of 1,704 square feet with the opportunity to request a floor area bonus of up
to 116.4 square feet. The proposed project incorporates that bonus, granted at Conceptual. The
existing development encroaches into setbacks, the extent of which will be somewhat reduced
and clarified through Variations granted for the new project.
REQUEST OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
The Applicant is requesting the following land use approval:
• Final Major Development (Section 26.415.070.D) to restore the historic home and construct
a new addition to the rear of the property.
The Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) is the review authority.
The subject home when located on Spring
Street, circa early 1900s 132 W. Hopkins, 1991
13
Page 3 of 3
437 Rio Grande, Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
STAFF COMMENTS:
The applicant proposes to demolish the existing addition, to reposition the Victorian on a new
basement, and expand with new construction. Alterations over time to Victorian at 132 W.
Hopkins include changes to the siding, such as adding fish scales to the street facing gable end,
changes to the fenestration and door openings at the historic front porch, and a large addition to
the rear of the house that has increased the footprint significantly from the period of original
construction. The project before HPC includes restoration, which was the basis for the floor area
bonus approval, and an improved relationship between new and old construction.
Restoration of the historic resource is to proceed according to the Historic Preservation Design
Guidelines by recreating the fenestration and doorways originally found at the historic porch on
the East elevation, restoring the siding to match historic photos, and by examining other features,
such as the chimney, for opportunities to improve authenticity. The two-story addition proposed
to the rear of the property is distanced from the resource by a one-story, 10’ long connecting
element. The proposed new addition uses forms and materials that are related to the historic
resource to meet the design guidelines. Staff finds that the Final design is consistent with the
representations made to HPC at Conceptual.
Final review focuses on the details of restoration, selection of materials, fenestration, lighting and
landscape design. Staff supports the proposal with a number of clarifications, some of which must
wait until construction begins and the historic building can be examined in greater detail.
Findings on the relevant design guidelines are detailed in Exhibit A. The conditions of approval
listed in the proposed resolution relate to the preservation plan and restoration actions,
clarification of the foundation detail under the Victorian, roof plan and mechanical penetrations,
exterior lighting, and the landscape plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) grant Final approval with
conditions.
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution #____, Series of 2022
Exhibit A – Historic Preservation Design Guidelines/ Staff Findings
Exhibit B – Conceptual approval minutes
Exhibit C – Final Review application
14
HPC Resolution #x, Series of 2022
Page 1 of 5
RESOLUTION #___, SERIES OF 2022
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
GRANTING FINAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 132 W. HOPKINS, 134 & 134 1/2 W. HOPKINS LANDMARK LOT
SPLIT, LOT 2, BLOCK 59, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO
PARCEL ID: 2735-124-19-002
WHEREAS, the applicant, Michael R. Berghoff Trust & Kristian Berghoff Trust, represented by
Gretchen Greenwood, has requested HPC approval for Final Major Development for the property
located at 132 W. Hopkins, 134 & 134 1/2 W. Hopkins Landmark Lot Split, Lot 2, Block 59,
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 Final Major Development, the HPC must review the application, a staff
analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project’s conformance
with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.4.b.2
and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve,
disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information
necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and
WHEREAS, Community Development Department staff reviewed the application for
compliance with applicable review criteria and recommended approval with conditions; and
WHEREAS, HPC reviewed the project on November 9, 2022. HPC considered the application,
the staff memo and public comment, and found the proposal consistent with the review criteria
and granted approval with conditions by a vote of X to X.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That HPC hereby approves Final Major Development for 132 W. Hopkins as follows.
Section 1: Final Major Development
Final approval is granted with these conditions, which include outstanding items carried forward
from Conceptual approval Resolution #5, Series of 2022.
1. Prior to building permit submission, provide a detailed Preservation Plan depicting existing
exterior conditions on the historic resource, and the planned approach for restoration, to be
reviewed and approved by staff and monitor. In preparation of the plan, examine the existing
porch posts and brackets, siding and all exterior trim to determine whether they are historic.
If they are not, or if elements are missing, include restoration of these features in the
preservation plan and the architectural plans. Refer to the historic photo to count courses of
15
HPC Resolution #x, Series of 2022
Page 2 of 5
clapboards and bricks to ensure that the clapboard exposure and chimney reconstruction are
based on historic evidence.
2. Prior to building permit application, provide a detail for the foundation at the historic
resource for review and approval by staff. The detail must show foundation insulation
wrapped with flashing and terminated below grade. The siding must die into a water table,
with approximately 6” of gray concrete foundation exposed below it.
3. Prior to building permit application, provide elevations and a roof plan that depict all exterior
vent or flue penetrations, gutters, downspouts and snow clips for review and approval by
staff and monitor.
4. Prior to building permit application, provide a clarified plan and cut sheets for exterior
lighting for review and approval by staff and monitor. No more than three recessed lights
shall be included on the porch and no more than one sconce shall be allowed adjacent to the
functional entry door.
5. Prior to building permit application, provide a front walkway design for review and approval
by staff and monitor. The front walkway must be no more than 3’ wide all the way to the
porch. The material, if it is not gray concrete, must be rectilinear stones.
6. With the building permit application, provide a financial assurance of $30,000 for the
relocation of the historic house until it is safely secured to the new foundation. Provide a
relocation plan detailing how the relocation will proceed and demonstrate the contractor’s
qualifications to perform the work.
7. In the building permit application, provide cut sheets for all windows and doors on the
historic resource. All above grade windows and doors on the resource must have a wood
exterior. The fixed doors on the resource must have knobs.
8. In the building permit application, a gravel landscape border at least 6” wide shall be
provided around the perimeter of the historic resource.
9. In the building permit application, the drywell in front of the historic resource must have a
sod lid.
10. Up to a 116.4 sf floor area bonus was granted for the approved design at Conceptual Review.
11. The following setback variations were granted at Conceptual Review, as represented in the
application and below:
a. A 5’ rear yard setback is allowed for the addition, on all levels.
b. A west side yard setback of 3’ is allowed along segment A, a west sideyard setback of 1’
is allowed along segment B, and a west side yard setback of 4’2” is allowed along
segment C.
c. A 4’ east sideyard setback is allowed.
d. The combined sideyard setback is approved to be reduced accordingly.
16
HPC Resolution #x, Series of 2022
Page 3 of 5
12. The property is not in a sidewalk deferred zone. A new sidewalk will need to be installed or
an agreement signed to install a sidewalk at a later date. The applicant will need to
coordinate design with Engineering & Parks Departments to minimize tree impacts.
13. Construction, including the temporary storage of the Victorian during excavation, must
preserve the cottonwood tree in the r.o.w. at the front of the property. Air-spading of a
number of adjacent trees, one-sided pours for the new foundation, and other techniques may
be required by the Parks Department.
14. Once interior demolition is complete, contact historic preservation staff to help investigate
the framing and the chimney for any evidence of alterations to historic locations and design
that can be restored. The final decision on required restoration work is to be reviewed with
the architect and contractor, approved by staff and monitor, and incorporated in a building
permit Change Order, if necessary, before proceeding.
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.
17
HPC Resolution #x, Series of 2022
Page 4 of 5
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: 132 W. Hopkins.
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.
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.
18
HPC Resolution #x, Series of 2022
Page 5 of 5
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 9th day of November,
2022.
Approved as to Form: Approved as to Content:
_______________________________________
________________________________ _________________________
Katharine Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Kara Thompson, Chair
ATTEST:
________________________________
Michael Sear, Deputy City Clerk
19
Page 1 of 9
Exhibit A
Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Criteria
Staff Findings
26.415.070.D Major Development. No building, structure or landscape shall be erected,
constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic
property or a property located within a Historic District until plans or sufficient information have
been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the
procedures established for their review. An application for a building permit cannot be submitted
without a development order.
3. Final Development Plan Review:
b) The procedures for the review of final development plans for major development
projects are as follows:
1) The Community Development Director shall review the application
materials submitted for final development plan approval. If they are
determined to be complete, the applicant will be notified in writing of this
and a public hearing before the HPC shall be scheduled. Notice of the
hearing shall be provided pursuant to Paragraphs 26.304.060.E.3.a, b and
c.
2) Staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a report that analyzes
the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable
Land Use Code sections. This report will be transmitted to the HPC with
relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to
continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons
for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff
analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the
project's conformance with the City Historic Preservation Design
Guidelines.
3) The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the
application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to
approve or deny. If the application is approved, the HPC shall issue a
certificate of appropriateness and the Community Development Director
shall issue a development order.
4) Before an application for a building permit can be submitted, a final set of
plans reflecting any or all required changes by the HPC or City Council must
be on file with the City. Any conditions of approval or outstanding issues
which must be addressed in the field or at a later time shall be noted on the
plans.
20
Page 2 of 9
Relevant Historic Preservation Design Guidelines:
1.6 Provide a simple walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry on
residential projects.
• Meandering walkways are not allowed, except where it is needed to avoid a tree or is
typical of the period of significance.
• Use paving materials that are similar to those used historically for the building style and
install them in the manner that they would have been used historically. For example on
an Aspen Victorian landmark set flagstone pavers in sand, rather than in concrete. Light
grey concrete, brick or red sandstone are appropriate private walkway materials for most
landmarks.
• The width of a new entry sidewalk should generally be three feet or less for residential
properties. A wider sidewalk may be appropriate for an AspenModern property.
1.12 Provide an appropriate context for historic structures. See diagram.
• Simplicity and restraint are required. Do not overplant a site, or install a landscape which
is overtextured or overly complex in relationship to the historic resource, particularly in
Zone A. In Zone A, new planting shall be species that were used historically or species
of similar attributes.
• In areas immediately adjacent to the landmark, Zone A and Zone B, plants up 42” in
height, sod, and low shrubs are often appropriate.
• Contemporary planting, walls and other features are not appropriate in Zone A. A more
contemporary landscape may surround new development or be located in the rear of the
property, in Zone C.
• Do not cover areas which were historically unpaved with hard surfaces, except for a
limited patio where appropriate.
• Where residential structures are being adapted to commercial use, proposals to alter the
landscape will be considered on a case-by-case basis. The residential nature of the
building must be honored.
• In the case of a historic landmark lot split, careful consideration should be given so as
not to over plant either property, or remove all evidence of the landscape characteristics
from before the property was divided.
• Contemporary landscapes that highlight an AspenModern architectural style are
encouraged.
21
Page 3 of 9
1.13 Additions of plant material to the landscape that could interfere with or block views of
historic structures are inappropriate.
• Low plantings and ground covers are preferred.
• Do not place trees, shrubs, or hedgerows in locations that will obscure, damage, or block
significant architectural features or views to the building. Hedgerows are not allowed as
fences.
• Consider mature canopy size when planting new trees adjacent to historic resources.
Planting trees too close to a landmark may result in building deteriorate or blocked views
and is inappropriate.
• Climbing vines can damage historic structures and are not allowed.
22
Page 4 of 9
2.1 Preserve original building materials.
• Do not remove siding that is in good condition or that can be repaired in place.
• Masonry features that define the overall historic character, such as walls, cornices,
pediments, steps and foundations, should be preserved.
• Avoid rebuilding a major portion of an exterior wall that could be repaired in place.
Reconstruction may result in a building which no longer retains its historic integrity.
• Original AspenModern materials may be replaced in kind if it has been determined that
the weathering detracts from the original design intent or philosophy.
2.3 Match the original material in composition, scale and finish when replacing materials on
primary surfaces.
• If the original material is wood clapboard for example, then the replacement material
must be wood as well. It should match the original in size, and the amount of exposed
lap and finish.
• Replace only the amount required. If a few boards are damaged beyond repair, then only
those should be replaced, not the entire wall. For AspenModern buildings, sometimes
the replacement of a larger area is required to preserve the integrity of the design intent.
3.1 Preserve the functional and decorative features of a historic window.
• Features important to the character of a window include its frame, sash,
muntins/mullions, sills, heads, jambs, moldings, operations, and groupings of windows.
• Repair frames and sashes rather than replacing them.
• Preserve the original glass. If original Victorian era glass is broken, consider using
restoration glass for the repair.
3.2 Preserve the position, number, and arrangement of historic windows in a building wall.
• Enclosing a historic window is inappropriate.
• Do not change the size of an original window opening.
3.3 Match a replacement window to the original in its design.
• If the original is double-hung, then the replacement window must also be double-hung.
If the sash have divided lights, match that characteristic as well.
3.4 When replacing an original window, use materials that are the same as the original.
3.5 Preserve the size and proportion of a historic window opening.
• Changing the window opening is not permitted.
• Consider restoring an original window opening that was enclosed in the past.
3.6 Match, as closely as possible, the profile of the sash and its components to that of the
original window.
• A historic window often has a complex profile. Within the window’s casing, the sash steps
back to the plane of the glazing (glass) in several increments. These increments, which
23
Page 5 of 9
individually only measure in eighths or quarters of inches, are important details. They
distinguish the actual window from the surrounding plane of the wall.
• The historic profile on AspenModern properties is typically minimal.
4.1 Preserve historically significant doors.
• Maintain features important to the character of a historic doorway. These include the
door, door frame, screen door, threshold, glass panes, paneling, hardware, detailing,
transoms and flanking sidelights.
• Do not change the position and function of original front doors and primary entrances.
• If a secondary entrance must be sealed shut, any work that is done must be reversible
so that the door can be used at a later time, if necessary. Also, keep the door in place,
in its historic position.
• Previously enclosed original doors should be reopened when possible.
4.2 Maintain the original size of a door and its opening.
• Altering its size and shape is inappropriate. It should not be widened or raised in height.
4.3 When a historic door or screen door is damaged, repair it and maintain its general historic
appearance.
4.4 When replacing a door or screen door, use a design that has an appearance similar to the
original door or a door associated with the style of the building.
• A replica of the original, if evidence exists, is the preferred replacement.
• A historic door or screen door from a similar building also may be considered.
• Simple paneled doors were typical for Aspen Victorian properties.
• Very ornate doors, including stained or leaded glass, are discouraged, unless
photographic evidence can support their use.
4.7 Preserve historic hardware.
• When new hardware is needed, it must be in scale with the door and appropriate to the
style of the building.
• On Aspen Victorian properties, conceal any modern elements such as entry key pads.
5.1 Preserve an original porch or balcony.
• Replace missing posts and railings when necessary. Match the original proportions,
material and spacing of balusters.
• Expanding the size of a historic porch or balcony is inappropriate.
5.5 If new steps are to be added, construct them out of the same primary materials used on
the original, and design them to be in scale with the porch or balcony
• Steps should be located in the original location.
• Step width should relate to the scale of entry doors, spacing between posts, depth of deck,
etc.
• Brick, red sandstone, grey concrete, or wood are appropriate materials for steps.
24
Page 6 of 9
6.1 Preserve significant architectural features.
• Repair only those features that are deteriorated.
• Patch, piece-in, splice, or consolidate to repair the existing materials, using recognized
preservation methods whenever possible.
• On AspenModern properties, repair is preferred, however, it may be more important to
preserve the integrity of the original design intent, such as crisp edges, rather than to
retain heavily deteriorated material.
6.4 Repair or replacement of missing or deteriorated features are required to be based on
original designs.
• The design should be substantiated by physical or pictorial evidence to avoid creating a
misrepresentation of the building’s heritage.
• When reconstruction of an element is impossible because there is no historical evidence,
develop a compatible new design that is a simplified interpretation of the original, and
maintains similar scale, proportion and material.
7.4 New vents should be minimized, carefully, placed and painted a dark color.
• Direct vents for fireplaces are generally not permitted to be added on historic structures.
• Locate vents on non-street facing facades.
• Use historic chimneys as chases for new flues when possible.
7.5 Preserve original chimneys, even if they are made non-functional.
• Reconstruct a missing chimney when documentation exists.
7.10 Design gutters so that their visibility on the structure is minimized to the extent possible.
• Downspouts should be placed in locations that are not visible from the street if possible,
or in locations that do not obscure architectural detailing on the building.
• The material used for the gutters should be in character with the style of the building.
9.5 A new foundation shall appear similar in design and materials to the historic foundation.
• On modest structures, a simple foundation is appropriate. Constructing a stone
foundation on a miner’s cottage where there is no evidence that one existed historically
is out of character and is not allowed.
• Exposed concrete or painted metal flashing are generally appropriate.
• Where a stone or brick foundation existed historically, it must be replicated, ideally using
stone salvaged from the original foundation as a veneer. The replacement must be
similar in the cut of the stone and design of the mortar joints.
• New AspenModern foundations shall be handled on a case by case basis to ensure
preservation of the design intent.
10.6 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time.
• An addition shall be distinguishable from the historic building and still be visually
compatible with historic features.
25
Page 7 of 9
• A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in
material, or a modern interpretation of a historic style are all techniques that may be
considered to help define a change from historic construction to new construction.
• Do not reference historic styles that have no basis in Aspen.
• Consider these three aspects of an addition; form, materials, and fenestration. An
addition must relate strongly to the historic resource in at least two of these elements.
Departing from the historic resource in one of these categories allows for creativity and
a contemporary design response.
• Note that on a corner lot, departing from the form of the historic resource may not be
allowed.
• There is a spectrum of appropriate solutions to distinguishing new from old portions of a
development. Some resources of particularly high significance or integrity may not be
the right instance for a contrasting addition.
12.3 Exterior light fixtures should be simple in character.
• The design of a new fixture should be appropriate in form, finish, and scale with the
structure.
• New fixtures should not reflect a different period of history than that of the affected
building, or be associated with a different architectural style.
• Lighting should be placed in a manner that is consistent with the period of the building,
and should not provide a level of illumination that is out of character.
• One light adjacent to each entry is appropriate on an Aspen Victorian residential
structure. A recessed fixture, surface mounted light, pendant or sconce will be
considered if suited to the building type or style.
• On commercial structures and AspenModern properties, recessed lights and concealed
lights are often most appropriate.
12.4 Minimize the visual impacts of utilitarian areas, such as mechanical equipment and trash
storage.
• Place mechanical equipment on the ground where it can be screened.
• Mechanical equipment may only be mounted on a building on an alley façade.
• Rooftop mechanical equipment or vents must be grouped together to minimize their
visual impact. Where rooftop units are visible, it may be appropriate to provide screening
with materials that are compatible with those of the building itself. Use the smallest, low
profile units available for the purpose.
• Window air conditioning units are not allowed.
• Minimize the visual impacts of utility connections and service boxes. Group them in a
discrete location. Use pedestals when possible, rather than mounting on a historic
building.
• Paint mechanical equipment in a neutral color to minimize their appearance by blending
with their backgrounds
• In general, mechanical equipment should be vented through the roof, rather than a wall,
in a manner that has the least visual impact possible.
• Avoid surface mounted conduit on historic structures.
26
Page 8 of 9
Staff Findings: Staff finds that the relevant guidelines above are met, or will be met through a
condition of approval.
Staff has recommended a preservation plan be required prior to building permit application to
clarify existing conditions, the approach and intent for restoration. This plan must be informed
as much as possible by features on the exterior of the building that can be observed now and in
the historic photo available for this home.
Once construction begins and interior, and some exterior finishes are removed, a site inspection
by staff, the architect and contractor, must be conducted to identify additional restoration
opportunities that can be viewed from exposed framing and original materials.
Guidelines that these conditions will ensure are met include 2.3, which requires matching original
historic materials in composition, scale and finish, and guidelines 3.2 through 3.6 and 4.1 through
4.7 which state that replacement windows and doors are to match the original design. Guidelines
5.1, 5.5, 6.1, 6.4 and 7.5 call for exterior features such as the front porch and chimney to be
restored to the original appearance.
Staff has recommended a condition of approval to clarify the foundation detail. The application
suggests that siding will be carried to the ground, however this is not obviously the condition in
the historic photo, is not typical of most Victorians in Aspen. Guideline 9.5 particularly suggests
a simple foundation in this case, where the structure has been relocated. Staff recommends
that gray concrete be exposed for 6” above grade.
Staff has recommended conditions of approval requiring additional drawings to depict the roof
plan and vents to meet guidelines 7.4 and 7.10. Roof, rather than wall penetrations are preferred
for venting on the resource. That said, the roof plan, including elements such as gutters and
snowclips, should be well organized, with elements discretely placed, to not interfere with the
architectural character or features of the historic home.
The proposed landscape plan is modest surrounding the historic resource. Staff recommends
that a gravel border be installed around the resource to keep landscape watering away from the
building. In addition, staff has recommended restudy of the front walkway as guideline 1.6 calls
for a project to use paving materials that are similar to those used historically for the building
style and to install them in the manner that they would have been used historically. The
landscape plan and some imagery in the application conflict to some degree. There is a
suggestion that the walkway will be randomly sized stones. Since the stone material is not
historically accurate, staff would recommend regular, rectangular pieces. In the alternative, the
walkway could be gray concrete. In either case it should not be more than 3’ wide, all the way
to the porch. The plans suggest a large landing near the porch.
Finally, guideline 12.3 requires that exterior lighting be simple in character. The plans indicate
sconces and cans on the front porch. No cut sheets are provided. The proposal needs to be
27
Page 9 of 9
clarified and it appears that the number of fixtures need to be reduced to avoid overlighting the
porch in a way that detracts from historic character.
With the conditions discussed above and outlined in the proposed resolution, staff recommends
Final approval.
28
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 9, 2022
Chairperson Thompson opened the meeting of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission at 4:45pm.
Commissioners in attendance: Jeffrey Halferty, Kara Thompson, Sheri Sanzone and Roger Moyer.
Staff present:
Natalie Feinberg Lopez, Historic Preservation Officer
Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner
Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney
Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk
Risa Rushmore, Administrative Assistant II
MINUTES: Ms. Thompson motioned to continue the approval of minutes from February 9th, 2022; Mr.
Halferty seconded. All in favor; motion passed.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: None.
COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS: Ms. Thompson asked about the date scheduled for the work
session. Ms. Feinberg Lopez said they were moving forward with April 27th.
DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: None.
PROJECT MONITORING: None.
STAFF COMMENTS: None.
CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: None.
CALL UP REPORTS: None.
SUBMIT PUBLIC NOTICE FOR AGENDA ITEMS: Ms. Johnson said that she reviewed public notice and that
notice was provided per the code for both agenda items.
OLD BUSINESS:
303 S. Galena Street - Minor Development Review, PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED
TO 5/25
MOTION: Ms. Thompson moved to continue this item to May 25th. Mr. Halferty seconded. Roll call vote:
Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Sanzone, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. All in favor, motion passes.
132 W Hopkins Major Conceptual Review - PUBLIC HEARING
Applicant Presentation: Gretchen Greenwood – Gretchen Greenwood Architects, Inc.
Ms. Greenwood went over a quick review of the project showing a few historic pictures that she has
been using to address the restoration. The house used to be located at 120 N. Spring and was moved to
132 W. Hopkins around 1980. She then went over some of the planned restoration details as referenced
29
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 9, 2022
from the historic pictures. She mentioned that she would be going over the items and comments
provided by HPC at the last hearing, including a restudy of the roof, zoning compliance, engineering
comments and issues raised by Parks about the cottonwood tree located on the property. She started by
describing the roof restudy and commented that while on HPC she always thought better projects
usually came out of restudies. Showing the previous proposed south elevation and the new revised
proposal, Ms. Greenwood said she was able to lower the height of the main gable of the addition by 2’
10” and reduced the form of the previous flat roof section to a sloping angled 12 & 12 pitch. She also
reduced the size of the main window and removed the sun overhang above it. The new proposed height
of the gable is 26 feet. She then showed the east and north elevations and further described the
lowered gable roof height. She then shared some renderings done of the proposed project describing
the historic resource and new addition in relationship to what is currently there. Referencing the Zoning
comments, Ms. Greenwood said she had several meetings with Zoning to go over floor area. The existing
floor area is 1,576 square feet and the proposed is 1,809 square feet. During the meetings they also
went over the setbacks and she then described the four sections of proposed setbacks variations on the
west and north sides. She then emphasized that he proposed footprint of the building is slightly smaller
than the existing one. The civil engineering comments related to the electrical source for this building.
