HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20141119
AGENDA
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
November 19, 2014
5:00 PM City Council Meeting Room 130 S. Galena St.
130 S Galena Street, Aspen
I. SITE VISITS
A. NONE
II. INTRODUCTION (15 MIN.)
A. Roll call
B. Approval of minutes
October 22, 2014
C. Public Comments
D. Commissioner member comments
E. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent)
F. Project Monitoring
G. Staff comments
H. Certificate of No Negative Effect issued
I. Submit public notice for agenda items
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. OLD BUSINESS
I. 135 E. Cooper- Minor Development, CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING TO APRIL 8, 2015
II. 232 E. Bleeker- Conceptual Major Development, On-site Relocation, Demolition of Existing
Garage and Variances, CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING TO DECEMBER 10, 2014
B. NEW BUSINESS
I. 113 W. Hopkins (5:10 p.m.)
Minor Development, PUBLIC HEARING
II. 232 E. Main Street (5:40 p.m.)
Planned Development- Project Review, Growth Management, Conceptual Commercial Design,
Conceptual Major Development in a Historic District, Waivers And Variances
IV. ADJOURN
Next Resolution Number: Resolution #34,2014
TYPICAL PROCEEDING- 1 HOUR, 10 MINUTES FOR MAJOR AGENDA ITEM, NEW
BUSINESS
Provide proof of legal notice (affidavit of notice for PH)
Staff presentation ( 5 minutes )
Board questions and clarifications ( 5 minutes )
Applicant presentation ( 20 minutes )
Board questions and clarifications ( 5 minutes )
Public comments (close public comment portion of hearing) ( 5 minutes )
Applicant Rebuttal
Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed (5 minutes )
HPC discussion ( 15 minutes )
Motion ( 5 minutes )
*Make sure the motion includes what criteria are met or not met.
No meeting of the HPC shall be called to order without a quorum consisting of at least four (4)
members being present. No meeting at which less than a quorum shall be present shall conduct
any business other than to continue the agenda items to a date certain. All actions shall require
the concurring vote of a simple majority, but in no event less than three (3) concurring votes of
the members of the commission then present and voting.
P1
II.B.
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 113 E. Hopkins- Minor Development, Public Hearing
DATE: November 19, 2014
______________________________________________________________________________
SUMMARY: 113 E. Hopkins is listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and
Structures. The site contains a Victorian era house which has been remodeled and expanded.
The applicant is requesting Minor Development approval to change the roof pitch over the
kitchen. The kitchen is located directly behind the original minter’s cabin and has very low head
height.
Currently it is not clear on the house where the historic resource ends and the new construction
begins, particularly in the area of the kitchen. The project has the potential to improve this
situation by offering an opportunity to create a break in the wall surface and roof line between the
new and old areas. Staff recommends approval as designed.
APPLICANT: Bryan Goolsby, owner, represented by Kim Raymond Architects.
PARCEL ID: 2735-124-58-002.
ADDRESS: 113 E. Hopkins Avenue, Lots C and D, Block 68, City and Townsite of Aspen,
Colorado.
ZONING: R-6
MINOR DEVELOPMENT
The procedure for a Minor Development Review is as follows. Staff reviews the submittal
materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project’s conformance with the design
guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is 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 of Aspen Historic Preservation
Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue
the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or
deny. If the application is approved, the HPC shall issue a Certificate of Appropriateness and
the Community Development Director shall issue a Development Order. The HPC decision
shall be final unless appealed by the applicant or a landowner within three hundred (300) feet
of the subject property in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 26.316.
P2
III.B.
2
Staff Response: The east side of the house, where the work is occurring, does have some
visibility from the street. Because this is a remodel, where options are fairly limited, HPC input
is needed to assure that an adequate distinction is being made between the historic resource and
the reconfigured kitchen.
At some time in the past, the historic roofline was extended over a kitchen addition. The result is
a very low head height in this part of the house. The miner’s cottage is now very hard to identify.
Approximate end of historic house
Roof area to be remodeled
P3
III.B.
3
The proposed project will result in the rear corner of the Victorian being re-established. The
kitchen wall will move inboard 6” (the most that can happen while using the existing foundation
walls). The kitchen roof will be re-framed, with a sloped pitch that will run west, tying into the
non-historic addition.
Staff finds that this remodel meets the design guidelines to the best extent possible given the
limited scope of the project. A 1960s/70s era photo of the house is shown below, prior to the
kitchen addition. The lower photo shows the current appearance of the house.