Ms. Greenwood said she talked with the City Utilities department, and they confirmed that they do have
400 amps for the property. The current house draws 200 amps, and they are asking for 200 more, which
will be tied in with the transformer for the Molly Gibson Lodge. Engineering also wanted them to sign a
sidewalk agreement that will be signed by the owner and wants them to create a curbed sidewalk
around the cottonwood tree in the front of the property which will be presented at final.
Ms. Thompson asked about the fireplace and commented on the height. Ms. Greenwood showed the
historic photo again and pointed out how tall it was historically.
Mr. Halferty asked to see the main level floor plan again and asked if the bay window bump out on the
west elevation was historic. Ms. Greenwood said yes, it is. Mr. Halferty then asked for Ms. Greenwood
to go over the proposed setback variations again. He also asked what the requested Floor Area Bonus
was. Ms. Greenwood said they are requesting 105 square feet and mentioned that the neighboring
property was granted 116 in 2017.
Staff Presentation: Natalie Feinberg Lopez, Historic Preservation Officer
Ms. Feinberg Lopez started by showing the current conditions of the property and reviewed the
approval requests, including conceptual major development, relocation, setback variation and floor area
bonus. She then went over the previously reviewed items of concern regarding the restoration and
previous alterations. She then reviewed the changes to the new addition that Ms. Greenwood had
described earlier and the referral comments for City departments that Ms. Greenwood has addressed.
She went over the multiple requested setback variations and floor area bonus request. The setback
variations include a rear yard reduction of 5’ on the north, and side yard reductions of 4’ on the west
side and on the east side reductions of 3’ (segment A), 1’ (segment B), and 4’2” (segment C). She then
stated that staff recommends HPC approve this application as all items requested for restudy have been
addressed. She pointed out that staff is going to be interested in finding out the original placement of
the chimney when demolition starts. Staff believes it may have been rebuilt when the building was
moved.
30
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 9, 2022
PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
BOARD DISCUSSION:
Ms. Thompson started with a request for comments on the relocation of the building and the related
criteria for approval. No comments from commissioners. She then stated that the massing and scale,
setback variations and floor area bonus were fairly tied together and suggested that discussion on these
occur together.
Mr. Moyer agreed with staff recommendations and that Ms. Greenwood had done a great job.
Mr. Halferty thanked Ms. Greenwood for listening to the commission’s comments and thought that
reducing the height on the rear gable was very affective. He thought that because of the amount of
restoration being proposed and that they were asking for less than the allowable floor area bonus, he
would be in support of this and found it to be a great project. He requested that the applicant work with
Parks and their civil engineer on the different department comments.
Ms. Sanzone agreed with previous comments and thought it was greatly improved. She liked the
modern addition in its new form and appreciated the extra time spent with staff drilling down on the
issues and coming up with great solutions.
Ms. Thompson agreed and is supportive of this. She appreciated the removal of the window near the
front porch to make this a true restoration. She agreed with Mr. Halferty that it is such an oddly shaped
lot and because of that the setback variations are well earned. She thought the fact that this is a long
and skinny house, combined with the revisions to the height of the rear addition, the addition would not
be very visible from the street and what would be visible would be complimentary to the historic
resource. She liked the revisions to the siding from the original design and thought it was successful in
breaking up the mass. She then asked Ms. Greenwood about the existing drywell and asked if it needed
to be deepened. Ms. Greenwood said it was installed in 2010 when the foundation around the entire
house was fixed. At that time Parks and Civil Engineering watched the installation of the drywell. She
said that more information would be coming in the final review.
Ms. Sanzone mentioned that the conditions for approval in the resolution were different from what Ms.
Feinberg Lopez’s final slide showed. She asked if Ms. Feinberg Lopez’s final slide showed the comments
from the previous meeting that had been addressed. Ms. Feinberg Lopez said they were from the
previous meeting.
MOTION: Mr. Moyer moved to approve the Resolution with conditions. Ms. Thompson seconded. Roll
call vote: Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Sanzone, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. All in favor, motion
passes.
ADJOURN: Ms. Thompson motioned to adjourn. Mr. Moyer seconded. All in favor; motion passed.
Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk
31
CCity of Aspen Community Development Department
Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Packet
City of Aspen | 130 S. Galena Street. | (970) 920 5090 Historic Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: March, 2020
ATTACHMENT 2 - Historic Preservation Land Use Application
PROJECT:
APPLICANT:
Name:
Address:
Phone #: Fax#: E-mail:
REPRESENTATIVE:
Name:
Address:
Phone #: Fax#: E-mail:
TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply):
PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.)
Name:
Location:
(Indicate street address, lot & block number or metes and bounds description of property)
Parcel ID # (REQUIRED)
Historic Designation
Certificate of No Negative Effect
Certificate of Appropriateness
Minor Historic Development
Major Historic Development
Conceptual Historic Development
Final Historic Development
Relocation (temporary, on or off-site)
Demolition (total demolition)
Substantial Amendment
Historic Landmark Lot Split
Berghoff Family Home
132 Hopkins Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611
134 & 1341/2 w Hopkins Landmark Lot Split Lot 2 Block 59
2735512419002
Michael R. Berghoff Trust & Kristian Berghoff Trust
9112 Walnut Grove Dr. Indianapolis, In. 46236
970-429-4928 michaelberghoff@lenexsteel.com
Gretchen Greenwood
0166 Surrey Street Carbondale, CO. 81623
970-925-4502 ggreenwood@ggaaspen.com
X
X
EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.)
Existing Historically Designated Victorian Home that was re-located from the East side
of Aspen to 132 Hopkins in 1980.
To remove the non historic addition/relocate the historic building 2' to the South and add a
new addition on the rear, with a smaller footprint than the previous addition. No changes
are proposed to the historic home as, the home was previously restored and approved by
HPC..
X
32
CCity of Aspen Community Development Department
Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Packet
City of Aspen | 130 S. Galena Street. | (970) 920 5090 Historic Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: March, 2020
General Information
Please check the appropriate boxes below and submit this page along with your application. This information will
help us review your plans and, if necessary, coordinate with other agencies that may be involved.
YES NO
Does the work you are planning include exterior work; including additions, demolitions, new
construction, remodeling, rehabilitation or restoration?
Does the work you are planning include interior work, including remodeling, rehabilitation,
or restoration?
Do you plan other future changes or improvements that could be reviewed at this time?
In addition to City of Aspen approval for a Certificate of Appropriateness or No Negative
Effect and a building permit, are you seeking to meet the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for Rehabilitation or restoration of a National Register of Historic Places
Property in order to qualify for state or federal tax credits?
If yes, are you seeking federal rehabilitation investment tax credits in Conjunction with this
project? (Only income producing properties listed on the National Register are eligible.
Owner-occupied residential properties are not.)
If yes, are you seeking the Colorado State Income Tax Credit for Historical Preservation?
Please check all City of Aspen Historic Preservation Benefits which you plan to use:
Rehabilitation Loan Fund Dimensional Variances Tax Credits
Increased Density Conservation Easement Program Waiver of Park Dedication Fees
Conditional Uses Historic Landmark Lot Split
X
33
CCity of Aspen Community Development Department
Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Packet
City of Aspen | 130 S. Galena Street. | (970) 920 5090 Historic Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: March, 2020
ATTACHMENT 3 - Dimensional Requirements Form
(Item #10 on the submittal requirements key. Not necessary for all projects.)
Project:
Applicant:
Project
Location:
Zone District:
Lot Size:
Lot Area:
(For the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the
high-water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in
the Municipal Code.)
Commercial net leasable: Existing: Proposed:
Number of residential units: Existing: Proposed: _______________________________
Proposed % of demolition: ____________________________________%
DIMENSIONS: (write N/A where no requirement exists in the zone district)
Height
Proposed:
Principal Bldg.: Existing: Allowable: Proposed:
Accessory Bldg.: Existing: Allowable: Proposed:
On-Site parking: Existing: Required: Proposed:
% Site coverage: Existing: Required: Proposed:
% Open Space: Existing: Required: Proposed:
Front Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed:
Rear Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed:
Combined Front/Rear:
Indicate N, S, E, W
Existing: Required: Proposed: _______________
Side Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed:
Side Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed:
Combined Sides: Existing: Required: Proposed:
Distance between buildings Existing: Required: Proposed:
Existing non-conformities or encroachments and note if encroachment licenses have been issued:
Variations requested (identify the exact variances needed):
Berghoff Family Home
Michael R. Berghoff Trust and Kristian Berghoff Trust
132 Hopkins Avenue Aspen,Co. 81611R-63000 Sq.Ft.3,000 Sq.Ft.
1 1
43%
Floor Area: Existing: 1,722 Allowable: 1,820 1,820
18'-0"25'-0"25'-0"
1 2 2
49%N/A 47&
N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A
N/A
12'-10"10'-0"10'-0"
4'-9"5'-0"5'-0"
16'-10"15'-0"15'-0"
W 1'-0"5'-0"VARIES FROM 1'-2" TO 3''-0"
E 4'10"5'-0"5'-0"
5'-10"10'-0"VARIES FROM 6'-2" TO 8'-0"
N/A 5'-0"N/A
The roof of the East neighbor at 130 Hopkins roof overhangs 132
Hopkins. the Improvement Survey attached notes the encroachment.
West Side Yard Setback Variance from 3'-8"
Combined Side Setback Variance from 8'-8"
1. North Setback Living area of 5'-0"
SEE A-102 PROPOSED SETBACK DIAGRAM ATTACHED IN THIS APPLICATION
34
35
PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PLANNER: Sarah Yoon, sarah.yoon@cityofaspen.com
REPRESENTATIVE: Gretchen Greenwood, ggreenwood@ggaaspen.com
PROJECT LOCATION: 132 W. Hopkins
REQUEST: Major Development, Relocation, Setback Variations and Floor Area Bonus
DESCRIPTION: 132 W. Hopkins (previously known as 134 ½ W. Hopkins) is a Victorian era miner’s
cabin that in 1988 was moved from Spring Street and placed on a property that contained another
Victorian era home in its historic location at the corner of Hopkins and First Street. The two structures
were historically designated, restored, expanded and condomiumized into two separate ownerships.
Subsequently in 2003, each home was established on a fee simple 3,000 square foot lot through a
Historic Landmark Lot Split via Ordinance No. 64, Series of 2003. At the time of the lot split, Lot 2
(132 W. Hopkins) was allocated 1,704 square feet of floor area which included a floor area bonus to
legalize the existing floor area overage on the site (1,620 square feet + 84 square feet = 1,704 square
feet). In 2010 a Floor Area Allocation Agreement was made between the owners of the lot split
properties and the City of Aspen to clarify floor area discrepancies that occurred from a
misrepresentation during the subdivision review. The result was a determination that Lot 2 has an
allowable floor area of 1,704 square feet with the opportunity to request a floor area bonus of up to
116.4 square feet.
The current owner of 132 W. Hopkins proposes to remove the existing non-historic addition and
relocate the historic home on a new basement foundation. The proposed new above grade addition
will include 2 compliant on-site parking spaces. The applicant requests for setback variations and a
possible floor area bonus for the proposed project. Major Development is a two-step process,
requiring the approval of Conceptual Design and a Final Design.
The applicant has represented that the project will demolish less than 40% of the existing structure.
If more than 40% is demolished, a request to re-earn the 84 square foot floor area bonus approved
in 2003 would be required to incorporate that area into the new project.
Conceptual Design review will consider mass, scale and site plan. At this meeting, HPC will consider
any benefits requested by the applicant. Following Conceptual, staff will inform City Council of the
HPC decision, allowing them the opportunity to uphold HPC’s decision or to “Call Up” aspects of the
approval for further discussion. This is a standard practice for all significant projects. Following the
Notice of Call Up, HPC will conduct Final Design review to consider landscape, lighting and
materials.
HPC will use the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines and the Land Use Code Sections that are
applicable to this project to assist with their determinations.
RELEVANT LAND USE CODE SECTIONS:
Section Number Section Title
26.304 Common Development Review Procedures
26.415.070.D Historic Preservation – Major Development
36
26.415.090 Relocation of Designated Historic Properties
26.415.110 Historic Preservation – Benefits
26.575.020 Calculations and Measurements
26.710.040 Medium-Density Residential (R-6)
For your convenience – links to the Land Use Application and Land Use Code are below:
Land Use Application Land Use Code Historic Preservation Design Guidelines
Review by: Staff for completeness and recommendations
HPC for decisions
City Council for notice of the HPC Conceptual decision
Public Hearing: Yes, at Conceptual and Final
Neighborhood Outreach: No
Referrals: Staff will seek referral comments from the Building
Department, Zoning, Engineering and Parks regarding any
relevant code requirements or considerations. There will be
no Development Review Committee meeting or referral fees.
Planning Fees: $1,950 for 6 billable hours of staff time. (Additional/ lesser hours
will be billed/ refunded at a rate of $325 per hour.) This fee will
be due at Conceptual and Final submittal.
Referral Agencies Fee: $0.
Total Deposit: $1,950.
APPLICATION CHECKLIST:
Below is a list of submittal requirements for HPC Conceptual and Final reviews. At each review
step, please email the entire application as one pdf to sarah.yoon@cityofaspen.com. The fee will
be requested after the application is determined to be complete.
Completed Land Use Application and signed Fee Agreement.
Pre-application Conference Summary (this document).
Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to
occur, consisting of a current (no older than 6 months) certificate from a title insurance
company, an ownership and encumbrance report, or attorney licensed to practice in the
State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages,
judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and
demonstrating the owner’s right to apply for the Development Application.
37
Applicant’s name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant that
states the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act
on behalf of the applicant.
HOA Compliance form (Attached).
List of adjacent property owners for both properties within 300’ for public hearing.
An 8 1/2” by 11” vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen.
Site improvement survey including topography and vegetation showing the current status,
certified by a registered land surveyor, licensed in the state of Colorado.
A written description of the proposal (scope of work) and written explanation of how the
proposed development and any requests for variations or benefits complies with the
review standards and design guidelines relevant to the application.
A proposed site plan.
Scaled drawings of all proposed structure(s) or addition(s) depicting their form, including
their height, massing, scale, proportions and roof plan; and the primary features of all
elevations. Existing and proposed floor area calculations, and demolition calculations.
Supplemental materials to provide a visual description of the context surrounding the
designated historic property including photographs and other exhibits, as needed, to
accurately depict location and extent of proposed work.
For Conceptual, the following items will need to be submitted in addition to the items listed
above:
Graphics identifying preliminary selection of primary exterior building materials.
A preliminary stormwater design.
For Final Review, the following items will need to be submitted in addition to the items listed
above:
Drawings of the street facing facades must be provided at ¼” scale.
Final selection of all exterior materials, and samples or clearly illustrated photographs.
Samples are preferred for the presentation to HPC.
A lighting plan and landscape plan, including any visible stormwater mitigation features.
Disclaimer:
The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based
on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or
may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right.
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
GRETCHEN GREENWOOD ARCIDTECT, INC.
210 South Galena St. Suite 30
Aspen CO. 81611
0: 970-925-4502
M: 970-948-2081
ggreenwood@ggaaspen.com
August 3, 2022
Mr. Michal R. Berghoff
Kirstin BerghoffTrust and Michael R. Berghoff Trust
132 West Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
To: Sarah Yoon: Historic Preservation Officer
RE: Owner's Authorization to Represent
Dear Sara:
This letter is to certify that I, Michael Berghoff, owner of 132 Hopkins
Avenue give Gretchen Greenwood & Associates, Inc. the authority to
represent me to discuss and submit to the City of Aspen Community
Development and the Historic Preservation Commission an application
for Final HPC Approval Development of my property at 132 West
Hopkins Avenue, Aspen, Colorado.
The contact information for Gretchen Greenwood & Associates is as follows:
Gretchen Greenwood, Architect
210 South Galena St. # 30
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Office: 970-925-4502 Mobile: 970-948-2081
Sincerely yours, ����6::!�
9112 Walnut Grove
Indianapolis, IN 46236
51
52
Pitkin County Mailing List of 300 Feet Radius
Pitkin County GIS presents the information and data on this web
site as a service to the public. Every effort has been made to
ensure that the information and data contained in this electronic
system is accurate, but the accuracy may change. Mineral
estate ownership is not included in this mailing list. Pitkin County
does not maintain a database of mineral estate owners.
Pitkin County GIS makes no warranty or guarantee concerning
the completeness, accuracy, or reliability of the content at this
site or at other sites to which we link. Assessing accuracy and
reliability of information and data is the sole responsibility of the
user. The user understands he or she is solely responsible and
liable for use, modification, or distribution of any information or
data obtained on this web site.
This document contains a Mailing List formatted to be
printed on Avery 5160 Labels. If printing, DO NOT "fit to
page" or "shrink oversized pages." This will manipulate the
margins such that they no longer line up on the labels
sheet. Print actual size.
From Parcel: 273512419002 on 11/02/2021
Instructions:
Disclaimer:
http://www.pitkinmapsandmore.com
53
HITE ANGELA R FAMILY TRUST
WOODY CREEK, CO 81656
PO BOX 155
MULLINS MARGARET ANN
ASPEN, CO 81611
216 W HYMAN AVE
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
233 W MAIN ST
TRAGGIS ELIZABETH G
NEW LONDON, CT 06320
PO BOX 284
BIELINSKI JUDITH R TRUST
GLENVIEW, IL 60026
2121 TROWBRIDGE CT
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
SUREFOOT LC
PARK CITY, UT 84060
1500 KEARNS BLVD #110
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
BACON SHIRLEY LIV TRUST
MIAMI, FL 33133
3 GROVE ISLE DR # 1608
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
WEST HOPKINS LLC
LOS ANGELES, CA 90071
400 S HOPE ST, STE 1000
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
108 HYMAN LLC
MIAMI, FL 33133
3500 N BAY HOMES DR
SMITH MARKELL LEIGHTON
WILMETTE, IL 60091
1333 WASHINGTON AVE
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
MELTON DAVID
ASPEN, CO 81611
135 W MAIN ST #A
211 WEST MAIN LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
323 W MAIN ST
INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
233 W MAIN ST
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
FRANK VALERIE EXEMPT TRUST U/W
PORTLAND, OR 972013544
1500 SW 11TH AVE #1504
2401 BLAKE LLC
DENVER, CO 80202
1615 CALIFORNIA ST # 707
INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
233 W MAIN ST
WINKELMAN WENDY L
ASPEN, CO 81611
108 W HYMAN AVE #8
SEIDER FAMILY TRUST
MALIBU, CA 90265
26642 LATIGO SHORE DR
54
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
132 W MAIN LLC
DENVER, CO 80202
1615 CALIFORNIA ST # 707
132 W MAIN LLC
DENVER, CO 80202
1615 CALIFORNIA ST # 707
RESIDENCES AT THE LITTLE NELL CONDO ASSOC INC
ASPEN, CO 81611
501 E DEAN ST
INVENTRIX LLC
CHICAGO, IL 60606-5096
227 MONROE
WARSHAW MARTIN R TRUST 1
ANN ARBOR, MI 48105-2585
1058 SCOTT PL
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
VALLEY EXCHANGE PROPERTIES LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
122 W MAIN ST
CHRISTENSEN ROBERT M & CANDICE L
ASPEN, CO 81611
1240 MOUNTAIN VIEW DR
BRENNAN SHAWN TIFFANY
MILL VALLEY, CA 94941
408 TENNESSEE GLEN WY
CORBETT RICHARD J & JILLIAN F
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 7955
235 W HOPKINS B LLC
BOCA RATON, FL 33432
250 S OCEAN BLVD # 14A
LITTLE HOPKINS HOTEL LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
233 W MAIN ST
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
ANLUJO CAPITAL INC
ROAD TOWN TORTOLA BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS VG 1110,
WOODBOURNE HALL POB 3162
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
GROVER FREDRICK W & PAULA J
ST PETERSBURG, FL 337043717
725 BRIGHTWATERG BLVD NE
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
132 W MAIN LLC
DENVER, CO 80202
1615 CALIFORNIA ST # 707
JACOBSON SUZAN & JAY
ASPEN, CO 81611
108 W HYMAN #7
BETA PROPERTIES LLC
FORT COLLINS, CO 80525
1609 E HARMONY RD
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
HOTEL ASPEN CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
COMMON AREA
110 W MAIN ST
JOBLON MATTHEW
ENGLEWOOD, CO 80013
43 COVINGTON CT
BLUEGREEN VACATIONS UNLIMITED INC
BOCA RATON, FL 33431
4960 CONFERENCE WY N #100
DHM FAMILY TRST
ATLANTA, GA 30309
2288 PEACHTREE RD, NW #12
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
55
TARADA LLC
RESTON, VA 201911530
1902 CAMPUS COMMONS DR #415
STRAUCH ELAINE B
GREENWOOD VILLAGE, CO 80111
4327 S YOSEMITE CT
FRANK EDMUND H EXEMPT TRUST
PORTLAND, OR 972013544
1500 SW 11TH AVE #1504
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
233 W MAIN ST
ASPEN SKIING COMPANY LLC
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 1248
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
2401 BLAKE LLC
DENVER, CO 80202
1615 CALIFORNIA ST # 707
132 W MAIN LLC
DENVER, CO 80202
1615 CALIFORNIA ST # 707
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
BIELINSKI ROBERT A JR
HOUSTON, TX 77018
523 WEST 34TH ST
SHADOW MOUNTAIN DUPLEX CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
COMMON AREA
W HOPKINS AVE
TIEMANN CAROLYN
ASPEN, CO 81611
124 W HYMAN AVE #2D
POOL ALEXANDRA M
DENVER, CO 80211
3038 ZUNI ST
WILLIAMS ROBERT A REV TRUST
ENCINO, CA 91436
16255 VENTURA BLVD #800
BLUEGREEN VACATIONS UNLIMITED INC
BOCA RATON, FL 33431
4960 CONFERENCE WY N #100
UTE HOUSING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
210 S GALENA ST
BETA PROPERTIES LLC
FORT COLLINS, CO 80525
1609 E HARMONY RD
BLUEGREEN VACATIONS UNLIMITED INC
BOCA RATON, FL 33431
4960 CONFERENCE WY N #100
BLUEGREEN VACATIONS UNLIMITED INC
BOCA RATON, FL 33431
4960 CONFERENCE WY N #100
COLES DAVID SEP A TRUST
CULVER CITY, CA 90232
4223 DUQUESNE AVE
SAND KATHERINE M
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 51
212 WEST HOPKINS LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
212 W HOPKINS AVE
JLR QPRT TRUST
CORAL GABLES, FL 33156
355 MARQUESA DR
MCBEE LISA A
SANTA ANA, CA 92705
2306 KEEGAN WY
HARPER MARILYN HILL & HILL
ASPEN, CO 81612-7952
PO BOX 7952
132 W MAIN LLC
DENVER, CO 80202
1615 CALIFORNIA ST # 707
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
56
135 HOPKINS LTD
AUSTIN, TX 78738
12400 HWY 71 W #350-371
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
233 W MAIN ST
COLES PETER SEP A TRUST
MASSACHUSETTS, MA 02138
20 PRESCOTT ST #41
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
132 W MAIN LLC
DENVER, CO 80202
1615 CALIFORNIA ST # 707
BLUEGREEN VACATIONS UNLIMITED INC
BOCA RATON, FL 33431
4960 CONFERENCE WY N #100
ASPEN SCHOOL DISTRICT #1
ASPEN, CO 81611
0235 HIGH SCHOOL RD
COTTONWOODS CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
124 W HYMAN AVE
HITE HENRY HARRIS REVOC TRUST
WOODY CREEK, CO 81656
PO BOX 155
2401 BLAKE LLC
DENVER, CO 80202
1615 CALIFORNIA ST # 707
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
COHEN ALIX O & CRAIG S
ROCKVILLE CENTRE, NY 11570
5 BUCKINGHAM RD
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
MAYER KEVIN
ASPEN, CO 81611
222 W HOPKINS AVE #2
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
2401 BLAKE LLC
DENVER, CO 80202
1615 CALIFORNIA ST # 707
INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
233 W MAIN ST
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
HOLTZMAN L BART & PATRICIA G
SAINT LOUIS, MO 63124
9741 LITZSINGER RD
HAYMAX LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
ASPEN SCHOOL DISTRICT #1
ASPEN, CO 81611
0235 HIGH SCHOOL RD
2401 BLAKE LLC
DENVER, CO 80202
1615 CALIFORNIA ST # 707
ROSS PAULINE
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 9969
INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
233 W MAIN ST
57
DIMITRIUS RALLI TRUST
PASADENA, CA 91101
530 S LAKE AVE #433
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
NORTHSTAR OFFICE BUILDING CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
COMMON AREA
122 W MAIN ST
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY
ASPEN, CO 81611
210 E HYMAN AVE #202
TIMBERLINE BANK
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 815054300
649 MARKET ST
MARTIN SCOTT M
ASPEN, CO 81611
PO BOX 51
GOLDSMITH HENRY JOSH
PIKESVILLE, MD 21208
7902 BRYNMOR CT #504
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
233 W MAIN ST
BLUEGREEN VACATIONS UNLIMITED INC
BOCA RATON, FL 33431
4960 CONFERENCE WY N #100
2401 BLAKE LLC
DENVER, CO 80202
1615 CALIFORNIA ST # 707
ASPEN TOWNHOUSE CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 12384
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
ASPEN TOWNHOMES 3 LLC
BASALT, CO 81621
1796 E SOPRIS CREEK RD
THOMAS GAIL HICKS REV TRUST
BEDFORD, VA 24523-1508
1242 HAMPTON RDG
INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
233 W MAIN ST
TARPLEY GERALD W JR & SUSAN
ANN ARBOR, MI 48105
2255 PLACID WY
HAERTER JONATHAN J & BETHANY S
SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615
PO BOX 6447
HAPPY PLACE VH2 LLC
WESTPORT, CT 06880
52 LYONS PLAINS RD
BRENNAN SAMANTHA SCOTT
MILL VALLEY, CA 94941
408 TENNESSEE GLEN WY
FCB LLC
SNOWMASS, CO 816549102
525 SHIELD O RD
AJAX VIEW COMMERCIAL/NORTH STAR OFFICE
ASPEN, CO 81611
132 W MAIN ST
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
MORGAN DONALD
ATLANTA, GA 30309
2288 PEACHTREE RD, NW #12
BLUEGREEN VACATIONS UNLIMITED INC
BOCA RATON, FL 33431
4960 CONFERENCE WY N #100
KOCH TOWNHOMES CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
COMMON AREA
W HYMAN AVE
132 W MAIN LLC
DENVER, CO 80202
1615 CALIFORNIA ST # 707
JOHNSON ASPEN HOLDINGS LLC
PARADISE VALLEY, AZ 852534108
4949 E LINCOLN DR #19
KOENIG RAYMOND J
NEW LONDON, CT 06320
PO BOX 284
58
SALTER CLAUDE C
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 5000
TIMBERLINE BANK
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 815054300
649 MARKET ST
SHIELD JULIET E
ASPEN, CO 81611
221 N STARWOOD DR
132 W MAIN LLC
DENVER, CO 80202
1615 CALIFORNIA ST # 707
CONSERVATION HOUSING PARTNERS LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
BOWMAN AL
MOUNT DORA, FL 32757
700 HELEN ST
132 W MAIN LLC
DENVER, CO 80202
1615 CALIFORNIA ST # 707
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
TYROLEAN LODGE LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
200 W MAIN ST
INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
233 W MAIN ST
2401 BLAKE LLC
DENVER, CO 80202
1615 CALIFORNIA ST # 707
GUNN ROBERT W FAMILY TRST
MARBLEHEAD, MA 01945
409 OCEAN AVE
ZITELLI MARK C
ASPEN, CO 81611
414 N 1ST ST
MARTIN SCOTT M
ASPEN, CO 81611
PO BOX 51
POOL JUDY F M
DENVER, CO 80206-1591
1650 FILLMORE ST #1304
KING LOUISE CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
600 E HOPKINS AVE #203
132 W MAIN LLC
DENVER, CO 80202
1615 CALIFORNIA ST # 707
2401 BLAKE LLC
DENVER, CO 80202
1615 CALIFORNIA ST # 707
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
WEST SIDE CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
234 W HOPKINS AVE
NORTH STAR LODGE LLC
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81505
633 24 RD
DEAN FAMILY LTD PTSHP LLP
BOULDER, CO 80301
590 DELLWOOD AVE
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
LAMPTON PATRICIA M TRUST
ASHEVILLE, NC 28814
PO BOX 18013
BOURKEY888 LLC
SINGAPORE 436853,
16 THIAM SIEW AVE
2401 BLAKE LLC
DENVER, CO 80202
1615 CALIFORNIA ST # 707
JES 2002 GRANTOR TRUST
ASPEN, CO 81611
221 N STARWOOD DR
GARET CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
400 E MAIN ST #2
HALCYON ENTERPRISES LLC
PRINCETON, NJ 08540
78 LOVERS LN
2401 BLAKE LLC
DENVER, CO 80202
1615 CALIFORNIA ST # 707
59
INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
233 W MAIN ST
SAND KATHERINE M
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 51
ASPEN UPTOWN LLC
SNYDER, OK 73566
PO BOX 348
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
60
S GARMISCH STS GARMISCH STW HY
M
A
N
A
V
E
S 1ST STW H
O
P
K
I
N
S
A
V
E
S 1ST STS 1ST STW HY
M
A
N
A
V
E S GARMISCH STN 1ST STN GARMISCH STW MAI
N
S
T
S GARMISCH STE MAI
N
S
T
S ASPEN STE HO
P
K
I
N
S
A
V
ES 1ST STW H
O
P
K
I
N
S
A
V
E
W M
A
I
N
S
T
S 1ST STDate: 8/23/2021
Geographic Information Systems
This map/drawing/image is a graphical
representation of the features
depicted and is not a legal representation.
The accuracy may change
depending on the enlargement or reduction.
Copyright 2021 City of Aspen GIS
0 0.01 0.030.01
mi
When printed at 8.5"x11"
4
Legend
City of Aspen
Roads Zoomed In
Scale: 1:1,520
ArcGIS Web Map
61
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED RELOCATION, RESTORATION,
AND ADDITION FOR 132 HOPKINS AVENUE
The Historic resource at 132 Hopkins was moved from East Aspen to 132 Hopkins in
1988. The building is a unique historic building for its long one-story gable and side porch.
The original building as is evidenced on the photographs attached to this application has three
entry doors and two double hung windows on the porch side of the building. This building was
likely a multi-unit housing unit that housed Miners in the 1880’s on the East Side of town, due
to the number of entrances to the building.
The historic resource has undergone many development scenarios over the years since
being moved to Hopkins Ave. in 1988. In 1988, a building permit was issued for the re-location
of the resource to Hopkins and an addition added to the rear. In subsequent years,
non-historic windows and designs have been replaced, added, foundations repaired and civil
engineering and drainage plans added to the property. In 2004, the property with the historic
resource to the west (134 Hopkins) was lot split creating this odd shaped 3,000 square foot
property. All of these events were reviewed by the HPC and approved per the guidelines in
place at the time. Zoning variances for parking and setback variances were granted for this
property.
We propose to restore the building to its original façade as captured in the historic
photo. The two double hung windows and three doors will be restored along the front porch.
The restored door on the South façade will be the main entry into the building. Double hung
windows on the East façade will be replaced with the historic single double hung windows as
seen in the photo. The shingle gables will be replaced with siding. Non historic windows on the
North elevation will be relaced with matching double hung windows that are evidenced
around the house. The exterior flue detail will be replicated per the photo.
In addition to the restoration, it is proposed to move the building forward to the 10’
front yard setback, maintain the similar side yard setbacks that exist, and add an addition to
the rear that conforms with current HPC guidelines. A new parking space for the site will be
added that will conform to the Zoning requirements of 2 parking spaces per lot.
62
CHAPTER 1: SITE PLANNING & LANDSCAPE DESIGN
NEIGHBORHOOD AND DISTRICT PATTERN GUIDELINES
1.1 All projects shall respect the historic development pattern or context of the block, neighborhood or
district.
• Building footprint and location should reinforce the traditional patterns of the neighborhood.
• Allow for some porosity on a site. In a residential project, setback to setback development is
typically, uncharacteristic of the historic context. Do not design a project which leaves no useful
open space visible from the street.
Response – The Relocated Victorian home is proposed to be moved forward 2’-8” feet for a proposed 10’ front yard
setback. The Victorian to the west is approved to also move to the 10-foot setback maintaining the historic pattern
of front yards in Aspen. The proposed addition is setback from the front façade by 60 feet. Open space is visible on
the sides of the historic residence and addition, as the new addition has a smaller footprint than the existing
addition.
1.2 Preserve the system and character of historic streets, alleys, and ditches.
When HPC input is requested, the following bullet points may be applicable.
• Retain and preserve the variety and character found in historic alleys, including retaining
historic ancillary buildings or constructing new ones.
• Retain and preserve the simple character of historic ditches. Do not plant flowers or add
landscape.
• Abandoning or re-routing a street in a historic area is generally discouraged.
• Consider the value of unpaved alleys in residential areas.
• Opening a platted right of way which was abandoned or never graded may be encouraged on
a case-by-case basis.
Response – The character of the alley is being preserved by complying with the 5’ setback requirements. The alley
remains un-paved.
DRIVEWAYS & PARKING
1.3 Remove driveways or parking areas accessed directly from the street if they were not part of the
original development of the site.
• Do not introduce new curb cuts on streets.
• Non-historic driveways accessed from the street should be removed if they can be relocated
to the alley.
Response –There are no driveways off of Hopkins Avenue to the historic resource.
1.4 Design a new driveway or improve an existing driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual
impact.
• If an alley exists at the site, the new driveway must be located off it.
• Tracks, gravel, light grey concrete with minimal seams, or similar materials are appropriate for
driveways on Aspen Victorian properties.
Response – The driveway access to the property is located off the property’s north rear yard alley.
YARDS, WALKWAYS AND PATIOS
1.5 Maintain the historic hierarchy of spaces.
• Reflect the established progression of public to private spaces from the public sidewalk to a
semi-public walkway, to a semi private entry feature, to private spaces.
Response – A straight and simple stone walkway to open the front porch into the Main entry is proposed
Hopkins Avenue. There is no other access or walkways being proposed on the property.
1.6 Provide a simple walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry on residential
projects.
• Meandering walkways are not allowed, except where it is needed to avoid a tree or is typical
of the period of significance.
• Use paving materials that are similar to those used historically for the building style and install
63
them in the manner that they would have been used historically. For example, on an Aspen
Victorian landmark set flagstone pavers in sand, rather than in concrete. Light grey concrete,
brick or red sandstone are appropriate private walkway materials for most landmarks.
• The width of a new entry sidewalk should generally be three feet or less for residential
properties. A wider sidewalk may be appropriate for an Aspen Modern property.
Response – A simple straight linear stone walkway is proposed. Paving materials will be presented at Final Design
Review.
1.7 Provide positive open space within a project site.
• Ensure that open space on site is meaningful and consolidated into a few large spaces rather
than many small unusable areas.
• Open space should be designed to support and complement the historic building.
Response – Useable open space is in the front yard and the sides of the building.
1.8 Consider stormwater quality needs early in the design process.
• When included in the initial planning for a project, stormwater quality facilities can be better
integrated into the proposal. All landscape plans presented for HPC review must include at
least a preliminary representation of the stormwater design. A more detailed design must be
reviewed and approved by Planning and Engineering prior to building permit submittal.
• Site designs and stormwater management should provide positive drainage away from the
historic landmark, preserve the use of natural drainage and treatment systems of the site,
reduce the generation of additional stormwater runoff, and increase infiltration into the
ground. Stormwater facilities and conveyances located in front of a landmark should have
minimal visual impact when viewed from the public right of way.
• Refer to City Engineering for additional guidance and requirements.
Response – A conceptual drainage plan by a Civil Engineer is being developed that directs drainage away
from the landmarks. The plan is attached as part of the Conceptual Development Application.
1.9 Landscape development on Aspen Modern landmarks shall be addressed on a case-by-case basis.
Response –Not Applicable.
1.10 Built-in furnishings, such as water features, fire pits, grills, and hot tubs, that could interfere
with or block views of historic structures are inappropriate.
• Site furnishings that are added to the historic property should not be intrusive or degrade the
integrity of the neighborhood patterns, site, or existing historic landscape.
• Consolidating and screening these elements is preferred.
Response – A conceptual site plan is attached as part of the Conceptual Development Application. There are no Site
furnishings being proposed for the Site.
SOFTSCAPE FEATURES & PATIO
1.11 Preserve and maintain historically significant landscaping on site, particularly landmark trees and
shrubs.
• Retaining historic planting beds and landscape features is encouraged.
• Protect historically significant vegetation during construction to avoid damage. Removal of
damaged, aged, or diseased trees must be approved by the Parks Department.
• If a significant tree must be removed, replace it with the same or similar species in coordination
with the Parks Department.
• The removal of non-historic planting schemes is encouraged.
• Consider restoring the original landscape if information is available, including original plant
materials.
Response – There are no historic landscaping on the property. Landscaping is proposed to be new and conforming
to the appropriate plantings for historic resources.
64
1.12 Provide an appropriate context for historic structures. See diagram.
• Simplicity and restraint are required. Do not overplant a site, or install a landscape which is
over textured or overly complex in relationship to the historic resource, particularly in Zone A.
In Zone A, new planting shall be species that were used historically or species of similar
attributes.
• In areas immediately adjacent to the landmark, Zone A and Zone B, plants up 42” in height,
sod, and low shrubs are often appropriate.
• Contemporary planting, walls and other features are not appropriate in Zone A. A more
contemporary landscape may surround new development or be located in the rear of the
property, in Zone C.
• Do not cover areas which were historically unpaved with hard surfaces, except for a limited
patio where appropriate.
• Where residential structures are being adapted to commercial use, proposals to alter the
landscape will be considered on a case-by-case basis. The residential nature of the building
must be honored.
•In the case of a historic landmark lot split, careful consideration should be given so as not to
over plant either property, or remove all evidence of the landscape characteristics from before
the property was divided.
• Contemporary landscapes that highlight an Aspen Modern architectural style are encouraged.
Response – An appropriate and simple landscape design is proposed for the historic residence.
1.13 Additions of plant material to the landscape that could interfere with or block views of historic
structures are inappropriate.
• Low plantings and ground covers are preferred.
• Do not place trees, shrubs, or hedgerows in locations that will obscure, damage, or block
significant architectural features or views to the building. Hedgerows are not allowed as
fences.
• Consider mature canopy size when planting new trees adjacent to historic resources. Planting
trees too close to a landmark may result in building deteriorate or blocked views and is
inappropriate.
• Climbing vines can damage historic structures and are not allowed.
Response – No new planting material is proposed that will block views of the Historic resource from Hopkins Ave.
SITE LIGHTING
1.14 Minimize the visual impacts of landscape lighting.
• Landscape and pathway lighting is not permitted in Zone A (refer to diagram) on Aspen
Victorian properties unless an exception are approved by HPC based on safety considerations.
• Landscape, driveway, and pathway lighting on Aspen Modern properties is addressed on a
case-by-case basis. Landscape light fixtures should be carefully selected so that they are
compatible with the building, yet recognizable as a product of their own time.
• Driveway lighting is not permitted on Aspen Victorian properties.
• Landscape up lighting is not allowed.
Response – The existing historic home will maintain the exterior lighting that was previously approved.
FENCES
1.15 Preserve original fences.
• Fences which are considered part of the historic significance of a site should not be moved,
removed, or inappropriately altered.
• Replace only those portions of a historic fence that are deteriorated beyond repair.
• Replacement elements must match the existing.
Response – The existing fence is not historic and is proposed to be removed.
1.16 When possible, replicate a missing historic fence based on photographic evidence.
Response – N/A
65
1.17 No fence in the front yard is often the most appropriate solution.
• Reserve fences for back yards and behind street facing façades, as the best way to preserve
the character of a property.
Response – The Existing Fence in not historic and is proposed to be removed.
1.18 When building an entirely new fence, use materials that are appropriate to the building type and
style.
• The new fence should use materials that were used on similar properties during the period of
significance.
• A wood fence is the appropriate solution in most locations.
• Ornate fences, including wrought iron, may create a false history are not appropriate for Aspen
Victorian landmarks unless there is evidence that a decorative fence historically existed on the site.
• A modest wire fence was common locally in the early 1900’s and is appropriate for Aspen
Victorian properties. This fence type has many desirable characteristics including
transparency, a low height, and a simple design. When this material is used, posts should be
simply detailed and not oversized.
Response – N/A
1.19 A new fence should have a transparent quality, allowing views into the yard from the street.
• A fence that defines a front yard must be low in height and transparent in nature.
• For a picket fence, spacing between the pickets must be a minimum of 1/2 the width of the
picket.
For Post-WWII properties where a more solid type of fence may be historically appropriate,
proposals will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
• Fence columns or piers should be proportional to the fence segment.
Response – N/A
1.20 Any fence taller than 42” should be designed so that it avoids blocking public views of important
features of a designated building.
• A privacy fence should incorporate transparent elements to minimize the possible visual
impacts. Consider staggering the fence boards on either side of the fence rail. This will give
the appearance of a solid plank fence when seen head on. Also consider using lattice, or other
transparent detailing on the upper portions of the fence.
• A privacy fence should allow the building corners and any important architectural features that
are visible from the street to continue to be viewed.
• All hedgerows (trees, shrub bushes, etc.) are prohibited in Zones A and B.
Response – N/A
RETAINING WALLS
1.21 Preserve original retaining walls
• Replace only those portions that are deteriorated beyond repair. Any replacement materials
should match the original in color, texture, size and finish.
• Painting or covering a historic masonry retaining wall or covering is not allowed.
• Increasing the height of a retaining wall is inappropriate.
Response – N/A
1.22 When a new retaining wall is necessary, its height and visibility should be minimized.
• All wall materials, including veneer and mortar, will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis and
should be compatible with the palette used on the historic structure.
Response – N/A.
1.23 Re-grading the site in a manner that changes historic grade is generally not allowed and will be
reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
Response – The proposed finish grades are proposed to remain the same as existing grades
66
CULTURAL AND DESIGNATED LANDSCAPES
1.24 Preserve historically significant landscapes with few or no alterations.
• An analysis of the historic landscape and an assessment of the current condition of the
landscape should be done before the beginning of any project.
• The key features of the historic landscape and its overall design intent must be preserved.
Response – N/A
1.25 New development on these sites should respect the historic design of the landscape and its built
features.
• Do not add features that damage the integrity of the historic landscape.
• Maintain the existing pattern of setbacks and siting of structures.
• Maintain the historic relationship of the built landscape to natural features on the site.
• All additions to these landscapes must be clearly identifiable as recent work.
• New artwork must be subordinate to the designed landscape in terms of placement, height,
material, and overall appearance. Place new art away from significant landscape features.
• Avoid installing utility trenches in cultural landscapes if possible.
Response – N/A
1.26 Preserve the historic circulation system.
• Minimize the impact of new vehicular circulation.
• Minimize the visual impact of new parking.
• Maintain the separation of pedestrian and vehicle which occurred historically.
Response – N/A
1.27 Preserve and maintain significant landscaping on site.
• Protect established vegetation during any construction.
• If any tree or shrub needs to be removed, replace it with the same or similar species.
• New planting should be of a species used historically or a similar species.
• Maintain and preserve any gardens and/or ornamental planting on the site.
• Maintain and preserve any historic landscape elements.
Response – N/A.
CHAPTER 2: BUILDING MATERIALS
TREATMENT OF MATERIALS
2.1 Preserve original building materials.
• Do not remove siding that is in good condition or that can be repaired in place.
• Masonry features that define the overall historic character, such as walls, cornices, pediments,
steps and foundations, should be preserved.
• Avoid rebuilding a major portion of an exterior wall that could be repaired in place.
Reconstruction may result in a building which no longer retains its historic integrity.
Original Aspen Modern materials may be replaced in kind if it has been determined that the
weathering detracts from the original design intent or philosophy.
Response – All building materials will be preserved.
2.2 The finish of materials should be as it would have existed historically.
• Masonry naturally has a water-protective layer to protect it from the elements. Brick or stone
that was not historically painted shall not be painted.
• If masonry that was not painted historically was given a coat of paint at some more recent
time, consider removing it, using appropriate methods.
• Wood should be painted, stained or natural, as appropriate to the style and history of the
Building.
Response – The finish of the siding will be painted as is original for the historic house.
67
REPLACEMENT OF MATERIALS
2.3 Match the original material in composition, scale and finish when replacing materials on primary
surfaces.
• If the original material is wood clapboard for example, then the replacement material must be
wood as well. It should match the original in size, and the amount of exposed lap and finish.
• Replace only the amount required. If a few boards are damaged beyond repair, then only those
should be replaced, not the entire wall. For Aspen Modern buildings, sometimes the
replacement of a larger area is required to preserve the integrity of the design intent.
Response – Only the windows on the historic house will be replaced, material surrounding the material will be
maintained.
2.4 Do not use synthetic materials as replacements for original building materials.
• Original building materials such as wood siding and brick should not be replaced with synthetic
materials.
Response –No synthetic material will be used on the building.
2.5 Covering original building materials with new materials is inappropriate.
• Regardless of their character, new materials obscure the original, historically significant
material.
• Any material that covers historic materials may also trap moisture between the two layers.
This will cause accelerated deterioration to the historic material which may go unnoticed.
Response –No exterior historic materials will be covered
2.6 Remove layers that cover the original material.
• Once the non-historic siding is removed, repair the original, underlying material.
Response – Not Applicable
CHAPTER 3: WINDOWS
TREATMENT OF WINDOWS
3.1 Preserve the functional and decorative features of a historic window.
• Features important to the character of a window include its frame, sash, muntin/mullions,
sills, heads, jambs, moldings, operations, and groupings of windows.
• Repair frames and sashes rather than replacing them.
• Preserve the original glass. If original Victorian era glass is broken, consider using restoration
glass for the repair.
Response –All historic materials will be preserved.
3.2 Preserve the position, number, and arrangement of historic windows in a building wall.
• Enclosing a historic window is inappropriate.
• Do not change the size of an original window opening.
Response –The windows to be added and replaced will match the historic photos.
REPLACEMENT OF WINDOWS THAT ARE BEYOND REPAIR OR HAVE BEEN REMOVED
3.3 Match a replacement window to the original in its design.
• If the original is double-hung, then the replacement window must also be double-hung. If the
sash have divided lights, match that characteristic as well.