P4
III.B.
4
________________________________________________________________________
DECISION MAKING OPTIONS:
The HPC may:
• approve the application,
• approve the application with conditions,
• disapprove the application, or
• continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary
to make a decision to approve or deny.
______________________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Minor Development approval be granted as
proposed, with the following condition:
1. 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: 113 E. Hopkins Avenue, Lots C and D, Block 68,
City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado.
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
P5
III.B.
5
26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the Colorado
Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter.
Exhibits:
Resolution #___, Series of 2014
A. Design Guidelines
B. Application
“Exhibit A, Relevant Design Guidelines, 113 E. Hopkins”
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 that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the
primary building is inappropriate.
An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is
inappropriate.
An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style
should be avoided.
An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate.
10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time.
An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining
visually compatible with these earlier features.
A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material or
a differentiation between historic, and more current styles are all techniques that may be
considered to help define a change from old to new construction.
10.8 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back 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 structure is inappropriate.
Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not
alter the exterior mass of a building.
Set back an addition from primary facades in order to allow the original proportions and
character to remain prominent. A minimum setback of 10 feet on primary structures is
recommended.
10.9 Roof forms should be similar to those of the historic building.
Typically, gable, hip and shed roofs are appropriate.
Flat roofs are generally inappropriate for additions on residential structures with sloped roofs.
10.10 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure
historically important architectural features.
For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eavelines should be
avoided.
10.11 On a new addition, use exterior materials that are compatible with the historic
materials of the primary building.
The new materials should be either similar or subordinate to the original materials.
P6
III.B.
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
APPROVING MINOR DEVELOPMENT FOR 113 E. HOPKINS AVENUE, LOTS C
AND D, BLOCK 68, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO
RESOLUTION #__, SERIES OF 2014
PARCEL ID: 2735-124-58-002
WHEREAS, the applicant, Bryan Goolsby, represented by Kim Raymond Architects, submitted
an application requesting Minor Development review for the property located at 113 E. Hopkins
Avenue, Lots C and D, Block 68, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and
WHEREAS, Community Development Department staff reviewed the application for
compliance with the applicable review standards and recommended approval of Minor
Development; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission has reviewed and considered the
development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein,
has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and
has taken and considered public comment at a duly noticed public hearing on November 19, 2014;
and
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Commission finds that the development
proposal meets all applicable review criteria and that the approval of the request is consistent with
the goals and objectives of the Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission approves the application by a vote of __ to
__.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That HPC grants Minor Development as proposed, with the following condition.
1. 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
P7
III.B.
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: 113 E. Hopkins Avenue,
Lots C and D, Block 68, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado.
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.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 19 th of November,
2014.
_________________________
Willis Pember, Acting Chair
Approved as to Form:
___________________________________
Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney
ATTEST:
___________________________
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
P8
III.B.
P9
III.B.
P10
III.B.
P11
III.B.
P12
III.B.
P13
III.B.
P
1
4
I
I
I
.
B
.
P
1
5
I
I
I
.
B
.
P
1
6
I
I
I
.
B
.
C:\General CADD 10\Gxd\Gxd\33015B.gxd -- 09/11/2013 -- 10:36 AM -- Scale 1 : 120.000000
P17
III.B.
232 E. Main Street – Base 2
Staff Memo
11/19/14
Page 1 of 6
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Sara Adams, Senior Planner
THRU: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: Base 2, 232 East Main Street – Major Development Conceptual Review,
Commercial Design Review, Demolition, Planned Development – Project
Review
MEETING DATE: November 19, 2014
APPLICANT : 232 East Main Street, LLC.
REPRESENTATIVE : Mitch Haas of Haas
Land Planning.
LOCATION : 232 East Main Street,
corner of Monarch and Main Streets.
CURRENT ZONING : Mixed Use Historic
District
SUMMARY : The applicant requests
approval to develop a three story above
grade lodge building with a basement
level and commercial on the first floor.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION : Staff recommends a
continuation of the hearing to December 3 rd to
reduce the mass of the building adjacent to the
historic Cortina Lodge.
SITE VISIT : A site visit was held with HPC on
November 12 th at noon.
Photo: Current image of 232 East Main Street.