Response –The replacement windows to be added and replaced will match the historic photos of double hung
windows in size and shape.
3.4 When replacing an original window, use materials that are the same as the original.
Response –The replacement windows to be added and replaced will match the historic photos of double hung
windows in size and shape.
3.5 Preserve the size and proportion of a historic window opening.
• Changing the window opening is not permitted.
• Consider restoring an original window opening that was enclosed in the past.
Response –The replacement windows to be added and replaced will match the historic photos of double hung
windows in size and shape.
68
3.6 Match, as closely as possible, the profile of the sash and its components to that of the original
window.
• A historic window often has a complex profile. Within the window’s casing, the sash steps back
to the plane of the glazing (glass) in several increments. These increments, which individually
only measure in eighths or quarters of inches, are important details. They distinguish the actual
window from the surrounding plane of the wall.
• The historic profile on Aspen Modern properties is typically minimal.
Response –The replacement windows to be added and replaced will match the historic photos of double hung
windows in size and shape.
ADDING WINDOWS
3.7 Adding new openings on a historic structure is generally not allowed.
• Greater flexibility in installing new windows may be considered on rear or secondary walls.
• New windows should be similar in scale to the historic openings on the building, but should in
some way be distinguishable as new, through the use of somewhat different detailing, etc.
• Preserve the historic ratio of window openings to solid wall on a façade.
• Significantly increasing the amount of glass on a character defining façade will negatively affect
the integrity of a structure.
Response –The replacement windows to be added and replaced will match the historic photos of double hung
windows in size and shape.
ENERGY CONSERVATION
3.8 Use a storm window to enhance energy conservation rather than replace a historic window.
• Install a storm window on the interior, when feasible. This will allow the character of the
original window to be seen from the public way.
• If a storm window is to be installed on the exterior, match the sash design and material of the original
window. It should fit tightly within the window opening without the need for subframes or panning around the
perimeter. A storm window should not include mutons unless necessary for structure. Any muntin should be
placed to match horizontal or vertical divisions of the historic window.
Response –The replacement windows to be added and replaced will match the historic photos of double hung
windows in size and shape.
CHAPTER 4: DOORS:
TREATMENT OF EXISTING DOORS
4.1 Preserve historically significant doors.
• Maintain features important to the character of a historic doorway. These include the door, door
frame, screen door, threshold, glass panes, paneling, hardware, detailing, transoms and flanking
sidelights.
• Do not change the position and function of original front doors and primary entrances.
• If a secondary entrance must be sealed shut, any work that is done must be reversible so that the
door can be used at a later time, if necessary. Also, keep the door in place, in its historic position.
• Previously enclosed original doors should be reopened when possible.
Response –The replacement doors will match in design and size the historic doors in the photos.
4.2 Maintain the original size of a door and its opening.
• Altering its size and shape is inappropriate. It should not be widened or raised in height.
4.3 When a historic door or screen door is damaged, repair it and maintain its general historic
appearance.
Response –The replacement doors will match in design and size the historic doors in the photos.
69
4.4 When replacing a door or screen door, use a design that has an appearance similar to the original
door or a door associated with the style of the building.
• A replica of the original, if evidence exists, is the preferred replacement.
• A historic door or screen door from a similar building also may be considered.
• Simple paneled doors were typical for Aspen Victorian properties.
• Very ornate doors, including stained or leaded glass, are discouraged, unless photographic
evidence can support their use.
Response –No Screen doors are proposed.
ADDING DOORS
4.5 Adding new doors on a historic building is generally not allowed.
• Place new doors in any proposed addition rather than altering the historic resource.
• Greater flexibility in installing a door in a new location may be considered on rear or secondary
walls.
• A new door in a new location should be similar in scale and style to historic openings on the building
and should be a product of its own time.
• Preserve the historic ratio of openings to solid wall on a façade. Significantly increasing the
openings on a character defining façade negatively affects the integrity of a structure.
Response –No new doors are proposed except for the doors that are located in their original location and a
proposed to be added.
ENERGY CONSERVATION
4.6 If energy conservation and heat loss are concerns, use a storm door instead of replacing a historic entry
door.
• Match the material, frame design, character, and color of the primary door.
• Simple features that do not detract from the historic entry door are appropriate for a new storm
door.
• New screen doors should be in character with the primary door.
Response –No screen doors are proposed for the new doors being added.
DOOR HARDWARE
4.7 Preserve historic hardware.
• When new hardware is needed, it must be in scale with the door and appropriate to the style of
the building.
• On Aspen Victorian properties, conceal any modern elements such as entry key pads.
Response – Historic hardware as shown in the photo is a round handle. This design will be used on the main Front
door per the historic photo. The other two doors will not have hardware as they will be fixed shut.
CHAPTER 5: PORCHES & BALCONIES
TREATMENT
5.1 Preserve an original porch or balcony.
• Replace missing posts and railings when necessary. Match the original proportions, material and
spacing of balusters.
• Expanding the size of a historic porch or balcony is inappropriate.
Response- The front porch will be disassembled and repaired and re-installed per exiting photos and
documentation.
5.2 Avoid removing or covering historic materials and details.
• Removing an original balustrade, for example, is inappropriate.
Response –N/A
5.3 Enclosing a porch or balcony is not appropriate.
• Reopening an enclosed porch or balcony is appropriate.
Response –N/A
70
RECONSTRUCTION
5.4 If reconstruction is necessary, match the original in form, character and detail.
• Match original materials.
• When reconstructing an original porch or balcony without historic photographs, use dimensions
and characteristics found on comparable buildings. Keep style and form simple with minimal, if
any, decorative elements.
Response – All original parts and pieces are in place for the front porch. The front porch will be disassembled and
repaired and re-installed per exiting photos and documentation.
STEPS, HANDRAILS AND GUARDRAILS
5.5 If new steps are to be added, construct them out of the same primary materials used on the original,
and design them to be in scale with the porch or balcony.
• Steps should be located in the original location.
• Step width should relate to the scale of entry doors, spacing between posts, depth of deck, etc.
• Brick, red sandstone, grey concrete, or wood are appropriate materials for steps.
5.6 Avoid adding handrails or guardrails where they did not exist historically, particularly where visible
from the street.
• If handrails or guardrails are needed according to building code, keep their design simple in
character and different from the historic detailing on the porch or balcony.
Response – N/A.
CHAPTER 6: ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS
TREATMENT OF ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES
6.1 Preserve significant architectural features.
• Repair only those features that are deteriorated.
• Patch, piece-in, splice, or consolidate to repair the existing materials, using recognized preservation
methods whenever possible.
• On Aspen Modern properties, repair is preferred, however, it may be more important to preserve
the integrity of the original design intent, such as crisp edges, rather than to retain heavily
deteriorated material.
6.2 When disassembly of a historic element is necessary for its restoration, use methods that minimize
damage to the original material.
• Document its location so it may be repositioned accurately. Always devise methods of replacing
the disassembled material in its original configuration.
6.3 Remove only the portion of the detail that is deteriorated and must be replaced.
• Match the original in composition, scale, and finish when replacing materials or features.
• If the original detail was made of wood, for example, then the replacement material should be
wood, when feasible. It should match the original in size and finish.
6.4 Repair or replacement of missing or deteriorated features are required to be based on original designs.
• The design should be substantiated by physical or pictorial evidence to avoid creating a
misrepresentation of the building’s heritage.
• When reconstruction of an element is impossible because there is no historical evidence, develop
a compatible new design that is a simplified interpretation of the original, and maintains similar
scale, proportion and material.
6.5 Do not guess at “historic” designs for replacement parts.
• Where scars on the exterior suggest that architectural features existed, but there is no other
physical or photographic evidence, then new features may be designed that are similar in character
to related buildings.
• Using ornate materials on a building or adding new conjectural detailing for which there is no
documentation is inappropriate.
Response – Architectural details will be repaired and / or restored as needed. Historic photographs will be
used to accurately restore the detailing and roof massing of the Victorian.
71
CHAPTER 7: ROOFS
TREATMENT OF ROOFS
7.1 Preserve the original form of a roof.
• Do not alter the angle of a historic roof. Preserve the orientation and slope of the roof as seen
from the street.
• Retain and repair original and decorative roof detailing.
• Where the original roof form has been altered, consider restoration.
7.2 Preserve the original eave depth.
• Overhangs contribute to the scale and detailing of a historic resource.
• Aspen Modern properties typically have very deep or extremely minimal overhangs that are key
character defining features of the architectural style.
7.3 Minimize the visual impacts of skylights and other rooftop devices.
• Skylights and solar panels are generally not allowed on a historic structure. These elements may
be appropriate on an addition.
7.4 New vents should be minimized, carefully, placed and painted a dark color.
• Direct vents for fireplaces are generally not permitted to be added on historic structures.
• Locate vents on non-street facing facades.
• Use historic chimneys as chases for new flues when possible.
7.5 Preserve original chimneys, even if they are made non-functional.
• Reconstruct a missing chimney when documentation exists.
7.6 A new dormer should remain subordinate to the historic roof in scale and character.
• A new dormer is not appropriate on a primary, character defining façade.
• A new dormer should fit within the existing wall plane. It should be lower than the ridgeline and
set in from the eave. It should also be in proportion with the building.
• The mass and scale of a dormer addition must be subordinate to the scale of the historic building.
• While dormers improve the livability of upper floor spaces where low plate heights exist, they also
complicate the roof and may not be appropriate on very simple structures.
• Dormers are not generally not permitted on Aspen Modern properties since they are not
characteristics of these building styles.
MATERIALS
7.7 Preserve original roof materials.
• Avoid removing historic roofing material that is in good condition. When replacement is necessary,
use a material that is similar to the original in both style as well as physical qualities and use a color
that is similar to that seen historically.
7.8 New or replacement roof materials should convey a scale, color and texture similar to the original.
• If a substitute is used, such as composition shingle, the roof material should be earth tone and have
a matte, non-reflective finish.
• Flashing should be in scale with the roof material.
• Flashing should be tin, lead coated copper, galvanized or painted metal and have a matte,
nonreflective finish.
• Design flashing, such as drip edges, so that architectural details are not obscured.
• A metal roof is inappropriate for an Aspen Victorian primary home but may be appropriate for a
secondary structure from that time period.
• A metal roof material should have a matte, non-reflective finish and match the original seaming.
7.9 Avoid using conjectural features on a roof.
• Adding ornamental cresting, for example, where there is no evidence that it existed, creates a false
impression of the building’s original appearance, and is inappropriate.
7.10 Design gutters so that their visibility on the structure is minimized to the extent possible.
• Downspouts should be placed in locations that are not visible from the street if possible, or in
locations that do not obscure architectural detailing on the building.
• The material used for the gutters should be in character with the style of the building.
72
`
CHAPTER 8: SECONDARY STRUCTURES
Response: Not Applicable
CHAPTER 9: EXCAVATION, BUILDING RELOCATION & FOUNDATIONS
PRESERVING BUILDING LOCATIONS AND FOUNDATIONS
9.1 Developing a basement by underpinning and excavating while the historic structure stays in place may
help to preserve the historic fabric.
• This activity will require the same level of documentation, structural assessment and posting of financial
assurances as a building relocation.
Response – Not Applicable
9.2 Proposals to relocate building will be considered on a case-by case basis
• In general, on-site relocation has led of an impact on individual structures than those in a historic district.
• In a district, where numerous adjacent historic structures may exist, the way that buildings were placed on
the site historically, and the open yards visible from the street are characteristics that should be respected in
new development.
• Provide a figure ground study of the surrounding parcels to demonstrate the effects of building relocation.
• In some cases, the historic significance of the structure, the context of the site, the construction technique,
and the architectural style may make on-site relocation too impactful to be appropriate. It must be
demonstrated that on -site relocation is the best preservation alternate in order for approval to be granted.
Response – Not Applicable
9.3 Site a relocated structure in a position similar to its historic orientation.
• In must face the same direction and have a relatively similar setback. In general, a forward movement,
rather than a lateral movement is preferred. HPC will consider setback variations, where appropriate.
• A primary structure may not be moved to the rear of the parcel to accommodate a new building in front of
it.
• Be aware of potential restrictions against locating buildings too close to mature trees. Consult with the City
Forester early in the design process. Do not relocate a building so that it becomes obstructed by trees.
Response – Not Applicable
9.4 Position a relocated structure at its historic elevation above grade.
• Raising the finished floor of the building slightly above its original elevation is acceptable if needed to
address drainage issues. A substantial change in position relative to grade is in appropriate.
• Avoid making design decisions that require code related alterations which could have been avoided. In
particular, consider how the relationship to grade could result in non-historic guardrails, etc.
Response – Not Applicable
9.5 A new foundation shall appear similar in design and materials to the historic foundation.
• On modest structures, a simple foundation is appropriate. Constructing a stone foundation on a miner’s
cottage where there is no evidence that one existed historically is out of character and is not allowed.
• Exposed concrete or painted metal flashing are generally appropriate.
• Where a stone or brick foundation existed historically, it must be replicated, ideally using stone salvaged
from the original foundation as a veneer. The replacement must be similar in the out of the stone and the
mortar joints. concrete or painted metal flashing are generally appropriate.
• New AspenModern foundations shall be handled on a case-by-case basis to ensure preservation of the
design intent.
Response – Not Applicable
73
9.6 Minimize the visual impact of lightwells.
• The size of any lightwell that faces a street should be minimized.
• Lightwells must be placed so that they are not immediately adjacent to character defining features, such as
front porches.
• Lightwells must be protected with a flat grate, rather than a railing or may not be visible from a street.
• Lightwells that face a street must about the building foundation and generally may not “float” in the
landscape except where they are screened or on an AspenModern site.
• Response – Not Applicable
9.7 All relocations of designated structures shall be performed by contractors who specialize in moving
historic buildings, or can document adequate experience in successfully relocating such buildings.
• The specific methodology to be used in relocating the structure must be approved by the HPC.
• During the relocation process, panels must be mounted on the exterior of the building to protect existing
openings and historic glass. Special care shall be taken to keep from damaging door and window frames and
sashes in the process of covering the openings. Significant architectural details may need to be removed and
securely stored until restoration.
• The structure is expected to be stored on its original site during the construction process. Proposals for
temporary storage on a different parcel will be considered on a case-by-case basis and may require special
conditions of approval.
• A historic resource may not be relocated outside of the City of Aspen.
• Response –
9.8 Proposals to relocate a building to a new site are highly discouraged.
• Permanently relocating a structure from where it was built to a new site is only allowed for special
circumstances, where it is demonstrated to be the only preservation alternative.
Response – Not Applicable
74
CHAPTER 10 BUILDING ADDITIONS
EXISTING ADDITIONS
10.1 Preserve an older addition that has achieved historic significance in its own right.
Response – Not Applicable
10.2 A more recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed.
• For Aspen Victorian properties, HPC generally relies on the 1904 Sanborn Fire Insurance maps to
determine which portions of a building are historically significant and must be preserved.
• HPC may insist on the removal of non-historic construction that is considered to be detrimental to
the historic resource in any case when preservation benefits or variations are being approved.
Response – The 1988 Rear Addition and Link to the Historic Resource are proposed to be removed.
NEW ADDITIONS
10.3 Design a new addition such that one’s ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building
is maintained.
• A new addition must be compatible with the historic character of the primary building.
• An addition must be subordinate, deferential, modest, and secondary in comparison to the
architectural character of the primary building.
• An addition that imitates the primary building’s historic style is not allowed. For example, a new
faux Victorian detailed addition is inappropriate on an Aspen Victorian home.
• An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate.
• Proposals on corner lots require particular attention to creating compatibility.
Response – The new rear addition’s mass is located behind the one-story linking element by 65 feet. Due to the
location of the new addition, it is not visible form Hopkins Ave. The new addition has similar massing
characteristics in the form of the upper gable roof line by following the 12/12 roof lines of the historic resource
and the new gable at the rear of the addition maintains the same gable dimension as the historic resource,
providing sensitive massing to the resource.
10.4 The historic resource is to be the focus of the property, the entry point, and the predominant structure
as viewed from the street.
• The historic resource must be visually dominant on the site and must be distinguishable against the
addition.
• The total above grade floor area of an addition may be no more than 100% of the above grade floor
area of the original historic resource. All other above grade development must be completely
detached. HPC may consider exceptions to this policy if two or more of the following are met:
o The proposed addition is all one story
o The footprint of the new addition is closely related to the footprint of the historic resource
and the proposed design is particularly sensitive to the scale and proportions of the historic
resource
Response: The new proposed addition has a similar footprint of the historic resource by having the main gable
designed from south to north like the historic resource. The existing gable of the old addition runs east to west
with dormers which is incompatible with the Historic resource.
o The project involves the demolition and replacement of an older addition that is considered
to have been particularly detrimental to the historic resource
Response: the project involves demolition and replacement of an older addition that is detrimental to the historic
resource. The old addition was built 1’-0” off the west property line. The new addition proposes 3’-0”. The new
addition allows for an additional parking space on the property. The old addition design does not relate to the
simplicity of the architecture of the Historic resource. The old addition has 4 small dormers on the addition, which
is inconsistent with the simplicity of the roof form of the historic resource.
75
o The interior of the resource is fully utilized, containing the same number of usable floors as
existed historically
Response: There is no change to the historic resource and the project maintains the same number of floors
historically.
o The project is on a large lot, allowing the addition to have a significant setback from the
street
o There are no variance requests in the application other than those related to historic
conditions that aren’t being changed.
Response: The variations that are being asked for currently exist for the Historic resource and the old addition.
The new project maintains the setback variations, except on the west side where the setback variation is
decreased by 2’-0”. The New project also reduces a parking variation, baa the addition of a new parking space
on the east side of the lot off the alley.
o The project is proposed as part of a voluntary Aspen Modern designation, or o The property
is affected by non-preservation related site-specific constraints such as trees that must be
preserved, Environmentally Sensitive Areas review, etc.
In Summary Response –The demolition and replacement of the existing non historic addition, and new historic
details garnered from historic photographs are being added for the proposed project validate what
the request for additional square footage approved for the new addition which is larger than the historic
resource. The gross historic square footage of the main Historic Residence is 747 Sq.Ft. The new proposed new
gross square footage for the addition is 1000 Sq.Ft. In total, there is only 116 Square feet of new square footage,
where 80% of that is being used for the lightwells.
10.5 On a corner lot, no portion of an addition to a one-story historic resource may be more than one
story tall, directly behind that resource, unless completely detached above grade by a distance of at
least 10 feet.
HPC may consider exceptions to this policy if two or more of the following are met:
• The connector element that links the new and old construction is a breezeway or transparent
corridor, well recessed from the street facing side(s) of the historic resource and the area of two
story construction that appears directly behind the one-story historic resource is minimal
• The footprint of the new addition is closely related to the footprint of the historic resource and the
proposed design is particularly sensitive to the scale and proportions of the historic resource
• The project involves the demolition and replacement of an older addition that is considered to have
been particularly detrimental to the historic resource
• The interior of the resource is fully utilized, containing the same number of usable floors as existed
Historically
Response: Not applicable
10.6 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time.
• An addition shall be distinguishable from the historic building and still be visually compatible with
historic features.
• A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material, or a
modern interpretation of a historic style are all techniques that may be considered to help define
a change from historic construction to new construction.
• Do not reference historic styles that have no basis in Aspen.
• Consider these three aspects of an addition; form, materials, and fenestration. An addition must
relate strongly to the historic resource in at least two of these elements. Departing from the
historic resource in one of these categories allows for creativity and a contemporary design
response.
• Note that on a corner lot, departing from the form of the historic resource may not be allowed.
• There is a spectrum of appropriate solutions to distinguishing new from old portions of a
development. Some resources of particularly high significance or integrity may not be the right
instance for a contrasting addition.
Response – The new addition is primarily a gable roof form with a flat roof one story connection between
the two story landmark and above the garage. The façade material is 3” wide horizontal cedar boards.
76
Form and materials relate strongly to the landmark. The new opening on the north elevation facing Bleeker
Street are vertically oriented and proportional to the historic double hung windows in the landmark. The
windows in the addition facing the interior and alley sides have a more modern shape and style to
differentiate new from historic architecture. The new addition is setback more than 53 feet from the front
(North façade) of the two-story landmark.
10.7 When planning an addition to a building in a historic district, preserve historic alignments on the street.
• Some roof lines and porch eaves on historic buildings may align at approximately the same height.
An addition cannot be placed in a location where these relationships would be altered or obscured.
Response – n/a.
10.8 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building.
• An addition that is lower than, or similar to the height of the primary building, is preferred.
Response – The addition’s highest gable point is lower than the height of the primary building. The
proposed location of the second floor is significantly setback and central to the lot in order to minimize the
massing as visually experienced from Bleeker Street.
10.9 If the addition is taller than a historic building, set it back from significant façades and use a
“connector” to link it to the historic building.
• Only a one-story connector is allowed.
• Usable space, including decks, is not allowed on top of connectors unless the connector has limited
visibility and the deck are shielded with a solid parapet wall.
• In all cases, the connector must attach to the historic resource underneath the eave.
• The connector shall be a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition and the primary building.
• Minimize the width of the connector. Ideally, it is no more than a passage between the historic
resource and addition. The connector must reveal the original building corners. The connector
may not be as wide as the historic resource.
• Any street-facing doors installed in the connector must be minimized in height and width and
accessed by a secondary pathway. See guideline 4.1 for further information.
Response – n/a. The addition is not taller than the historic building. A single-story connecting element is
proposed between the two-story landmark and above the garage.
10.10 Place an addition at the rear of a primary building or set it back substantially from the front to
minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character
to remain prominent.
• Locating an addition at the front of a primary building is inappropriate.
• Additions to the side of a primary building are handled on a case-by-case basis and are approved
based on site specific constraints that restrict rear additions.
• Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not alter the
exterior mass of a building.
Response – The addition is located to the rear of the primary building and is significantly setback from the
front façade a distance of 53’ behind the Victorian and 96’ to the area where directly visible from Bleeker
Street. The proposed addition highlights the original footprint of the landmark and replaces non-historic
additions. A full basement exists and is proposed to be enlarged within the building envelope.
10.11 Roof forms shall be compatible with the historic building.
• A simple roof form that does not compete with the historic building is appropriate.
• On Aspen Victorian properties, a flat roof may only be used on an addition to a gable roofed
structure if the addition is entirely one story in height, or if the flat roofed areas are limited, but
the addition is primarily a pitched roof.
Response – A simple gable roof, common to additions throughout historic Aspen, is the primary form
proposed. A flat roof connecting element is proposed as secondary roof form to link the garage and the
main landmark.
10.12 Design an addition to a historic structure that does not destroy or obscure historically important
architectural features.
• Loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices, and eave lines must be avoided.
77
Response – n/a. The addition does not obscure historically important features, but rather highlights and
restores character defining features.
10.13 When constructing a rooftop addition, keep the mass and scale subordinate to that of the historic
building.
Response – n/a.
10.14 Set a rooftop addition back from the street facing façades to preserve the original profile of the
historic resource.
• Set the addition back from street facing façades a distance approximately equal to its height.
Response – n/a.
10.15 The roof form of a rooftop addition must be in character with the historic building. Response –
n/a.
78
26.415.110.C. Variations:
Dimensional variations are allowed for projects involving designated properties to create
development that is more consistent with the character of the historic property or district than what
would be required by the underlying zoning's dimensional standards.
1. The HPC may grant variances of the Land Use Code for designated properties to allow:
a) Development in the side, rear and front setbacks;
b) Development that does not meet the minimum distance requirements between buildings;
c) Up to five percent (5%) additional site coverage;
d) Less public amenity than required for the on-site relocation of commercial historic properties.