REQUEST OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION : The Applicant is requesting the
following land use approvals to redevelop the existing lodge:
• Conceptual Major Development Review (Chapter 26.415) for new construction in a
Historic District. (Historic Preservation Commission is the final review authority . City
Council has the option to call up the decision.)
• Demolition within the Historic District (Chapter 26.415) for demolition of the existing
building, which is located in the Main Street Historic District. (Historic Preservation
P18
III.B.
232 E. Main Street – Base 2
Staff Memo
11/19/14
Page 2 of 6
Commission is the final review authority . City Council has the option to call up the
decision.)
• Conceptual Commercial Design Review (Chapter 26.412, and the Commercial Design
Guidelines) for construction of a mixed-use lodge building. (The Historic Preservation
Commission is the final review authority . City Council has the option to call-up the
decision.)
• A Planned Development Project Review (Chapter 26.445) to establish dimensional
requirements for the project. The Applicant requests a PD Review to allow an increase in
overall floor area, lodge floor area, setbacks, parking, height, affordable housing, waiver
of affordable housing. (The Historic Preservation Commission makes a recommendation
to City Council. City Council is the final review authority .)
• GMQS Reviews (Chapter 26.470) for lodge, commercial, affordable housing and
allotments. (City Council is the final review authority .)
BACKGROUND :
The property is currently developed as 1 of 2 gas stations within the city limits. There is a small
commercial building on the property.
P19
III.B.
232 E. Main Street – Base 2
Staff Memo
11/19/14
Page 3 of 6
Figure 1: Zone District map showing zone districts. White shading indicates historic landmarks.
The subject property is located on the edge of the Mixed Use Historic District across the street
from the Commercial Core Historic District. Historic landmarks are located across the street and
within the block of the proposed project.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT :
The applicant proposes to develop a mixed use lodge building as follows:
• Basement level: accessory lodge uses, back of house areas
• Ground level: 2 commercial spaces, lodge lobby, accessory lodge uses
• Second level: 20 lodge rooms
• Third level: 20 lodge rooms
• Rooftop Deck
Table 1: Proposed Dimensions **due to last minute changes before HPC packet deadline, all
dimensions require verification prior to conceptual approval.
Main Street
Monarch Street
P20
III.B.
232 E. Main Street – Base 2
Staff Memo
11/19/14
Page 4 of 6
Requirement in MU Proposed
front yard (Main St.) 10’ 0’
side yard (Monarch) 5’ 0’
side yard (west) 5’ 0’
rear (alley) 5’ 0’
maximum height 28’- 32' through
Special Review
38’3” to midpoint of gable (Main Street)
33’ to the parapet (Main Street)
39’ to top of exterior stair/elevator
36’ to midpoint of gable (alley)
public amenity 10% or 600 sf
2,725 sf mostly on the rooftop
*subject to approval as an alternative
method of public amenity
trash access area 20’w x 20’d x 20’ h
15’w x 20’ d x 10’h
*subject to approval by Environmental
Health for reduced size
minimum off-street
parking spaces 21.6 0
cumulative floor area
1:1 (6,000 sf) or
1.25:1 (7,500 sf) through
Special Review
3.14:1(18,734.2 sf)
lodge and commercial
floor area
0.75:1 (4,500 sf) total or
1:1 (6,000 sf) total through
Special Review
Lodge: 2.99:1 (17,849.7 sf)
Commercial: 1.15:1 (6,860 sf)
average lodge unit size n/a about 186
lodge net livable area n/a 7,454 sf
WAIVERS :
A wavier of affordable housing and impact fees are requested as part of the site specific
approval. City Council is the final review authority for the requested waivers.
Affordable Housing: As described in Exhibit C, the applicant requests approval to use the Lodge
Preservation Overlay generation rate of 0.3 FTEs/bedroom for the lodge portion of the project as
opposed to the Lodge generation rate of 0.6 FTEs/bedroom based on the amenities and room
sizes proposed. In either the 0.6 or 0.3 generation rate scenario, the affordable housing
requirement is minimal (2.98 FTEs or 1.78 FTEs). The applicant requests a waiver of affordable
housing requirement. The project provides lodging with room sizes that are about 182 square
feet and some ground floor commercial space. Staff is supportive of the adjustment of the
P21
III.B.
232 E. Main Street – Base 2
Staff Memo
11/19/14
Page 5 of 6
7.14 Design a new building to appear similar in scale to those in the district during the
mining era.