2. In granting a variance, the HPC must make a finding that such a variance:
a) Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district; and/or
b) Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character
of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district.
Response: Variations Requested:
1. 5’ Rear North Yard Setback Variance for Living space above.
2. West Side Yard Setback:
3. Combined Side Yard Setback:
79
26.415.110 F. Floor Area Bonus.
1. In selected circumstances, the HPC may grant up to five hundred additional square feet of
allowable floor area for projects involving designated historic properties. The potential bonus is
determined by net lot area such that a 3,000 – 5,999 square foot lot is eligible for a maximum of two
hundred fifty square foot floor area bonus, a 6,000-8,999 square foot lot is eligible for a maximum of
a three hundred and seventy-five square foot floor area bonus and a 9,000 square foot or larger lot is
eligible for a maximum of a 500 square foot floor area bonus. Floor area bonuses are cumulative.
More than one bonus may be approved up to the maximum amount allowed for the lot. If a property
is subdivided, the maximum bonus will be based on the original lot size, though the bonus may be
allocated amongst the newly created parcels to the extent permitted.
On any lot where a historic property is permitted a duplex density while a non-historic property is
not, the increased allowable floor area that results from the density will be deducted from the
maximum bonus that the property may receive.
To be considered for the bonus, it must be demonstrated that the project meets all of the following
criteria:
a) The historic building is the key element of the property, and the primary entry into the
structure, and the addition is incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of
the historic building; and
Response:
1. The historic residence is the primary entrance into the property. The new addition is
60’-0” back from the front most wall of the historic residence.
2. The new addition creates a smaller footprint on the site and reduces the
nonconformity of the building for setbacks and parking.
3. A required second parking space 8’-6” x 18’-6” is added to the rear of the property off
the Alley where one does not exist now. 2 parking spaces are required per Zoning and
this code has been now met.
4. The existing addition on the historic residence is 1’-0” off of the West property line.
The new addition proposed will be 3’-2” off the property line.
Note:
The historic residence to the West (134 Hopkins) has been approved to build a double
foundation. A corner of that foundation is 1’-3” off the property line between the two
buildings. With the increased setback for our new proposed building, the construction
of the neighbors’ foundation can be completed, with cooperation from Mike Berg hoff,
(owner of 132 Hopkins). The construction of that double basement will require access
on to his property. Without this setback change on the 132 property in this application,
the double foundation for 134 Hopkins cannot be constructed.
5. The proposed addition conforms to the 5’-0” setback at the alley, where today it
the setback is non-conforming at less than 5’-0”.
6. The existing historic home is a simple miner’s cabin which was likely a three-room
miner’s cabin. As the historic photo reveals, there are three doors off of the long side
loaded porch, and one gable spanning the entire length south to north from the front
of the building to the rear for a length of 46’-0“ .The proposed addition to the rear of
80
the historic photo, includes a 10’-0” link to a two-story addition with one gable
spanning south to north and a flat roof below the gable. The design of the building
forms are simple to reflect the simplicity of the historic building’s form. The form of
the gable element on the addition is the same width 14’-0” and maintains the same
12/12 roof slope of the historic residence.
The existing addition has 4 dormers and a large sloping roof scale with the gable
spanning east to west. This is inconsistent with the Historic residence. The proposed
addition relates to the mass and scale of the simple miner’s cabin by emulating the
same gable form and simplicity of footprint and form.
b) If applicable, historically significant site and landscape features from the period of
significant of the historic building are preserved; and the applicant is undertaking multiple
significant restoration actions, including but not limited to, re-opening an enclosed porch,
reinstalling doors and windows in original openings that have been enclosed, removing paint
or other non-original finishes, or removing elements which are covering original materials or
features; and
Using the historic photo, the applicant is electing to restore the house to it original
window and door design. The residence has been remodeled a few times, without regard
for the historical openings. This project will accomplish the rehabilitation of the original
design of the building as follows:
1. The Front south-facing door on the porch will be restored to be the door into the house.
Round knob door hardware will be added.
2. On the East side of the building on the front porch, two double hung windows will be
added as shown on the photograph.
3. On the East side of the building on the front porch, two doors will be added to the
East wall as shown. These doors will be fixed in place.
4. The double hung windows on the East wall of the residence will be removed and two
single double hung windows will be added. Their location will correspond with existing
historical window on the west side of the building at the living area where the fireplace
was and is today.
5. The fireplace detail is evident in the historic photo and that detail will be replicated with
old brick and metal detailing with a stove pipe. ( A stovepipe flue is added to the new
addition to emulate the old stovepipe).
6. A non-orthogonal upper window on the North gable end of the building will be replaced
with two double hung windows to match the proposed new double-hung windows being
added to the house.
7. The west historic window and the south historic window will remain.
8. A double hung window was added to the East wall at the front of the building and it will
remain.
9. The porch and porch detail will be removed during the relocation and restored for re-
attaching.
81
10. The shingles on the South and North gable ends are not historic as per the photo. The
shingles will be removed and matching siding will be milled to match the historic siding
and installed.
11. The base of the building is currently a 12” board. The base will be removed and siding
will be installed to the finish grade as per the historic photo.
12. All historic roofs will have wood shingles.
c) The project retains a historic outbuilding, if one is present, as a free-standing structure
above grade; and
Response: Not applicable.
2. Granting of additional allowable floor area is not a matter of right but is contingent upon the
sole discretion of the HPC and the Commission’s assessments of the merits of the proposed project
and its ability to demonstrate exemplary historic preservation practices.
3. The decision to grant a floor area bonus for major development projects will occur as part of
the approval of a Conceptual Development Plan, pursuant to Subsection 26.415.070.D.
4. Floor area bonuses are only available for single family, duplex, or 100% affordable housing
development. A property shall receive no more than 500 square feet in total. The award of a bonus is
project specific. At such a time that more than 40% of an addition to a historic resource that was
constructed as part of a project which previously received a floor area bonus is demolished, the bonus
may be retained only if the property redevelopment is found to meet the requirements of this
Section.
Response: The applicant is requesting a 116 Sq.Ft. bonus. The existing residence is 1,704
Sq.Ft. In 2007, an agreement with the City of Aspen was recorded that confirmed the
Floor area for 132 at 1702 and allowing for a 116 Sq,.Ft. floor area bonus for a total of
1,820 Sq.Ft. 134 Hopkins received the 116 square foot bonus in 2017.
5. Separate from the floor area bonus described above, on a lot that contains a historic resource,
HPC may exempt wall exposed by a light well that is larger than the minimum required for egress
from the calculation of subgrade floor area only if the light well is internalized such that it is entirely
recessed behind the vertical plane established by the portion of the building facades closest to any
street, the light well is screened from view from the street by building walls or fences, and any
addition that is made to the affected resource simultaneous or after the construction of the light well
is entirely one story.
Response: Not applicable.
82
26.415.090.C Relocation:
Relocation for a building, structure or object will be approved if it is determined that it meets any one of the
following standards:
1. It is considered a noncontributing element of a historic district and its relocation will not affect the
character of the historic district; or
2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on which it is
located
and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the Historic District or property; or
3. The owner has obtained a certificate of economic hardship; or
4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given the
character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not adversely affect the
integrity of the Historic District in which it was originally located or diminish the historic,
architectural
or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated properties; and
Additionally, for approval to relocate all of the following criteria must be met:
1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding the
physical impacts of relocation;
2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and
3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and
preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary financial
security.
Additionally, for approval to relocate all of the following criteria must be met:
1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding the
physical impacts of relocation;
2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and
3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and
preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary financial
security.
Response: The historic home was moved to the current site on Hopkin Avenue in 1988 from the East
side of Aspen. At the time of the move the house was placed on a 60 x 100-foot lot sharing the lot with
another Historic home. The front of the re-located house was oriented to Hopkins Street as it was also
likely oriented originally on the East side of town. In 1988, the house was placed about 12’-10” from the
South property line ( adjacent to Hopkins Ave.), 5’-0” from the East side property line (5’-0” required
setback) and about and about 7’-8” from the existing historic residence to the west. The lot split in
occurred in 2004.
4. Response: The relocation is going to be 12’-8” to the South, to be adjacent to the approved setback
10’-0” setback for the historic resource to the west. This setback is consistent to most historic
properties in Aspen. The relocation will maintain the 5’-0“ setback on the East and allow for a 5’-0”
setback at the alley (5’ required). The relocation is an acceptable preservation method and retains the
integrity of the building.
1. Response: The building is capable of withstanding the impacts of relocation. See attached.
2. N/A. The receiving site is the same site.
3. A plan outlining the safe relocation is attached. Financial Security will be provided for insurance.
83
THIS IS THE PHOTO THAT SHOWS THE ORIGINAL FACADE
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIALS
Existing Historic Resource:
Exterior Siding: Maintain the 4-1/2” horizontal Lap Wood Siding. Where replacement
is needed, wood milled to the exact size and profile will be installed.
Exterior Wood Windows:
Existing Windows: Where window that are remaining, maintain in
original locations, which would be on the West South and West
Elevations and the East Window double hung window
New Windows: New windows are proposed as follows:
1- Single double hung windows per historic photograph on the East
Elevation.
2-2 windows as a pair of double hung window on the porch of the
East Elevation per historic photograph.
3-2 windows as a pair of double hung window on the North
elevation.
New Doors added to Front Porch:
3-0 x 6-8 Wood 4 panel doors per historic Photograph
Will be added with a round knob for entry hardware. The operating
door will be on the South Porch elevation, the remaining two doors
on the East side will be fixed shut.
Roof Material: Maintain the wood shingles on the 12/12 and 4/12 Roof Slope per
the existing condition and the historic photo.
New Chimney Detail:
The working chimney will be replicated with a running bond red brick
base/ metal saps and a stove pipe, per the historic photograph.
Fascia/Corner Boards/Porch Gingerbread Columns and Details:
Maintain the Wood details that currently exist and per historic photo.
Front Porch Floor: Maintain the wood front porch as existing and per historic
photograph.
Walkway to F ront Po rch:
Random slabs of bluestone forming a 3’ walkway from Stree t to Front
Porch.
125
New Rear Addition Proposed:
Main Body of Addition-Exterior Siding:
1 x 6 Horizontal Wood Siding with 1/8” reveal.
1 x 6 Vertical Wood Siding with 1/8” reveal.
Linking element: Metal Paneling - Pattern: to be determined. building
Exterior Metal Windows:
Metal Windows with narrow frame profile: Window Manufacturer to
be determined.
Skylights: 3 skylights as a group at a 12/12 slope.
12/12 Sloping Roof Material:
Metal Standing Seam.
Flat Patio roof @ Link between Historic resource and new addition:
Bluestone Pavers
New Chimney Detail:
The working chimney will be a stove pipe to be the same size as the
replicated historic stove pipe.
Fascia: Metal to match the standing seam metal.
Corner Details: No corner boards will be on the new addition. Horizontal and Vertical
sidings will be mitered at the corner at 45 degrees.
Exposed Steel Cantilever:
East and North Elevation-Rear of property
Exposed Steel beam Size and profile to be determined.
Railing at rear Lightwell on North and East Elevation.:
1.25 ” Diameter stee l tubes horizontal @ 4” on center with 1.25”
Diameter vertical support at the corner.
Roof added above South Window for Sun protection:
4” metal frames. Details to be determined.
5’ Garage apron and parking area: Concrete
126
EXTERIOR PATIO STONE @ LINKFRONT WALKWAYBLUESTONE RANDOMBLUESTONE ON HEATED CONCRETESTANDING SEAM METAL ROOF @ NEW GABLEPAINTED 1 X 6 V-GROOVE HORIZONTAL WOOD SIDINGPAINTED 1 X 6 B-GROOVEVERTICAL WOOD SIDINGALUMINUM METAL WINDOWS AND DOORSWESTERN DOORS AND WINDOWSFUSTIC BRICK DETAIL @BASE OF FP FLUE 127
derson Structural �Engineering
July 25, 2022
Mr. Quinn Garvik
Garvik Construction, Inc.
P.O. Box 2257
Basalt, CO. 81621
RE: Berghoff Residence - 132 W. Hopkins Ave., Aspen CO 81611
Dear Mr. Garvik:
Regarding the subject structure, Anderson Structural Engineering, Inc. (ASE} understands the
remodel scope to include construction of a new basement foundation. Moving the existing house
structure is proposed to enable construction of the new basement foundation. The building
would then be moved back into position on the new foundation. We further understand Bailey
Home Movers will be executing the move. ASE has had experience with similar types of projects
and the methods proposed are feasible. We would recommend a close inspection of the existing
structure prior to the planned move. Further coordination will be required with the micropile
temporary shoring design to ensure adequate capacity for temporary loading during the move.
Some minor damage may be expected to the existing structure during this process. ASE is
available to assist in the sizing of shoring beams, load estimation and bearing designs as needed
by the moving contractor.
Please do not hesitate to call our office for any additional questions.
� Landon Anderson, P.E.
Anderson Structural Engineering, Inc.
823 Grand Avenue, Suite 340 • Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
(970} 984-0320 • email: landon@anderson-structural.com
128
13 2 West Hopkins Outreach to Neighbors
(as of November 16 th, 2021)
• Mike Berghoff personally e -mailed the neighbors at 128 We s t Hopkins
and 134 West Hopkins that he had submitted an application to the City
of Aspen for a Land Use Applica tion for the remodel and addition to his
historic home at 132 West Hopkins . He referre d Gretchen Greenwood,
the Architect and application representative as the person to contact
for additional information.
• Gretchen Greenwood, contacted the owners of 135 We st Hopkins and
210 Sou th First Street regarding the submittal of a Land Use application
to the City for the remodel and addition of the historic resource at 132
West Hopkins. The proposed sit e plan, floor plans and elevations were
re que s ted from the neighbor and were delivere d to the m for the ir
r eview.
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
VERTICAL 1 X 6 WOOD SIDING V GROOVE HORIZONTAL X 6 HORIZONTAL WOOD SIDING METAL PATINA PANELS AT LINK BLUESTONE PATIO PAVING HEATED PATIOSSTANDING SEAM ROOFAGED BRICK AT BASE OF FLUEBLUE STONE WALKWAY FROM STREET TO HOUSEWESTERWINDOWS AND DOOR BLACK ALUMINUM FRAMES145
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
826 ½ Grand Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
P: 970.945.5544 F: 970.945.5558 www.mountaincross-eng.com
July 27, 2022
Ms. Gretchen Greenwood
Gretchen Greenwood & Associates, Inc.
210 South Galena Street, Suite 30
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Urban Runoff Management Plan – 132 West Hopkins Avenue
Dear Ms. Greenwood:
The purpose of this correspondence is to evaluate the remodel of a residence at 132 West Hopkins
Avenue from a storm water perspective and provide design recommendations pertaining to urban
runoff management for incorporation into the site design. These recommendations were generated
from the site plans that were submitted to our office and a site visit performed on June 8, 2022.
Attached are plan sheets that show the design recommendations and details. Also attached are the
drainage calculations that were generated.
The project is at an elevation of approximately 7,900 feet above sea level. An existing Victorian
residence sits on the lot and has an address of 132 West Hopkins Avenue. Ultimately, runoff from
the site will travel to the Roaring Fork River through a series of roadside conveyances and storm
drain appurtenances.
Runoff from snowmelt is typically very large in volume but because it happens over a much longer
time period, the peak flows are usually less than a rainfall event. Also, the Urban Runoff
Management Plan states that they are not necessary at this time. Therefore storm water is defined
in this study to be surface water that is a direct result from a rainfall event.
No major irrigation structures cross the site. The project is located greater than 100’ from any
mapped floodplain boundaries. No other drainage studies specific to this lot are known to exist.
Storm water from the site is evaluated in accordance with the standards of applicable sections of
the City of Aspen, Urban Runoff Management Plan (Code). All flows are listed in units of cubic
feet per second (cfs) unless otherwise noted.
Methodology
The design of a drainage plan begins with a calculation of the flowrate of water that will be
produced from a rainfall event. Since the watershed basins are small (less than 90 acres), per the
Code, the Rational method was used for estimating the amount of runoff that will occur. This
method calculates runoff (Q) in cubic feet per second (cfs) from basin area (A) in acres, runoff
coefficient (C), and rainfall intensity (I) in inches per hour:
146
132 W. Hopkins
July, 2022
Page 2 of 5
Mountain Cross Engineering, Inc.
Civil and Environmental Consulting and Design
826 ½ Grand Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
P: 970.945.5544 F: 970.945.5558 www.mountaincross-eng.com
Q = C * I * A
When acres and inches per hour are used as the units, the conversion into cubic feet per second is
1.008 but is usually ignored and it has been here. The runoff coefficient is a dimensionless
coefficient.
Basin Area
Drainage basins have the characteristic that any precipitation falling within that area will
drain to the same point of discharge. The project basin was delineated from project
topography, project site plan, and building architecture.
Runoff Coefficient
A runoff coefficient is assigned to each basin that gives a relationship between the amount
of precipitation that becomes surface water and the amount of water that is lost to
infiltration, evaporation, or transpiration. The runoff coefficient is a function of drainage
basin soil types, surface area, and/or land-use. Because the land-use and the surface cover
often vary through the project, a composite coefficient is often assigned to each drainage
basin, based on the weight of the areas and their respective coefficients.
Rainfall Intensity
Rainfall intensity is determined from intensity duration frequency curves, or IDF curves.
IDF curves are graphs of, more or less, parallel frequency curves that yield rainfall
intensities based on storm durations.
Frequency: The return frequency of a rainfall storm is the statistical probability
that a given storm event will occur on average in a given period. For instance a 100-
year storm has the statistical probability of occurring once in a 100 year span or it
has a 1% chance of occurring in any given year. It is important to emphasize that
it is based on probability statistics and therefore does not reflect actual storm
frequency. Storms of a 100-year magnitude can occur in sequential years, even in
the same year. The return frequency of design is chosen and then referred to as the
design storm.
Duration: The duration of a storm is chosen to coincide with the time of
concentration. Per the Code, the FAA Overland flow equation was used to estimate
the time of concentration. The parameters needed to determine the flow elements
include length, slope, and the Rational runoff coefficient. The theory states that if
the duration is equal to the time of concentration, the length of time will be adequate
for the entire basin to contribute flow.
Analysis
Project basins were delineated based on a review of existing site conditions, aerial photography,
roof lines, site grading, and project topography. The alley is the boundary to the north. The south
147
132 W. Hopkins
July, 2022
Page 3 of 5
Mountain Cross Engineering, Inc.
Civil and Environmental Consulting and Design
826 ½ Grand Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
P: 970.945.5544 F: 970.945.5558 www.mountaincross-eng.com
boundary is West Hopkins Avenue that is fully guttered with an storm drain system. Neighboring
residences are on the eastern and western boundaries.
The proposed drainage pattern are intended to remain. All proposed storm water is captured and
conveyed by downspouts, inlets, and pipes and directed into a storm structure before being directly
connected to the storm drain in West Hopkins. The project is within the Aspen Mountain Drainage
Basin, detention is not required. In the event of a storm larger than the 100-year, water would
overtop the storm structure and flow to the south into West Hopkins Avenue.
Runoff coefficients were determined based on site soils and percentage imperviousness, per the
appropriate figures in the Code. The hydrologic soil group was determined from Figure 3.1 and
based on the project location is, “B”. Based on the corresponding Figure 3.3 the applicable
coefficients were determined and are shown in the attached calculations. The parameters for
calculating the time of concentration were determined from the site, slope, length, and land uses.
The time of concentrations for the site basin that were calculated are between 4.2 and 17.9 minutes;
5 minutes was the fastest time used. The calculations are attached. The rainfall intensities were
determined by using the appropriate storm curve, duration to match the time of concentration, and
the IDF curve provided in the Code.
The basin flow rates were calculated based on the Rational Method described in the Code for the
existing (pre-project flows) and also for the proposed conditions. The calculations are attached.
Basin Area Coefficient Flow
Description (acres) (cfs)
Historic - 100 yr 0.069 0.35 0.08
Proposed - 100 yr 0.069 0.56 0.24
Swales capture flows and direct water into inlets where 8” PVC storm pipes at a minimum of 1%
slope convey water to a water treatment structure.
Water Quality
The water quality capture volume for the proposed project is calculated to be 27.6 cubic feet, or
207 gallons. Calculations are attached. Treatment is provided in a concrete storm structure with
a sand filter that discharges into the storm drain system within West Hopkins Avenue.
Temporary structures are intended to be used during construction activities. Permanent structures
are intended to be used continually after the construction activities have been completed.
Temporary erosion control measures that are to be employed during construction have been
designed to contain sediment on the site and to mitigate erosion from construction activities. Silt
fencing will be placed around the downhill limits of disturbance. Permanent erosion control
measures are revegetation of disturbed areas and design of conveyances to prevent erosion. The
water quality structure will capture any transported sediment.
148
132 W. Hopkins
July, 2022
Page 4 of 5
Mountain Cross Engineering, Inc.
Civil and Environmental Consulting and Design
826 ½ Grand Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
P: 970.945.5544 F: 970.945.5558 www.mountaincross-eng.com
The site will disturb less than one acre and therefore will not require a permit from CDPHE.
Maintenance
Maintenance will be required periodically for the drainage system. At a minimum the following
should be done bi-annually in the spring and fall: roof gutters, inlets, pipes, and the water quality
structure should be cleaned and cleared of mud and debris. Temporarily, the general notes require
the maintenance and frequent inspection of the silt fence. Attached in the Appendix is a
Maintenance Plan that should be used by the Owner.
Low Impact Development
Principle 1: At the outset of the drainage design, WQCV was anticipated. The site grading was
designed to convey runoff to a WQCV.
Principle 2: The design used the entire site by minimizing and eliminating impervious areas. Were
possible, hardscape was replaced with permeable pavers.
Principle 3: The impervious areas have been minimized as much as practical and still meet the
requirements of the Owner.
Principle 4: Similar to Principal 2, the impervious areas are minimized and swales are natural lined
conveyances to allow for infiltration.
Principle 5: Only WQCV is proposed since the project is in the Aspen Mountain Drainage Basin.
Principle 6: There is an WQCV facility, treating water to enhance the community.
Principle 7: The site has a treatment train approach in that drainage is conveyed to the WQCV
where it is treated prior to conveyance to the storm system of the City.
Principle 8: All features are accessible to make maintenance as easy as possible.
Principle 9: N/A. None of the facilities are located in areas accessible to the general public.
Results
The proposed drainage pattern is intended to remain. All proposed storm water is captured and
conveyed by through a series of downspouts, inlets, and piping and directed into a WQC storm
structure. The structure provides treatment prior to discharge into the City storm drain system.
The project is within the Aspen Mountain Drainage Basin, detention is not required.
There is a certain amount of uncertainty in hydrologic calculations. However, when constructed
in accordance with this report and the drainage plan, it is our opinion that the design will safely
convey the runoff flows and volume of the 10-year design storm event and the WQCV required
for this site and will not cause flooding damage to this or adjacent sites per the requirements of the
City of Aspen.
149
150
151
152
Site
Location
Area
E
153
Area
P
154
DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS for
132 W. Hopkins Avenue
7/27/2022
Drainage Area :Existing/Historic
Surface description:Unimproved
PROPERTY GENERAL SURFACE DATA
Total Drainage Area:3,000 sq. ft.0.069 ac.