• Generally, a new building should be one to two stories in height.
employee generation rate to 0.3 FTEs/bedroom considering the type of lodge proposed and the
intent of the lower generation rate for smaller lodges. There are no review criteria specific to
waiving the affordable housing requirement. As part of the review process City Council is asked
to determine whether a waiver of the employee mitigation requirement is appropriate.
Impact Fees : The Code allows lodge projects to request a waiver of the Parks Development
Impact Fee and the Air Quality/Transportation Demand Management Impact Fee. City Council
is the review authority for a waiver of these fees.
STAFF FINDINGS :
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) – PROJECT REVIEW (E XHIBIT A)
The Project Review shall focus on the general concept for the development and shall outline any
dimensional requirements that vary from those allowed in the underlying zone district. The
underlying zone district designation shall be used as a guide, but not an absolute limitation, to the
dimensions which may be considered during the development review process. A primary goal of
a PD is to relate a development to the surrounding context by varying dimensional requirements.
Through the PD process the applicant requests approval to vary the maximum cumulative floor
area, maximum allowable floor area for commercial and lodge uses, height, and setback
requirements.
Staff finds that the proposed lodge project with 180 sf average room sizes fills a void in the
lodging market. Increasing the bed base and diversifying the bed base has been a goal of the
City Council, supported by the community during outreach sessions, and included as a policy in
the Aspen Area Community Plan.
Staff is supportive of the overall proposal for small lodge rooms in the proposed location, and
recommends a reduction in the mass of the building adjacent to the Cortina Lodge to better relate
to the historic context of the neighborhood. Staff supports the requested setback variances.
The applicant requests a waiver of the parking requirement in lieu of some alternative options
such as lodge parking passes and an airport shuttle. Staff finds that the review criteria are met
for a reduction of the parking requirement.
COMMERCIAL DESIGN STANDARD REVIEW (E XHIBIT B)
A complete description of the design standards and guidelines is addressed Exhibit B. Overall,
Staff has concerns that the massing of the three story building adjacent to the Cortina Lodge
overwhelms the adjacent landmarks and the neighborhood. Staff is supportive of the public
amenity space on the roof. Staff recommends a restudy of the mass adjacent to the Cortina Lodge
to better meet the following guideline:
P22
III.B.
232 E. Main Street – Base 2
Staff Memo
11/19/14
Page 6 of 6
GROWTH MANAGEMENT (E XHIBIT C)
See discussion on previous page about waivers. City Council is asked to conduct Growth
Management because the applicant requests a waiver of affordable housing mitigation. Staff is
supportive of the request to use the Lodge Preservation Overlay employee generation table to
determine employee generation. There are no specific review criteria in the Code to evaluate a
waiver of affordable housing mitigation.
DEMOLITION (E XHIBIT D)
The applicant requests demolition approval of the existing building and gas station. This is
review is required because the property is located within the Main Street Historic District. Staff
finds that the building and gas station are not historic and recommends demolition approval.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC continue the project to December 3, 2014
to restudy the mass of the proposed building to better relate to the neighborhood context.
PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to continue the public hearing for 232 East Main Street to
December 3, 2014.
Attachments:
Exhibit A – Staff Findings, PD Review Criteria
Exhibit B – Staff Findings, Commercial Design Standard Review Criteria
Exhibit C – Staff Findings, Growth Management Review Criteria
Exhibit D – Staff Findings, Demolition for property in Historic District, Review Criteria
Exhibit E – Development Review Committee comments
Exhibit F- Application
P23
III.B.
Exhibit A – PD, Project Review
232 E. Main Street, Base 2
11/19/14
Page 1 of 7
Exhibit A – Planned Development (PD) Review
26.445.010. Purpose.
The purpose of Planned Development review is to encourage flexibility and innovation in the
development of land which:
A. Promotes the purposes, goals and objectives of applicable adopted regulatory plans.
B. Achieves a more desirable development pattern, a higher quality design and site planning,
a greater variety in the type and character of development and a greater compatibility with
existing and future surrounding land uses than would be possible through the strict application of
the zone district provisions.
C. Preserves natural and man-made site features of historic, cultural or scenic value.
D. Promotes more efficient use of land, public facilities and governmental services.
E. Incorporates an appropriate level of public input to the planning process to ensure
sensitivity to neighborhood and community goals and objectives.
F. Promotes safe and convenient transit, pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular access and circulation.
G. Allows the development of mixed land uses through the encouragement of innovative design
practices that warrant variations from the standard permitted zone district land uses and
dimensional requirements.