RUNOFF COEFFICIENT
imperviousness =0%
HSG =B from Fig 3.2
C100 =0.35
C10 =0.15
C5 =0.08
C2 =0.03
100%0.069
TOTAL BASIN ACERAGE 0.069
TIME OF CONCENTRATION
Overland Flow Time Length Slope C5 Tc
Upstream Elevation 7896.10 100 0.011 0.08 17.85
Dnstream Elevation 7895.00
Channel Flow Time none Length Slope K Tt
Upstream Elevation 7895.00 0.0 10.000 7.000 0.00
Dnstream Elevation 7895.00
Total 17.85 min
RUNOFF
Existing/Historic
Intensity Flowrate
(in/hr)(cfs)
2-yr Storm 1.2 0.00
10-yr Storm 2.1 0.02
100-yr Storm 3.5 0.08
NOTES:
-Soils are hydrologic soil group B from Figure 3.1
-K 7.0 based on lawn
155
DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS for
132 W. Hopkins Avenue
7/27/2022
Drainage Area :Proposed
Surface description:Turf, landscaping, roof area, and hardscape
PROPERTY GENERAL SURFACE DATA
Total Drainage Area:3,000 sq. ft.0.069 ac.
RUNOFF COEFFICIENT sq. ft. or
Land Use est. %acres imperviousness =59%
Building Roof 1700 0.039 HSG =B from Fig 3.2
Permeable Pavers 273 0.006 C100 =0.56
Hardscape and Paving 74 0.002 C10 =0.46
Landscaped turf and planters 953 0.022 C5 =0.41
Pine and Aspen 0%0.000 C2 =0.36
Sage and Grasses 0%0.000
TOTAL BASIN ACERAGE 0.069
TIME OF CONCENTRATION
Overland Flow Time Length Slope C5 Tc
Upstream Elevation 7895.00 13 0.023 0.41 3.41
Dnstream Elevation 7894.70
Channel Flow Time Length Slope K Tt
Upstream Elevation 7893.70 101.0 0.011 20.000 0.81
Dnstream Elevation 7892.60
Total 4.22 min
use 5 min Tc
RUNOFF
Proposed
Intensity Flowrate
(in/hr)(cfs)
2-yr Storm 2.1 0.052
10-yr Storm 3.7 0.117
100-yr Storm 6.3 0.243
NOTES:
-Soils are hydrologic soil group B from Figure 3.1
-K 20 based on hard channel
156
157
WQC Volume
Level 1: Over turf to capture
Tot Imp =59 %
from Fig. 8.14 yields
Eff Imp =55 %
from Fig. 8.13 yields
WQCV =0.11 watershed-in
Area =0.069 acres
Req'd Volume =27.6 cubic feet
158
Channel Report
Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. Wednesday, Jul 27 2022
6 inch
Circular
Diameter (ft) = 0.50
Invert Elev (ft) = 1.00
Slope (%) = 1.00
N-Value = 0.013
Calculations
Compute by: Known Q
Known Q (cfs) = 0.25
Highlighted
Depth (ft) = 0.24
Q (cfs) = 0.250
Area (sqft) = 0.09
Velocity (ft/s) = 2.67
Wetted Perim (ft) = 0.77
Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.26
Top Width (ft) = 0.50
EGL (ft) = 0.35
0 1
Elev (ft)Section
0.75
1.00
1.25
1.50
1.75
2.00
Reach (ft)159
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
826 ½ Grand Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
P: 970.945.5544 F: 970.945.5558 www.mountaincross-eng.com
Maintenance Plan
The following is a checklist to aid the Property Owner of ongoing drainage system maintenance for
132 West Hopkins Avenue in Aspen, CO. The site will require more frequent cleaning of sediment
initially. As the site matures, maintenance should be performed after large magnitude rainfall
events and at the changing of the seasons. Damaged, cracked, or missing items should be repaired
and replaced as discovered. This is not intended to be an all-inclusive list:
Landscape Areas:
• Verify positive drainage and grade any ponding areas to drain
• Clean sediment and debris
Permeable Pavers:
• Clean off deposited sediment and debris
• Repair and/or replace broken and damaged items
Pipes and Inlets:
• Clear inlet grates of debris
• Clear piping of any obstructions
• Clean sumps and piping of deposited mud and debris
• Check offsite end is clear
• Check exposed PVC piping for UV degradation and cracking
Heat Tape and Snowmelt:
• Check for correct operation in pipes, roof gutters, and downspouts and repair as necessary
• Check for correct operation in trench drains and drywell and repair as necessary
• Check for correct operation in snowmelt area and repair as necessary
• Turn on heat tape for cold seasons and turn off for warm seasons
Water Quality Capture Volume Sedimentation Vault and Storm Structures
• Remove sediment, debris, and litter from structure
• Clear mud and debris from inlets and outlets
• Drain the structure via pumping and clean by jetting and pumping to remove sediment
Overall:
• Check site for differential settlement creating any areas of ponding and grade to drain
• Check site for locations where runoff may breach and bypass the drainage system and correct
• Keep roof gutters and downspouts clear of debris
160
F51A26E3CDEAFB9748BDC512639748ACACph 970.945.5544 fx 970.945.5558 www.mountaincross-eng.com826 1/2 Grand Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601ENGINEERING, INC.Civil and Environmental Consulting and DesignMOUNTAIN CROSSC1Demolition & UtilityGretchen Greenwood ArchitectsNOTES:1. SEWER LINE TO BE CONSTRUCTED PER SPECIFICATIONS OF ASPENCONSOLIDATED SANITATION DISTRICT.2. WATER LINE TO BE CONSTRUCTED PER SPECIFICATIONS OF CITY OF ASPENWATER DEPARTMENT.3. CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE TO OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY PERMITS AND/ORAPPROVALS PRIOR TO BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION.4. TRAFFIC CONTROL TO BE PER MUTCD AND APPLICABLE SPECIFICATIONS.5. EXISTING UTILITY LOCATIONS ARE ESTIMATED. CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLETO COORDINATE LOCATING ALL UTILITIES, POTHOLING IF NECESSARY.CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGE TO UTILITY LINES.6. CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE WITH GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER FORRECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING TRENCH STABILITY, SAFETY, AND SHORING.7. MAINTAIN 18" SEPARATION BETWEEN ANY UTILITIES THAT MAY NEED TO BECROSSED. IF 18" CAN NOT BE MAINTAINED NOTIFY ENGINEER FORALTERNATIVES.132 West Hopkins AvenueKnow what'sbelow.before you dig.CallRBDCAEKnow what'sbelow.before you dig.CallRUtility PlanExisting Conditions & Demolition PlanA161
Vicinity MapGENERAL NOTES:1. The erosion control measures are shown schematically on the plan sheets. The Contractor isresponsible for placing the erosion control measures as required to protect the site from erosionand transportation of sediment from the site. The Owner's representative and the Engineer mayrequire more or less erosion control measures.2. Erosion control measures shall be placed before construction begins and/or placed immediatelyafter disturbance. Construction activities shall be phased to minimize soil exposure. Sedimenttrapping practices shall be installed and stabilized before site grading or other construction isinitiated.3. All disturbed areas and soil stockpiles shall be surface roughened, mulched, or seeded andmulched to protect from erosive forces if they will remain exposed and inactive for periods longerthan fourteen (14) days, or if soil will be exposed during winter, so erosion will not occur duringspring snow melt. Disturbed areas shall be mulched, or seeded and mulched within seven (7) daysafter final grade is reached.4. The contractor shall inspect all erosion and sediment control devices after any precipitationevent during construction, and make any necessary repairs immediately thereafter. At a minimum,erosion and sediment control devices shall be inspected monthly. An inspection log shall be kepton-site for review by Officials until the project is complete.5. Dust control during construction shall be provided by the use of watering. Disturbed areas andstockpiles shall be sprayed with water as necessary to control dust.6. Straw or hay bales will be placed at any stormwater runoff points of concentration as necessaryto prevent erosion and sedimentation from disturbed areas.7. Silt fence shall be installed along the edge of areas disturbed by construction and aroundstockpiles. Silt fence shall be staked every six feet and buried six inches at the bottom of the fence.8. Topsoil shall be spread on all disturbed areas and revegetated per the landscape plan. If thelandscape plan does not specify vegetation in area disturbed, area shall be seeded with Co-op"Mountain Mix" native grass seed hand broadcast at a rate of 30 pounds/acre, raked in andmulched with certified weed free straw mulch. The seed may be drill seeded as an alternative tohand broadcast, raked and mulched. Grass or straw mulch shall be crimped in place.9. Contractor responsible to obtain all necessary permits and/or approvals prior to beginningconstruction.10. Contractor responsible to coordinate locating all utilities, potholing if necessary. Contractorresponsible for any and all damage to utility lines.11. Contractor to coordinate with geotechnical engineer for recommendations concerning trenchstability, safety, and shoring.12. Concrete shall conform to the requirements of ACI 301. Minimum strength: f'c = 3000 psi at28 days. Placement shall conform to ACI 614.13. Rebar shall conform to the requirements of ASTM A615 Deformed Steel, Grade 60. Concreteexposed to earth: 3" clear. Concrete exposed to weather: 2" clear.14. Maintain 18" separation between any utilities that may need to be crossed. If 18" can not bemaintained notify engineer for alternatives.15. Project benchmark per project surveyor. Call to coordinate.16. Stockpiles to be located on-site in designated location. Stockpiles to be covered to preventoffsite material transport.17. Temporary restroom facilities to be provided by porta-potty pumped and maintained byqualified contractor.18. Concrete washout to be kiddie-pool type and disposed of in appropriate location.19. Under no circumstances shall floor drains or the surface drainage system be tied and/orconnected to the subsurface, foundation, and/or under slab drainage system.F51A26E3CDEAFB9748BDC512639748ACAC78967895ph 970.945.5544 fx 970.945.5558 www.mountaincross-eng.com826 1/2 Grand Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601ENGINEERING, INC.Civil and Environmental Consulting and DesignMOUNTAIN CROSSC2Grading & DrainageFGHIGretchen Greenwood Architects132 West Hopkins AvenueJGGGGFGGHEIIIIIIIII162
F51A26E3CDEAFB9748BDC512639748ACAC78967895LEGEND@7.5"LIGHT WELLGRATE COVERLADDER ACCESSF51A26E3CDEAFB9748BDC512639748W/D78967895KKKKKLph 970.945.5544 fx 970.945.5558 www.mountaincross-eng.com826 1/2 Grand Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601ENGINEERING, INC.Civil and Environmental Consulting and DesignMOUNTAIN CROSSC3Foundation Drain & Erosion ControlEROSION CONTROL LEGENDOMNDCDCDCONMKnow what'sbelow.before you dig.CallRGretchen Greenwood Architects132 West Hopkins AvenueErosion Control PlanFoundation Drain Plan163
Not to ScaleC CLEANOUTDNot to ScaleABSEWER SERVICE CONNECTION DETAIL WATER SERVICE CONNECTIONNot to ScalePIPE SIZES TO MATCHSEE PLANS FOR SIZESNot to ScaleICONCRETESUPPORT(TYPICAL)ENCASE WYEIN CONCRETE DOWNSPOUT & CLEANOUT DETAIL PROVIDE ADEQUATESUPPORT FOR PIPE BEFOREAND DURING BACKFILLINGCLEANOUT BRASSOR CAST IRON CAPAND COVERFROM ROOF DRAINSAND DOWNSPOUTSSEE ARCH DWGS FORCONTINUATIONHEAT TAPE FROM ROOFDRAINS. COORD. WITHELECTRICIANHEAT TAPE ALL PIPESLESS THAN 48" DEEP OR NOTIN SNOWMELTED AREASCOORD. WITH ELECTRICIANHEAT TAPE THE DAYLIGHTEND OF PIPE TO PROTECTFROM FREEZINGCOORDINATE WITHELECTRICIANTO POWER SOURCECOORD. WITHELECTRICIANCOORD. METHOD OFPENETRATIONWITH ARCHITECTFOR AESTHETICSVARIOUS TYPES OF OUTLETSWITH WATERTIGHT ADAPTERSFOR:ADS N-12SDR-35 SEWERSCHEDULE 40 DWVCORRUGATED PVCRIBBED PVCDUCTILE IRON GRATEW / CAST IRON FRAMEVARIABLE INVERTHEIGHT VARIESVARIABLEOVERALLHEIGHTVARIESNYLOPLAST INLET BOX W/REMOVEABLECAST IRON GRATING, ORAPPROVED EQUAL12"12"6" SUMP OR ASSHOWN ON PLANS PAVEMENT RECONSTRUCTION SECTION ENot to ScalePERFORATION DEPTH 4'IF WINDOW WELL IS TO BEFILLED, BACKFILL WITH1-1/2" SCREENED ROCKINSTALL COARSE FILTERFABRIC AROUNDPERFORATED PIPE4" PVC SOLID PIPE THROUGHSLEEVE (SEE STRUCTURAL FORSLEEVE DETAILS) SLOPE CONCRETETO DRAIN AT 2% MIN. INTO PIPE. WINDOW WELL DRAIN FOOTING12"MIN.Not to ScaleADJACENT INTERIORSLAB ELEV.FOUNDATIONDRAIN BY OTHERSEGGRESSWINDOWWELL2%4" PVC SOLID PIPEAND 90° BEND4" PVC UNIONTRANSITION FROMSOLID PIPE TOPERFORATED4" PVC PERFORATED PIPE WITH CAPAT GRAVEL SURFACE IS ONLYNECESSARY IF WINDOW WELL IS TOBE FILLED WITH GRAVELFG AREA INLET DETAIL Not to Scale PERMEABLE PAVERS Not to ScaleH2%ph 970.945.5544 fx 970.945.5558 www.mountaincross-eng.com826 1/2 Grand Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601ENGINEERING, INC.Civil and Environmental Consulting and DesignMOUNTAIN CROSSC4DetailsGretchen Greenwood Architects132 West Hopkins Avenue164
N SILT FENCE VEHICLE TRACKING PAD O ROCK SOCK MNot to ScaleNot to ScaleNot to ScaleWOVEN GEOTEXTILE PER ASTMD4571-AOS US STD. SIEVE #50 TO#70, ASTM D4633 MIN. TRAPEZOIDALTEAR STRENGTH 100X60 LBS. MIN.COE SPECIFIED OPEN AREA OF 4% WATER QUALITY SEDIMENTATION VAULT JNot to Scale85% ASTM C-33 SAND15% TOP SOIL AND LARGEORGANIC MATTER, MIXED4" PVC UNION (3)4" PERFORATED PVC, WRAPPED INWOVEN GEOTEXTILE, AND CENTEREDIN 8" OF WASHED GRAVELMIDDLE COMPARTMENTTO BE WQCV = 27.6 CUBICFEET = 207 GALLONS MIN= 4.67' W X 3' L X 2' D4" GAP FOR OVERFLOWAT THE TOP OF BAFFLE4" GAP FOR OVERFLOWAT THE TOP OF BAFFLE6" MIN. GAP4" PVC SEPTICTEE EQUALLYSPACED (2)4" PVC SEPTICTEE EQUALLYSPACED (2)CORE DRILL AND GROUT INPLACE WITH WATER-TIGHTNON-SHRINK GROUTCORE DRILL AND GROUT INPLACE WITH WATER-TIGHTNON-SHRINK GROUTINVERT = 30" FROMBOTTOM OF VAULTTHREE COMPARTMENT1,000 GAL. SEPTIC TANK.WITH THE MIDDLECOMPARTMENT 36" MIN.4" SOLID PVC STUB (3)4" MIN.INLETS FROM STORM SYSTEM.SEE PLANS. CORE DRILL VAULTAND AND GROUT PIPES IN-PLACEWITH WATER-TIGHT NON-SHRINKGROUT AS NECESSARYGRATED LID WITH RISERS RAISEDFLUSH WITH FINISHED GRADE (3)6" PVC STORM DRAIN @ 2%6" PVC OVERFLOW AND6" PVC OUTLET (STACKED)CORE DRILL AND GROUT IN PLACE WITH WATER-TIGHTNON-SHRINK GROUT. TIE INTO EXISTING 6" PVC LINE6" PVC UNION6" SOLID PVC6" PVC DRAIN OVERFLOWMATCH EX. INVERT.CORE DRILL AND GROUT INPLACE WITH WATER-TIGHTNON-SHRINK GROUT6" SOLID PVC6" PVC UNION FOUNDATION DRAIN DRYWELL Not to ScaleLKPERFORATION DEPTH 4'SET THE MANHOLE LEVEL ON3"-6" OF SCREENED ROCKBACKFILL AROUND THEPERFORATED MANHOLEWITH A MINIMUM OF 12"THICK OF 1-1/2"SCREENED ROCKINSTALL COARSE FILTERFABRIC AROUND ALLSIDES AND OVER THESCREENED ROCKGRATE FLUSH W/FINISHED GRADE,GRADE RINGSAS NECESSARYSEE PLANS FOR ELS.24" DIAM. CAST IRONFRAME AND SOLID LIDCONE SECTION ORSOLID CONC. LID4' DIA.OPEN BOTTOMFOOTING12" MINPer Plan PERIMETER/FOUNDATION DRAIN DETAIL INVERT4" MIN4" MIN4" MINVARIESSEE PLAN12" MINSEE ARCH. OR STRUCT.DWGS. FOR FOUNDATIONWALL, SLAB, AND FOOTINGDETAILSFOOTINGFOUNDATION WALLNON-WOVEN GEOFABRIC CLASS 2CONTINUOUS WRAPPED AROUND GRAVEL,UNDER DRAIN, AND UP FOOTING &FOUNDATION WALLPROPERLY PREPAREDBACKFILL PERRECOMMENDATIONS OFGEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER4" PERFORATED PVC SCH40WRAPPED WITH GEOFABRIC1% MIN SLOPE TO DAYLIGHTCONCRETE SLABGRAVEL DEPTH24" MIN11NO TRENCHING FOR PIPEALLOWED IN 1:1 BEARING AREAFREE DRAINING GRAVEL:MINUS 2" AGGREGATEW/ 50% MIN. RETAINED ON #4 SIEVE AND<2% PASSING THE #200 SIEVE PER THERECOMMENDATIONS OF THEGEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERSLOPE GROUND AWAY FROMFOUNDATION WALL PERRECOMMENDATIONS OFGEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERFOUNDATION WALLWITH WATERPROOFINGSPECIFIED BY OTHERSNot to Scale6" SOLID PVC6" SOLID WYEph 970.945.5544 fx 970.945.5558 www.mountaincross-eng.com826 1/2 Grand Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601ENGINEERING, INC.Civil and Environmental Consulting and DesignMOUNTAIN CROSSC5DetailsGretchen Greenwood Architects132 West Hopkins Avenue165
ph 970.945.5544 fx 970.945.5558 www.mountaincross-eng.com826 1/2 Grand Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601ENGINEERING, INC.Civil and Environmental Consulting and DesignMOUNTAIN CROSSC6SPECIFICATIONSGretchen Greenwood Architects132 West Hopkins Avenue166
ph 970.945.5544 fx 970.945.5558 www.mountaincross-eng.com826 1/2 Grand Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601ENGINEERING, INC.Civil and Environmental Consulting and DesignMOUNTAIN CROSSC7SPECIFICATIONSGretchen Greenwood Architects132 West Hopkins Avenue167
Residence132 West Hopkins AvenueAspen, ColoradoTemporary Micropile Wall*for Excavation ShoringGrade-1. Temporary Micropile Wall - CoverGrade-2. Temporary Micropile Wall - LocationGrade-3. Temporary Micropile Wall - ProfileGrade-4. Temporary Micropile Wall - General NotesGrade-5. Temporary Micropile Wall - SectionsGrade-6. Temporary Micropile Wall - Typical Sections and Details* These plans and specifications are designed to provide temporary excavation support with a finite design life during construction operations.Long-term earth pressure loads shall be included in the structural design.Temporary Micropile WallCoverAugust 2, 2022Residence132 West Hopkins AvenuePO Box 1080 Silt, CO 81601Phone: (970) 230-920822-036R-D1Grade-1of 6RDJProject Number:Date:Sheet Number:Prepared by:Project:Set RevisionsDateRevision/IssuePrepared byB&Y Drilling, Inc.Designed For:Seal:168
IIGGIIFIIGGI7896IIGGIHG7895FJ4
2
AC
AC
A
B
D
E
E
F
F 78 5
1
3
5
6
7
8
9
C
1
2
3
469
Proposed MicropileCap LocationMicropile WallBegin/End0+10Grade-50+200+400+600+801+001+20 1+401+601+802+002+20Micropile WallTurn Lines 1 and 2Micropile WallTurn Line 3Micropile WallTurn Line 4Micropile WallTurn Line 5Micropile WallTurn Lines 6 and 7Micropile WallTurn Lines 8 and 9Micropile WallTurn Lines 10 and 110+50Grade-51+15
Grade
-
5 1+50Grade-5Temporary Micropile WallLocationAugust 2, 2022Residence132 West Hopkins Avenue22-036R-D1Grade-2of 6RDJProject Number:Date:Sheet Number:Prepared by:Project:Sheet RevisionsDateRevision/IssuePrepared byB&Y Drilling, Inc.Designed For:Seal:NSCALE: 1" = 5'502.55Notes:1. Base plan by Mountain Cross Engineering, Inc. dated 07.14.2022.2. For utility installation, trench to back of micropile wall. Hand dig betweenmicropiles and extend utilities through wall.PO Box 1080 Silt, CO 81601Phone: (970) 230-9208169
7860791079007890788079107860790078907880Elevation (feet)787078700+00.0 Begin WallSystem 1EG = 7895.0TW = 7893.0BE = 7883.0
0+50 Elevation (feet)Micropile Wall Cap (TW)Existing GradeBottom of Excavation (BE)0+19.0 Turn Line 1System 1
EG = 7895.0
TW = 7893.0
BE = 7883.0
0+23.0 Turn Line 2
System 1
EG = 7895.0
TW = 7893.0
BE = 7883.0
0+27.0 Turn Line 3
Change System 1 to 2
EG = 7895.0
TW = 7893.0
BE = 7883.0
1+07.6 Turn Line 4
System 2
EG = 7896.0
TW = 7894.0
BE = 7883.0
1+00
1+50
2+00
1+26.0 Turn Line 5
System 2
EG = 7896.0
TW = 7894.0
BE = 7883.0
1+41.8 Turn Line 6
System 2
EG = 7895.8
TW = 7893.8
BE = 7883.0
1+46.3 Turn Line 7
System 2
EG = 7895.8
Step TW = 7893.8 to 7895.8
BE = 7883.0
1+54.1 Turn Line 8
System 2
EG = 7895.7
Step TW = 7895.7 to 7893.7
BE = 7883.0
1+58.6 Turn Line 9
System 2
EG = 7895.7
TW = 7893.7
BE = 7883.0
1+95.2 Turn Line 10
System 2
EG = 7895.3
TW = 7893.3
BE = 7883.0
1+99.9 Turn Line 11
System 2
EG = 7895.2
TW = 7893.2
BE = 7883.0
2+24.3 End Wall
System 2
EG = 7895.0
TW = 7893.0
BE = 7883.0 Existing GradeTemporary Slopeat 1.5H:1VTemporary Slopeat 1.5H:1V7883.07883.0Temporary Micropile WallProfileAugust 2, 2022Residence132 West Hopkins Avenue22-036R-D1Grade-3of 6RDJProject Number:Date:Sheet Number:Prepared by:Project:Sheet RevisionsDateRevision/IssuePrepared byB&Y Drilling, Inc.Designed For:Seal:PO Box 1080 Silt, CO 81601Phone: (970) 230-9208SCALE:HORIZONTAL 1" = 10'VERTICAL1" = 10'ABBREVIATIONS:EG - Existing GradePG - Proposed GradeTW - Top of WallBE - Bottom of Excavation170
1.0 Temporary Micropile Wall Materials1.1 Micropile bars - Williams T40N Injection Bars or equivalent (System 2) - Williams T52N Injection Bars or equivalent (System 1)fy=85,000 psi1.3 Grout - Grout may be neat-cement or with sand, with Type II cement in accordance with ASTM C150. Water-cement ratio should be between 0.4 and 0.6.f'c=3,000 psi (28-day strength)1.4 End hardware - Nuts shall be in accordance with manufacturer's recommendations. Bearing plate shall be in accordance with ASTM A36, Grade 36.1.5 Concrete - Concrete mix shall consist of Type II cement in accordance with ASTM C150, potable water and normal weight aggregate in accordance withASTM C33. Air entrainment is not required. Admixtures, if used, should be non-corrosive to steel. f'c=3,000 psi (28-day strength)1.6 Cap reinforcement shall be in accordance with ASTM A615. fy=60,000 psi1.7 Welded wire mesh shall be in accordance with ASTM A1064.2.0 Temporary Micropile Wall Construction Sequence2.1 Install micropiles at the locations and to the lengths shown on the plans. Micropile injection bars shall be installed per manufacturers recommendations.Micropile locations may vary by up to 3".2.2 Install end hardware and waler bars as shown on the drawings.2.3 Pour concrete cap to the minimum thickness shown on the drawings and to attain the minimum coverages specified herein. Cold weather protectionmeasures may be necessary.2.4 After concrete and grout has attained 80% of specified strength, complete excavation to full depth of wall not to exceed maximum wall heights as shown onthe drawings. Excavation shall extend to grout/micropile columns (cap may be undermined). Soil should not be left between excavation face andgrout/micropile columns.3.0 Temporary Micropile Wall Design Parameters3.1 The micropile shoring was designed in general accordance with procedures contained in the FHWA "Micropile Design and Construction Reference Manual",Publication No. FHWA NHI-05-039, December 2005.3.2 The following strength parameters were assumed for the subsoils based on our experience in the area with similar projects.fg(deg) (psf) (pcf)Sand and Gravel 36100 130 An experienced geotechnical engineer should verify the above design parameters during construction.3.3 Global Factor of Safety = 1.3 min.3.4 Surcharge Loading - The excavation shoring systems are designed to accommodate normal construction surcharge of material and light trucks assuming a250 psf loading, not heavy loads such as cranes (wheels or outriggers), concrete pumpers (wheels or outriggers) or large stockpiles thatapply a ground pressure of 1,000 psf or greater. Heavy loads shall not be placed within 6 feet of micropile cap unless approved by RJEngineering with the exception of the alley where normal highway and roadway loading is allowed.3.5 No groundwater table was assumed. If groundwater is encountered during excavation, the excavation shall not continue and the site shall be dewatered tobelow the base of planned excavation elevation prior to completion of the excavation.3.6 The micropile walls lateral deflection may be up to about 0.003' per foot of excavation depth at the ROW, and no adverse deflection of the ground surface atthe private property line based on anticipated subsurface conditions.4.0 Special Provisions4.1 Wall geometry used in design was based on plans provided by the client.4.2 This design is valid only for B&Y Drilling, Inc. at the subject site.4.3 Excavation shall extend to micropile columns. During the excavation process, material should not be left between the excavation face and the grout/micropilecolumn.4.4 The micropile wall designs are valid only for dry surface and subsurface conditions. If surface water or groundwater is encountered during excavation orinstallation, RJ Engineering should be notified immediately and the wall may be redesigned at the discretion of RJ Engineering. Surface and subsurfacedrainage from adjacent properties should not be discharged at the top or through the micropile wall. Saturated soils may result in materials piping out frombetween micropiles resulting in failure and/or excessive wall movements.4.5 The design life on this micropile wall is 12 weeks. Design life is defined by the beginning of excavation to the construction of the foundation wall. If theduration of the project exceeds the 12 week duration, RJ Engineering shall be contacted to evaluate the performance of the system and determine if thedesign life can be extended.4.6 RJ Engineering is not responsible for maintaining slope stability above and below the micropile wall during construction.4.7 There appears to be no known utility conflicts with installation of the micropile walls. Utility locations presented shall be field verified prior to micropile wallinstallation.4.8 RJ Engineering is not responsible for quality control, quality assurance, changed conditions or problems resulting from improper construction techniques.4.9 RJ Engineering is not responsible for construction site safety.4.10 RJ Engineering is not responsible for wall layout. General contractor or representative of the general contractor is responsible for micropile wall layout.Temporary Micropile WallGeneral NotesAugust 2, 2022Residence132 West Hopkins Avenue22-036R-D1Grade-4of 6RDJProject Number:Date:Sheet Number:Prepared by:Project:Sheet RevisionsDateRevision/IssuePrepared byB&Y Drilling, Inc.Designed For:Seal:PO Box 1080 Silt, CO 81601Phone: (970) 230-9208171
NORTH SIDEMicropile Wall - System 1Station 0+10EAST SIDEMicropile Wall - System 2Station 0+50SOUTH SIDEMicropile Wall - System 2Station 1+15WEST SIDEMicropile Wall - System 2Station 1+50Temporary Micropile WallSectionsAugust 2, 2022Residence132 West Hopkins Avenue22-036R-D1Grade-5of 6RDJProject Number:Date:Sheet Number:Prepared by:Project:Sheet RevisionsDateRevision/IssuePrepared byB&Y Drilling, Inc.Designed For:Seal:Notes:1. The micropile wall shall be constructed entirely within property boundaries.PO Box 1080 Silt, CO 81601Phone: (970) 230-9208SCALE:HORIZONTAL 1" = 10'VERTICAL1" = 10'ABBREVIATIONSEG - Existing GradePG - Proposed GradeTW - Top of WallBE - Bottom of Excavation172
Injection BarField Installed GroutMICROPILE CROSSSECTION A-A'BoreholeMICROPILE BEARING PLATEFRONT VIEW6"Micropile Hole Diameter= Bar Diameter +1/4"6"1/2" MinHex NutBearing PlateMICROPILE DETAILBARGroutA'AWilliams Injection Bar6" Min9"ColumnMICROPILE BEARING PLATESIDE VIEWCross Bar,24" OCVertical PileMICROPILE CAP PLAN VIEWVERTICAL SYSTEMMICROPILE CAP CROSS SECTIONVERTICAL SYSTEM12"18"Cross Bar, #4 RebarContinuous Waler,#4 Rebar3"2" min.3,000 psi ConcreteGroutVertical PileContinuous Waler,#4 RebarNotes: Vertical piles 12" center to center withback row at 12" offset12"12"Continuous Waler,#4 RebarContinuous Waler,#4 RebarTYPICAL SECTIONMICROPILE WALL - SYSTEM 113 ft. MAX CUT Top of Cap/Wall El.(See Sheet Grade-3)Micropile CapSee DetailsDesign Height (DH)13 ft. max.VariesVaries2.0 ft. max.Proposed TemporaryExcavation at 1.5H:1VProposedExcavationRL = 20 ft.Williams T52NInjection Bar Bottom of Excavation El.(See Sheet Grade-3)Existing GradeTYPICAL SECTIONMICROPILE WALL - SYSTEM 213 ft. MAX CUT Top of Cap/Wall El.(See Sheet Grade-3)Micropile CapSee DetailsDesign Height (DH)13 ft. max.VariesVaries2.0 ft. max.Proposed TemporaryExcavation at 1.5H:1VProposedExcavationRL = 20 ft.Williams T40NInjection Bar Bottom of Excavation El.(See Sheet Grade-3)Existing GradeTemporary Micropile WallTypical Sections and DetailsAugust 2, 2022Residence132 West Hopkins Avenue22-036R-D1Grade-6of 6RDJProject Number:Date:Sheet Number:Prepared by:Project:Sheet RevisionsDateRevision/IssuePrepared byB&Y Drilling, Inc.Designed For:Seal:NOT TO SCALEAbbreviations:RL - Reinforcement LengthDH - Design HeightPO Box 1080 Silt, CO 81601Phone: (970) 230-9208NOTES:1. See Sheet Grade-3 for top of wall/cap and bottom of excavation elevations.173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
Staff Memo – HPC Discussion
Lighting Code Update
November 9, 2022
Page 1 of 3
MEMORANDUM
TO: City of Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Ben Anderson, Deputy Director, Community Development
Haley Hart, Long-Range Planner
Sophie Varga, Zoning Enforcement Officer
MEMO DATE: November 3, 2022
MEETING DATE: November 9, 2022
RE: Presentation and Discussion of Proposed Amendments to the Land
Use Code – Outdoor Lighting Requirements
REQUEST OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISISION:
The Commission is asked to review the 50% Draft of a proposed code change (Exhibit A), think
about your own experiences and perceptions of exterior lighting in Aspen, and come prepared to
the meeting with questions or comments. The purpose of the discussion at the meeting will be to
introduce HPC to some of the difficulties that are present in the current code, present the basic
approach and thinking behind the potential code update, and respond to Commission comments
and questions. HPC’s feedback will help staff and the consultant give direction to the draft as it
progresses. At this time, staff is not asking for a formal recommendation.
BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY:
Section 26.575.150 of the Land Use Code (LUC) defines the regulations related to outdoor lighting
on private or public property within the City of Aspen. It is important to note that these rules do
not apply to any lighting in the right-of-way, most importantly to Aspen’s system of streetlights.
This section of the LUC was last updated in 2003, and because of the significant changes in
lighting technology since this time, the standards are thoroughly out of date and do not address
new lighting technologies or respond effectively to new trends and best practices in current lighting
design.
Specific Issues with the current code:
1. The current code is fully prescriptive – meaning that it focuses on specific types of
lighting that is allowed or disallowed with little consideration of performance, or the
quality of light that is generated on a particular property. Performance-based codes
184
Staff Memo – HPC Discussion
Lighting Code Update
November 9, 2022
Page 2 of 3
look more holistically at how the building performs to a particular standard which is
inclusive of energy usage and total lighting output.
2. The focus on prescriptive requirements is particularly problematic when the lighting
types that are regulated by the code are no longer the product now used in most
applications – most notably LED lighting. This makes it extremely difficult for lighting
designers to design in conformance with our code and for the City’s zoning officers
to evaluate development proposals. Additionally, it creates uncertainty for property
owners when making decisions about replacement fixtures when updating or
retrofitting existing lighting.
3. The current code mostly creates a single set of standards for lighting across different
land use types and areas of town. For example, most of the lighting standards are
the same for both residential and commercial uses. Additionally, there is little
differentiation in the lighting rules between the center of town and areas that are on
the outskirts and more remote.
4. The current code mostly applies the same standards to public property as it does to
private property and does not recognize possible differences. Example: a city park
may need additional pathway lighting or security lighting that is not needed in the
same way on a private residence yet is technically prohibited by current code.
5. The current code does not address light trespass impacts from light generated from
inside of a building. This should be inclusive of both the commercial core as well as
residential units and parcels.
6. While the intent statement of the current code identifies the importance of dark skies
and the value of small-town character, there are many aspects of the code that do
not utilize current best practices in promoting these values through lighting quality.
Community Development has retained the services of Clanton and Associates, a Boulder-based
lighting design, engineering, and consulting firm to assist staff in the drafting of the proposed code
change. Clanton works in communities across the country in lighting design and similarly has
broad expertise in drafting regulatory documents for local jurisdictions. Importantly, they are also
currently working with Pitkin County on the update to their lighting code.
PRIMARY POLICY PROPOSALS:
The 50% Draft included as Exhibit A is exactly what the title implies – a draft that staff and the
consultant believe is about half of the way there in terms of what will eventually be in front of
Council (and P&Z and HPC) for consideration. The working draft is a developing document that
combines both the best practices in lighting code adoption that are being pursued across the
country and important recognition of unique aspects of the Aspen context.
185
Staff Memo – HPC Discussion
Lighting Code Update
November 9, 2022
Page 3 of 3
A couple of Aspen-specific examples of issues that staff and the consultant team are responding
to:
• The prevalence of “holiday lighting” that some property owners desire to have on
throughout the year. While the lighting does present, for some, a festive
atmosphere, for others, this type of lighting precludes their enjoyment of the night
sky and negatively impacts neighborhood characteristics. Additionally, stranded
lighting in trees that remains up permanently can have very negative effects on tree
health. Clanton and Associates has also demonstrated how lighting year-round can
have negative impacts to the migration of wildlife which is a distinct feature of our
community.
• Aspen is mostly built out. We are not regularly seeing new residential subdivisions
or entirely new commercial developments. Many communities are moving to a fully
“performance” based code as a reflection of best practices in the industry. Because
remodel and renovation activity are dominant in our development context, the
proposed code will also provide clear “prescriptive” direction so that retrofitting and
updating existing lighting is more concrete and understandable.
Increasingly, communities are pursuing certification as an International Dark Sky Community from
the International Dark Sky Association. While Aspen clearly values dark skies, staff is not
proposing a formal pursuit of this certification. However, many of the frameworks and
performance requirements in the draft are consistent with the expectations of the certification
process and best practices and will have a marked impact on the preservation of the night sky.
CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS:
Over the next few months, staff and the consultant will continue to refine the draft code, will work
with local, technical experts in the design community, and will pursue a code amendment in the
first quarter of 2023. It is staff’s intention to have an ordinance for Council consideration in
February or March of 2023. P&Z and HPC will be asked to provide formal recommendation as
part of the code adoption process.
RECOMMENDATIONS: None, at this time.
EXHIBITS:
A – 50% Draft – Proposed Lighting Code – 26.575.150
186
Draft Created: 2022-07-23
Page 1 of 13
Sec. 26-575-150. Outdoor Lighting Standards
26-575-150.10 Definitions
A) Definitions (… or can also located in the General Zoning Code Definitions). When terms defined in this
section are in the ordinance text, they will be shown in bold.
1. BUG (Backlight, Uplight, Glare) Ratings: The IES TM-15 luminaire classification system
describing the amount and location of light being emitted from a luminaire.
2. Color Rendering Index (CRI): A quantitative measure, on a scale of 0 to 100, of artificial light’s
ability to render an object’s natural color, with 100 being a good match for natural light.
3. Continuous Lighting: A street lighting system made up of regularly spaced luminaires along
the street. Criteria typically defines minimum and maximum illuminance values and overall
uniformity along the lighted area.
4. Correlated Color Temperature (CCT): Measured in degrees Kelvin (K). A specification for the
color appearance of the light emitted by a lamp.
5. Diffusion: The scattering of light by reflection or transmission when light strikes an irregular
surface, such as a frosted lens.
6. Efficacy: Measured in lumens per watt (lm/w), luminous efficacy is a measure of how well a
light source produces visible light for the amount of energy consumed.
7. Façade: The square footage of a structure’s vertical and horizontal dimensions as viewed in
the elevation view. Also referred to as the “vertical surface area”.
8. Façade Variation: Shifts in the plane of walls, setbacks, reveals, overhangs, in order to create
variations within a building’s façade.
9. Fixture height: Height of the fixture shall be the vertical distance from the ground directly
below the centerline of the fixture to the lowest direct light emitting part of the fixture.
10. Footcandles: A unit of illumination equal to one (1) lumen per square foot.
Formatted: Font: Bold
187
Draft Created: 2022-07-23
Page 2 of 13
11. Fully shielded: Light fixtures shielded or constructed so that no light rays are directly emitted
by the installed fixture at angles above the horizontal plane as certified by a photometric test
report. The fixture must also be properly installed to effectively down direct light in order to
conform with the definition. Examples of fully shielded light fixtures:
12. Glare: The visual sensation created by luminance (or brightness) that is significantly higher
than the surrounding luminance that the eyes are adapted to, causing annoyance,
discomfort, or loss in visual performance and visibility (disability glare).
13. High intensity discharge light source (HID): Light sources characterized by an arc tube or
discharge capsule that produces light, with typical sources being metal halide, high pressure
sodium and other similar types which are developed in accordance with accepted industry
standards
14. Illuminance: Measured in Footcandle (Fc). The density of light falling onto a surface.
Commonly measured in the horizontal and vertical planes.
15. Light Pollution: Stray and uncontrolled light, directly from a luminaire or reflected from a
surface, that missed its target. Light emitted upward increasing skyglow is a popular
example.
16. Light Trespass: Measurable light extending beyond the boundary of its intended use without
permission.
17. Lumen: The measure of visible light (luminous flux) emitted from a light source.
18. Luminaire: A complete electric light unit including light source, housing, optics, and driver.
19. Non-Continuous Lighting: A non-continuous street lighting system, lighting only conflict areas
such as intersections, crosswalks, and other hazards.
20. Non-Shielded Luminaires: Light fixtures that allow too many light rays to emit upwards,
backwards, or forward in a way that can cause glareExamples of non-shielded light fixtures:
21. Point light source: The exact place from which illumination is produced (e.g. a light bulb
filament or LED package) even when behind a clear lens.
22. Spectrum: A range of electromagnetic radiation that includes visible wavelengths between
380 and 700 nanometers (Violet to Red). Research indicates wavelengths between 460 and
480nm can be harmful to humans at night if the dosage is too high for too long.
23. Watt (W): A unit of power.
188
Draft Created: 2022-07-23
Page 3 of 13
26-575-150.020 Preamble
A) Background: As the global population continues to grow, a larger percentage of people are living in
urban environments, forcing leading to their expansion and development. In 2007, the global urban
population exceeded the global rural population for the first time in history. Nowhere is this more
apparent thanThis trend is clearly seen in North America, where 82% of people live in urban areas.
One problem associated with population growth and urban sprawl is the associated use of artificial
light at night (ALAN), which first became an issue in the 1970’s when astronomers identified a
degradation of the night sky. A continued increase in the quantity of high angle and uncontrolled
reflected light has diminished our dark sky. For most of the U.S. population, a clear view of the stars
is no longer possible. Zenith Sky Glow measurements have since confirmed a global trend where
humanity loses about 2% of the dark sky each year.
Additionally, we now know that harm from excessive, poorly designed, or poorly installed lighting at
night can go beyond skyglow, wasted energy, and unsafe or unpleasant conditions. Irresponsible
light at night can also be harmful to the ecological health of flora, fauna, and humans. With ongoing
expansion and development (a busy ski resort season and redeveloping neighborhoods), the City of
Aspen is not excluded from this conundrum and pitfall.
B) Purpose: As a global citizen, the City of Aspen believes in the ancestral right for residents to access
dark skies and be free from irresponsible lighting distractions at night. When the need for darkness
conflicts with people’s need for light, the City of Aspen believes good lighting design can find a
workable balance between safety, aesthetics, human health, and the ecological / environmental
impacts.
The City of Aspen understands some exterior lighting is appropriate and necessary for the safety of
people at night. What to light, why, and when, will be a cornerstone of this lighting ordinance.
Because the effects of light pollution can persist as far as 200 kilometers (120 miles) from the source,
local control and regional coordination is encouraged for dark sky preservation and ecological
protection. The following principles for responsible lighting design will guide our recommendations:
1. Useful – All lighting at night should have an intended purpose
2. Targeted – Light should be directed only where it is needed
3. Low Light Levels – Light should be no brighter than necessary for the task
4. Controlled – Lighting should only be used when it is useful
5. Spectrum – Limit the amount of harmful short wavelengths (blue-violet)
C) Goals: In addition to the forementioned principles for responsible lighting design, the following goals
are intended to guide Aspen decision makers regarding artificial exterior light at night:
1. Use ANSI/IES exterior illuminance recommendations to reduce pedestrian accidents and
promote the health, safety, and welfare of people;
2. Reduce obtrusive and glaring light that inhibit human vision and detract from enjoyment;
3. Curtail light pollution, reduce sky glow metrics (Zenith and Bortle), improve the nighttime
environment for residents, visitors, and astronomer enthusiasts;
4. Prevent inappropriate and poorly designed or installed outdoor lighting;
5. Protect local and migrating ecological systems from the adverse effects of artificial light.
Formatted: Font color: Red
Formatted: Font color: Red, Strikethrough
189
Draft Created: 2022-07-23
Page 4 of 13
26-575-150.030 Lighting Zone Planning, Cross-Reference, and Establishment
A) Background: Introduced in the late 1990’s, Lighting Zones are a municipal planning tool to help
reduce light levels, light pollution, wasted energy, and neighborly conflicts arising from excessive or
poor use of light at night. Lighting Zones can achieve these goals because they leverage the
adaptation of human vision in low light levels, enabling lighting solutions based on ambient
conditions rather than brightly lit adjacent properties.
Knowing what to light, or not light, is an important consideration for the nighttime environment.
Having a hierarchy of planned lighting can add context and visual order, improve coherency and
understanding of one’s surroundings, and ultimately give a pedestrian the confidence to engage with
outdoor space at night. Avoiding visual distractions and glare are also key considerations for
improving nighttime vision of residents, pedestrians, and motorists. This ordinance will leverage the
following guidance from the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), the Illuminating
Engineering Society (IES), and the International Dark Sky Association (IDA):
1. ANSI/IES LP-2 Designing Quality Light for Exterior Environments
2. ANSI/IES RP-43-22 Lighting Exterior Applications
3. ANSI/IES LP-11-20 Environmental Conditions for Outdoor Lighting
4. Model Lighting Ordinance, 2011
B) Definitions: Officially defined within ANSI/IES LP-11-20 Environmental Conditions for Outdoor
Lighting, Lighting zones are briefly defined here:
1. LZ0 - No Ambient Light (wilderness, protected parks, preserves)
2. LZ1 – Low Ambient Light (rural, residential, developed park areas)
3. LZ2 – Moderate Ambient Light (office, commercial, mixed use, schools, light industrial)
4. LZ3 – Moderately High Ambient Light (central business, play fields, heavy industrial)
5. LZ4 – High Ambient Light (Times Square and Las Vegas)
C) Purpose: Lighting zones designations have been adopted by, and are referenced in, major building,
energy, and outdoor lighting code standards. They allow for illuminance recommendations regarding
what to light and at what intensity based on the expected activities. Assigning these designations
within Aspen is essential to reference and use ANSI/IES recommendations for exterior lighting.
D) Goals: Lighting zone designations should not be based on existing conditions, but rather the type of
environment the municipality seeks to achieve. Unless otherwise mentioned, the City of Aspen will
have no Lighting Zone 4 applications.
E) Designations: Lighting zones are most effective when they coordinate with, and overlay on, land use
zones and their associated tasks. Here is a link to where the land use zone map for the City of Aspen
can be accessed, https://www.aspen.gov/194/Planning-Zoninghttps://blah blah blah. Lighting zone
designations will cross reference to the land use codes as follows:
1. Lighting Zone 0 (LZ0): type type type
2. Lighting Zone 1 (LZ1): type type type
3. Lighting Zone 2 (LZ2): type type type
4. Lighting Zone 3 (LZ3): Only available for Temporary or Permit Categories
5. Lighting Zone 4 (LZ4): Not applicable in Aspen
190
Draft Created: 2022-07-23
Page 5 of 13
26-575-150.040 Applicability and Submittal Process
A) Applicability: The lighting requirements of this ordinance shall be applicable to all exterior lighting on
private property within the City of Aspen. Existing outdoor lighting that does not meet the provisions
of this ordinance shall be considered legal nonconforming for ten (10) years from the adoption date
of this ordinance. After ten (10) years, or unless otherwise specified within this ordinance, all
outdoor lighting fixtures that do not conform to the requirements of this ordinance must be replaced
or retrofitted to meet compliance. Violations shall be corrected within ninety (90) days of being
cited.
A)1. Street and Roadway: Lighting installed within the public right-of-way, or easement, for the
benefit of public safety, such as emergency, traffic control, and streetlights, is addressed
within a separate ordinance. Lighting installed within the public right-of-way with a purpose
of illuminating outside the public right-of-way is not exempt.
B) Routine Maintenance and one-for-one replacement: In the event an outdoor light fixture is not
working or damaged, the repair/replacement shall conform with the requirements of this ordinance.
Section 40 contains general guidance regarding lighting specifications that should be used.
C) Renovations and Modifications: Renovations and modifications affecting twenty-five percent (25%)
or more of an existing property (e.g. square footage, occupant capacity, parking spaces) shall cause
the entire property to meet the requirements of this ordinance. Any re-zoning or change of use shall
also constitute meeting the requirements of this ordinance. At a minimum, the outdoor lighting plan
must be submitted using the simple prescriptive spreadsheet method described below:
1. “Prescriptive Method”: Commonly used for administrative simplicity, a small project may be
charted using a spreadsheet containing identification for each luminaire type, quantity,
lumen output, BUG rating for luminaires, the total expected site lumens, and then a
calculated total site lumens compared to the total site lumen allowance listed in section 60
(residential) or 70 (non-residential).
a. A sub-category analysis is also required for the total lumens coming from partially
shielded light (e.g. tree, landscape, sculpture, and some wall or façade light) allowed in
table xx (residential) or table xy (non-residential), which can’t exceed 20% of the
allowable lumens.
b. Supporting data sheets for exact luminaires (model numbers), distribution plots, BUG
ratings, luminaire locations, mounting heights, and aiming directions. (could be
removed?)
D) New Development: All new development shall meet the requirements of this ordinance. Whenever
new development for a building, subdivision, site plan, or outdoor lighting permit is applied for, an
outdoor lighting plan shall be submitted in conjunction with the application. The outdoor lighting
plan must use either the “Prescriptive Method” described in section 40B, or use the “Performance
Method” describes below.
1. “Performance Method”: Commonly used for larger and more complex projects, an outdoor
lighting design can be analyzed using industry standard lighting software. This outdoor
lighting plan shall include:
a. Luminaire locations, mounting heights, aiming directions, IES photometric data,
buildings, and other physical objects within the site.
b. The average illuminance (in footcandles or lux) for any one task should not exceed
ANSI/IES standards for the applicable lighting zone, including but not limited to:
• Façade, building entrance, porte cochere, softscape, perimeter barriers
Formatted
Formatted: Font color: Red
191
Draft Created: 2022-07-23
Page 6 of 13
• Walking paths adjacent to architecture, hardscape, exits, landscape, waterfront,
stairs, and ramps.
• Patios, outdoor dining, decks, terraces, pools, and pool decks.
c. The analysis shall utilize an enclosure comprised of calculation planes with zero
reflectance values around the perimeter of the site including a top plane no less than 33
feet (10 meters) above the tallest luminaire. The illuminance on the calculation planes
must not exceed the limits of light trespass defined within this ordinance.
2. A compliance statement must verify the outdoor lighting plan meets IES Standards and the
requirements of the ordinance.
E) Review: Site lighting plans shall be subject to review and approval by …….. Site lighting plans
submitted as a part of a building permit application for a commercial or multi-family structure shall
be reviewed administratively by the Community Development Director. The Director shall have the
authority to refer an application to the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation
Commission if deemed appropriate.
1. Comparable examples already in the community that demonstrate technique, specification
and/or light level should be provided if available to expedite the review process.
F) Appeals: Any appeals related to decisions regarding outdoor lighting shall be made to the City
Administrator using the procedure set forth in article 16-2-70.
26-575-150.050 Requirements for All Outdoor Lighting
A) Conformance: All outdoor lighting shall meet the requirements of this ordinance, applicable electrical
and energy codes, and applicable sections of building code.
B) Responsible Design Criteria:
1. CCT: In an effort to minimize potentially disruptive and/or harmful spectrum at night, the
City of Aspen will establish a standard Correlated Color Temperature (CCT) of 2700K up to a
maximum of 3000K. A CCT of 2200K is allowed provided the Color Rendering Index (CRI) is
greater than 65.
2. Uplight: Unless otherwise allowed, all light sources shall be fully shielded and possess a U0
rating (IES TM-15) for zero uplight. Meaning, luminaires must be constructed in such a
manner that all light emitted by the luminaire, either directly from the light source or
diffusing element, or indirectly by reflection or refraction from any part of the luminaire, is
projected below the horizontal.
3. Light Trespass: All light sources shall be a maximum G2 rating (IES TM-15), and located such
that the point light source shall not be visible from adjacent property or streets. Additionally,
unless permitted to do so, the maximum illumination at the property line (measured at grade
with the light meter aiming upward) shall not exceed the requirements listed below. These
requirements will likely require mounting locations 2.5 times luminaire height away from
property lines with addition distance or shielding required for lighting installed along
ridgelines or hillsides.
Property Line Light Trespass
Illuminance Limits
LZ0 LZ1 LZ2 LZ3
Footcandles (fc) 0.05 0.1 0.3 0.8
Lux (lx) 0.5 1 3 8
192
Draft Created: 2022-07-23
Page 7 of 13
a. Illuminance trespass limits are for a single property. Measured values will be the sum of
multiple illuminated properties when the property line is shared.
b. The property line can be considered five (5) feet beyond actual when bordering with
public walkways, bikeways, plazas, and parking lots.
4. Poles:
a. Pole/Post mounted lighting taller than 36 inches is prohibited within residential zones
except Multi-Family parking and common areas where the maximum height is 12ft.
b. Pole lighting for non-residential parking lots is limited to 20ft tall if adjacent to
residential property, and 25ft tall thereafter.
5. Curfew: Based on human activity, outdoor lighting curfew in the City of Aspen will be
established as 11pm until 6am unless otherwise specified. All outdoor lighting shall be turned
off between 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. except for the following:
a. Street, Roadway, and other Department of Transportation lighting.
b. Code required lighting for public steps, stairs, walkways, and building entrances.
c. Other special use or permitted exceptions listed within this ordinance such as flag,
seasonal, sports fields, and businesses which operate during these hours; such lighting
may remain illuminated only while the establishment is actually open for business.
C) Prohibitions: The following types of exterior lighting sources, fixtures and installations shall be
prohibited in the City of Aspen.
1. Banned in 2008 for poor energy efficiency and World Health Organization (WHO) warnings
against mercury toxicity, mercury vapor lighting shall be prohibited.
2. Inefficient light sources (efficacy less than 45 lm/w) shall be prohibited for outdoor use.
3. Blinking, flashing, moving, revolving, scintillating, flickering, changing intensity and changing
color lights shall be prohibited.
4. Unshielded floodlights are prohibited, and shielded floodlights are limited not to exceed
1,260 lumens.
5. Kate to add why. Lighting directed towards the Roaring Fork River, or any other waterway is
prohibited as the lighting of natural waters at night can damage freshwater ecosystems and
reduce biodiversity. .
6. No outdoor lighting may be used in any manner that could interfere with the safe movement
of motor vehicles on public thoroughfares. The following is prohibited:
a. Any fixed light not designed for roadway illumination that produces direct light or glare
that could be disturbing to the operator of a motor vehicle.
b. Any light that may be confused with or construed as a traffic control device except as
authorized by State, Federal or City government.
7. Aerial lasers, beacons, and / or searchlights are prohibited except for emergency use.
D) Exemptions: The following types of lighting installations shall be exempt from the requirements
within this ordinance.
1. Lawful: Lighting required by federal, state, county, township, municipal, or other territorial
laws or regulations that conflict with this ordinance will supersede and be exempt.
193
Draft Created: 2022-07-23
Page 8 of 13
2. Airport: Lighting associated with the air-side facilities at the Airport (runway, taxiway, deice
pad, aircraft parking areas and other facilities located inside the security fence) is regulated
by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for safety and shall be exempt from the
requirements of this ordinance. All other exterior lighting at the Airport (e.g. entrances,
parking, drop-off, and pick-up) shall follow the appropriate lighting zone guidelines within
non-residential tasks.
3.2. Flags: When possible, lower and remove flags from sunset to sunrise so illumination is not
needed. For flags displayed at night, nighttime illumination of the United States of America
flag and the Colorado State flag is allowed. Nighttime illumination of other flags is not
allowed. Guidelines are:
a. For an even distribution of light on the flag surface when fully extended, use either top
of pole downward directed light, a maximum of three (3) in-ground uplights, or three (3)
shielded spotlights that are surface mounted at grade. Surface mounted lights should
rotate and tilt so they can be aimed to hit the flag.
b. In-ground and surface mounted shielded spotlights should be narrow beam (15 degree
maximum), no more than 100 lumens per foot of height (e.g. 2500 lumens per light for a
25 ft tall flag), with point sources of light not be visible outside of a 15-foot radius.
4.3. Street and Roadway: Lighting installed within the public right-of-way, or easement, for the
benefit of public safety, such as emergency, traffic control, and streetlights, is addressed
within a separate ordinance. Lighting installed within the public right-of-way with a purpose
of illuminating outside the public right-of-way is not exempt.
5.4. Signage: The lighting of sSignage is addressed within chapter xx-xx26.510 of the City of
Aspen's Code of Ordinances Code.
6.5. Other: If a proposed lighting plan or fixtures are proposed that do not meet this ordinance,
but that have demonstrable community benefit, an exemption may be considered. The
applicant shall submit additional information to adequately assess the community benefit for
approval by the Community Development Director.
26-575-150.060 Residential Lighting
A) Light Output: The upper lumen limits listed below should not be the design goal. The design goal
should be to use the minimum light levels that meet the requirements of the task. The total
allowable site lumens (initial) for a residential property is limited to:
Total Site Lumens Allowed
Residential
Property Size LZ1 LZ2
Single Family; 1 acre+ (43,560sf+) 12,000 n/a
Multi-Family; Per 1 acre (43,560sf) 12,000 20,000
Single Family; 3/4 acre (32,670sf) 9,000 n/a
Single Family; 1/2 acre (21,780sf) 6,000 n/a
Single Family; 1/5 acre (8,812sf) 3,000 5,000
Mobile Home; (5,500sf) 2,000 4,000
Single Family; 1/10 acre (4,356sf) 2,000 4,000
Single Family; 1/20 acre (2,178sf) 1,500 3,000
194
Draft Created: 2022-07-23
Page 9 of 13
1. An additional 3,000 lumens for each Guest Houses and Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) is
allowed on properties larger than (2) acres.
2. An additional 300 lumens per parking lot space is allowed for Multi-Family developments.
B) Light for Orientation and Reassurance: When boundary and peripheral illumination are absent, and
the spatial perimeter is visually uncertain, threat detection and confidence may be compromised.
Vertical illuminance plays a critical role in addressing this need. Partially shielded luminaires for the
following applications are allowed for this purpose if the light distribution is effectively contained by
the targeted element (e.g. façade, sculpture, shrub), and if the total amount of partially shielded light
does not exceed 20% of the total site lumen allowance or individual luminaire limits listed below.
Individual Luminaire Limits (Vertical Illuminance)
Luminaire Type LZ0 LZ1 LZ2 LZ3
Low Voltage Landscape n/a 205 430 525
Shielded In-grade Uplight n/a 455 910 1,820
Partially Shielded Flood n/a 630 1,260 2100
Fully Shielded U0 Down n/a 630 1,260 2,100
1. Façade Lighting: For many people, residential façade lighting represents prestige, symbolism,
and recognition. Keeping true to the principles of responsible lighting design, the only
acceptable purpose for residential façade lighting is to help people orient, gain understanding
of surroundings, and give feelings of confidence upon arrival.
a. Façade lighting on multi-family and mixed use property is prohibited above residential
floors to prevent unwanted light.
b. Interior light escaping through windows is also seen vertically from the exterior
perspective. To the greatest extent possible, interior light should be turned off when
not in use and window blinds should be utilized to reduce light pollution and trespass.
No point light source should be visible during hours of curfew.
2. Art, Monuments, and Fountain Features: Keeping true to the principles of responsible
lighting design, the only acceptable purpose for lighting these applications in a residential
application is to help people gain understanding of their surroundings to avoid conflict upon
arrival. Art, monuments, and fountains may be illuminated if they are adjacent (i.e. within 10
feet) to the residential structure.
3. Trees, Gardens, and Landscape Lighting: Designed into the built environment for their
beauty, reflected light from softscape can be used to gain understanding of the exterior
environment. However, artificial lighting at night will disturb the health of living plants, so
curfew and site limits on lumen allowance do apply. Additional guidelines are:
a. Tree and landscape lighting is only allowed within 25 ft. of a residence or drive entrance.
b. Tree and landscape lighting must be turned off during hours of curfew. For this reason,
solar powered landscape lights are not recommended.
4. Walls, Fences, and Perimeter Barriers: Reassurance is not fostered if egress is not obvious or
often enough when becoming informed of a possible threat. Vertical lighting can actually
help this situation because the movement of silhouette and shadow are easily detectable.
a. Perimeter fence lighting is prohibited within single, two, tri, quad, or manufactured
housing properties zoned for residential use.
195
Draft Created: 2022-07-23
Page 10 of 13
b. Illumination of walls and underneath built in shorter than five feet to help reassurance
and egress is allowed within high density and mixed use residential common areas
provided they are washed with approved façade or landscape lighting techniques and
meet the other requirements of this ordinance.
C) Light for Wayfinding, Pathways, and Stairs: Terrain hazards happen when there are changes in
surface or grade. Stairways, curbs, raised pavement, potholes, and slippery surfaces are all examples
of possible trip and fall hazards that may require lighting at night. Effective lighting for these should
be unobtrusive, avoid glare, excessive light.
1. Driveway and Parking: Driveway and parking lot lighting for single, two, tri, quad, or
manufactured housing properties zoned for residential use is not permitted.
2. Entrances and Porte Cocheres: Porte cochere and covered porch/canopy lighting for
entrances and transfers is allowed. Luminaires mounted under canopies shall be aimed
downward and installed such that the bottom of the luminaire or lens, whichever is lower, is
recessed or fully cutoff and not producing any light above horizontal. All light emitted by an
under-canopy fixture shall be substantially confined to the posts, façade’s and ground surface
directly beneath the perimeter of the canopy.
3. Pathways, Stairs, and Steps: This lighting shall be no taller than thirty-six (36) inches.
D) Light for Atmosphere and Enjoyment: If local code allows, gas flame and fire pits are allowed.
Artificial lighting used to illuminate patios, above grade decks, balconies, or gazebos must be shielded
or fully shielded with the point light source not visible beyond the property line in which it is located.
26-575-150.070 Non-Residential Lighting
A) Light Output: The upper lumen limits listed below should not be the design goal. The design goals
should be to use the minimum light levels that meet the requirements of the task. The total
allowable site lumens (initial) for non-residential property is based on the square footage and
elements of developed structure, landscape buffer, and hardscape. Individual site lumen limits are as
follows:
Total Site Lumens Allowed
Residential
Lighting Requirement Unit LZ0 LZ1 LZ2 LZ3
Store Front Façade(s) lm / sf n/a 4 8 16
Customer Entrance(s) ea. n/a 500 1,000 2,000
Service Entrance Facade lm / sf n/a 1 2 4
Nighttime Service Loading ea. n/a 2,000 4,000 8,000
Tree and Landscape lm / sf n/a 1 1 1
Parking Lot lm / space n/a 200 300 400
Sales Display Lot lm / sf n/a 4 8 16
Drive Up Window ea. n/a 2,000 4,000 8,000
Gas Station Canopy lm / pump n/a 4,000 8,000 16,000
Display Window Deduction lm / sf n/a -1 -2 -4
B) Light for Orientation and Reassurance: When boundary and peripheral illumination are absent, and
the spatial perimeter is visually uncertain, threat detection and confidence may be compromised.
Vertical illuminance plays a critical role in addressing this need. Partially shielded luminaires for the
196
Draft Created: 2022-07-23
Page 11 of 13
following applications are allowed for this purpose if the light distribution is effectively contained by
the targeted element (e.g. façade, sculpture, shrub), and if the total amount of partially shielded light
does not exceed 20% of the total site lumen allowance or individual luminaire limits listed below.
Individual Luminaire Limits (Vertical Illuminance)
Luminaire Type LZ0 LZ1 LZ2 LZ3
Low Voltage Landscape n/a 205 430 525
Shielded In-grade Uplight n/a 455 910 1,820
Partially Shielded Flood n/a 630 1,260 2100
Fully Shielded U0 Down n/a 630 1,260 2,100
1. Façade Lighting: Non-residential facade lighting offers people an opportunity to orient, gain
understanding of the surroundings, make threat assessment through silhouette, and provide
reassurance when making engagement decisions. Additional guidelines are:
a. The point light source must not be visible from adjacent properties.
b. Façade lighting within mixed use property is prohibited above residential floors.
c. Non-Residential façade lighting must be turned off no later than curfew or after
business hours, whichever comes later.
d. Interior light escaping through windows is also seen vertically from the exterior
perspective. Display window lighting will be a deduction from allowable façade lighting.
To the greatest extent possible, interior light should be turned off after business hours.
2. Art, Monuments, and Fountain Features: Keeping true to the principles of responsible
lighting design, the only acceptable purpose for lighting these applications in non-residential
applications is to help people gain understanding of their surroundings and avoid conflict
prior to curfew.
3. Trees, Gardens, and Landscape Lighting: Designed into the built environment for their
beauty, reflected light from softscape can be used to gain understanding of the exterior
environment. However, artificial lighting at night will disturb the health of living plants, so
curfew and site limits on lumen allowance do apply. Additional guidelines are:
a. Tree and landscape lighting must be turned off during hours of curfew. For this reason,
solar powered landscape lights are not recommended.
4. Walls, Fences, and Perimeter Barriers: Reassurance is not fostered if egress is not obvious or
often enough when becoming informed of a possible threat. Vertical lighting can actually
help this situation because the movement of silhouette and shadow are easily detectable.
Illumination of walls shorter than eight (8) feet to help reassurance and egress is allowed
within non-residential common areas.
E) Light for Wayfinding and Pathways: Terrain hazards happen when there are changes in surface or
grade. Stairways, curbs, raised pavement, potholes, and slippery surfaces are all examples of possible
trip and fall hazards that may require lighting at night. Effective lighting for these should be
unobtrusive, avoid glare, excessive light.
1. Driveway and Parking: Outdoor lighting used to illuminate parking spaces, driveways, or
maneuvering areas shall meet fully shielded requirements and be designed, arranged and
shielded so that the point light source is not be visible from adjoining property lines or
streets.
197
Draft Created: 2022-07-23
Page 12 of 13
2. Entrances and Porte Cocheres: Porte cochere and covered porch/canopy lighting for
entrances and transfers is allowed. Luminaires mounted under canopies shall be aimed
downward and installed such that the bottom of the luminaire or lens, whichever is lower, is
recessed or fully cutoff and not producing any light above horizontal. All light emitted by an
under-canopy fixture shall be substantially confined to the posts, façade’s and ground surface
directly beneath the perimeter of the canopy.
3. Pathways, Stairs, and Steps: This lighting shall be no taller than thirty-six (36) inches.
C) Light for Atmosphere and Enjoyment: If local code allows, gas flame and fire pits are allowed.
Additional guidelines for artificial lighting is as follows:
1. Outdoor Dining: Type here…
2. Sales lots: Type here…
26-575-150.080 Special Use
A) Security: Lights emitting infrared radiation used for security surveillance systems is permitted if they
are fully shielded and aimed no higher than 70 degrees from horizon. Special review by the Planning
and Zoning Commission may allow lighting of a greater intensity under the following circumstances:
1. Multi-Family, Mixed Use, and Commercial common areas with increased density and activity
may require increased illumination at primary points of entrances or exits. Light intensity
shall not exceed five (5) foot-candles average at grade.
2. Shielded flood lights controlled by a motion sensor must be limited to motion within the
owner's property lines, and turned off 5 minutes after motion.
B) Approved historic lighting fixtures: Lights located at historic landmark sites (HPO) or within the Aspen
Downtown Historic District that have illuminance purpose and are consistent with the time period
and character of the historic structure or district may be exempt from shielding, uplight, and light
trespass requirements upon request and subsequent approval from the Historic Preservation Officer
or Historic Preservation Commission.
1. Historically approved fixtures shall be limited to 700 lumens per fixture and 10,000 lumens
per acre.
2. If new site lighting is needed to meet pedestrian safety requirements (e.g. stairs and egress),
or an architectural or historical feature requires greater illumination, modern lighting
techniques should not compete with the historic character of the property or convey a false
sense of history (e.g. faux historic lights).
C) Seasonal lighting: Holiday lighting of a temporary nature is allowed between November 15 and
January 30, provided that the lighting is low-wattage (1 watt/ft. for string lights or 70 lumens for
single bulb), does not exceed 1000 lumens per site, create dangerous glare on adjacent streets or
properties, is maintained in an attractive condition and does not constitute a fire hazard.
1. All other lighting associated with any national, local or religious holiday or celebration may be
illuminated two weeks prior to the holiday and extinguished within two days after the
holiday.
D) Gas Station: Measured illuminance shall not exceed 20 footcandles average under the canopy.
26-575-150.090 Permit Only
A) Temporary lighting: Any person may submit a written request to the Community Development
Director for a temporary exemption request. If approved, the exemption shall be valid for a
198
Draft Created: 2022-07-23
Page 13 of 13
maximum of fourteen (14) days from the date of signed approval and issuance. The Director shall
have the authority to refer an application for a temporary exemption to the Planning and Zoning
Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission if deemed appropriate. A temporary exemption
request shall contain at least the following information:
1. Specific exemption(s) requested, luminaire locations, mounting heights, and area(s) to be
illuminated;
2. Data sheets for exact luminaires (including lamp type, lumen output, CCT, CRI, polar
distribution plot, and BUG rating);
3. Duration of time requested for exemption;
4. Other information as may be required by the Community Development Department Director.
B) Construction: Outdoor lighting used for construction or major renovation can be exempt from the
requirements of this ordinance with an approved permit.
C) Sport and Recreation: Lighting for sport and recreation shall confine illumination to the field,
bleacher, track, or recreational area. Such lighting may need to exceed lighting zone illumination
standards to meet requirements for play and safety per ANSI/IES RP-6. Additional guidelines are as
follows:
1. Direct light from luminaires must not be visible from adjacent properties.
2. Shielding and internal louvers to prevent light trespass, glare, and light emitted above sixty-
two (62) degrees from the horizontal ground plane are required.
3. Lighting shall be extinguished no later than one (1) hour after the event ends.
D) Pool Lighting: When approved by permit, underwater pool, spa, and pool deck lighting is allowed.
Such lighting should follow ANSI/IES, or local municipal, lighting recommendations based on
residential, hospitality, or public use. This lighting is not part of the total site lumen limit.
E) Decorative: Lighting elements, such as shades with translucent, perforated patterns, and diffusers,
may be exempted from the fully-shielded requirement provided they are less than 1,000 lumens and
meet all other requirements of this ordinance and demonstrate a benefit for the community.
26-575-150.100 Enforcement and Penalty
A) Enforcement: Except as otherwise noted in this ordinance, the City Administrator, or designee, shall
be responsible to administer, enforce, and investigate any alleged violation of this ordinance as
allowed in article xx-xx-xxx of the Aspen Municipal Code.
B) Penalty: Except as otherwise allowed, any lighting that does not meet the provisions of this
ordinance will be considered a violation. A person, firm, or corporation that violates, disobeys, omits,
neglects, or refuses to comply with any of the provisions of this ordinance shall receive an
administrative citation as provided in the article xx-xx-xxx of the Aspen Municipal Code. Each day
that a violation is permitted to exist shall constitute a separate offense.
199