26.445.050. Project Review Standards.
The Project Review shall focus on the general concept for the development and shall outline any
dimensional requirements that vary from those allowed in the underlying zone district. The
burden shall rest upon an applicant to show the reasonableness of the development application
and its conformity to the standards and procedures of this Chapter and this Title. The underlying
zone district designation shall be used as a guide, but not an absolute limitation, to the
dimensions which may be considered during the development review process. Any dimensional
variations allowed shall be specified in the ordinance granting Project Approval. In the review
of a development application for a Project Review, the Planning and Zoning Commission or the
Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, and City Council shall consider the following:
A. Compliance with Adopted Regulatory Plans. The proposed development complies
with applicable adopted regulatory plans.
Staff Findings: The property is not subject to any regulatory plans Staff finds this criterion is
not applicable.
B. Development Suitability. The proposed Planned Development prohibits development
on land unsuitable for development because of natural or man-made hazards affecting the
property, including flooding, mudflow, debris flow, fault ruptures, landslides, rock or soil creep,
rock falls, rock slides, mining activity including mine waste deposit, avalanche or snowslide
P24
III.B.
Exhibit A – PD, Project Review
232 E. Main Street, Base 2
11/19/14
Page 2 of 7
areas, slopes in excess of 30%, and any other natural or man-made hazard or condition that could
harm the health, safety, or welfare of the community. Affected areas may be accepted as suitable
for development if adequate mitigation techniques acceptable to the City Engineer are proposed
in compliance with Title 29 – Engineering Design Standards. Conceptual plans for mitigation
techniques may be accepted for this standard. The City Engineer may require specific designs,
mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review
and documented within a Development Agreement.
Staff Findings: 232 East Main Street is already developed with a gas station and a small two
story above grade building. All applicable requirements described in the Development Review
Committee comments are included in the draft resolution. Staff finds this criterion is met.
C. Site Planning. The site plan is compatible with the context and visual character of the
area. In meeting this standard, the following criteria shall be used:
1. The site plan responds to the site’s natural characteristics and physical constraints such as
steep slopes, vegetation, waterways, and any natural or man-made hazards and allows
development to blend in with or enhance said features.
Staff Findings: The site is currently developed as a gas station and a commercial building with
a large paved area. The applicant proposes to remove curb cuts and provide street trees in the
right of way. Staff finds this criterion is met.
2. The project preserves important geologic features, mature vegetation, and structures or
features of the site that have historic, cultural, visual, or ecological importance or
contribute to the identity of the town.
Staff Findings: The actual project site does not have any significant features – geologic, natural
or historic. The property is located within the historic district and is directly adjacent to a two
story historic landmark. A discussion of the relationship of the project to the context is below.
Staff finds this criterion is met with the condition.
3. Buildings are oriented to public streets and are sited to reflect the neighborhood context.
Buildings and access ways are arranged to allow effective emergency, maintenance, and
service vehicle access.
Staff Findings: The building is oriented toward the street to reflect the pattern of development
along Main and Monarch Street. In addition to the operable windows and the take out window,
Staff recommends that the applicant provide an entrance to the restaurant along Main Street.
The parcel is accessible by an alley. Staff finds this criterion is met with conditions.
D. Dimensions. All dimensions, including density, mass, and height shall be established
during the Project Review. The proposed dimensions are below:
P25
III.B.
Exhibit A – PD, Project Review
232 E. Main Street, Base 2
11/19/14
Page 3 of 7
Table 1: Proposed Dimensions **due to last minute changes before HPC packet deadline, all
dimensions require verification prior to conceptual approval.
Requirement in MU Proposed
front yard (Main St.) 10’ 0’
side yard (Monarch) 5’ 0’
side yard (west) 5’ 0’
rear (alley) 5’ 0’
maximum height 28’- 32 ' through
Special Review
38’3” to midpoint of gable (Main Street)
33’ to the parapet (Main Street)
39’ to top of exterior stair/elevator
36’ to midpoint of gable (alley)
public amenity 10% or 600 sf 2,725 sf mostly on the rooftop
*subject to approval as an alternative
method of public amenity
trash access area 20’w x 20’d x 20’ h 15’w x 20’ d x 10’h
*subject to approval by Environmental
Health for reduced size
minimum off-street
parking spaces 21.6 0
cumulative floor area
1:1 (6,000 sf) or
1.25:1 (7,500 sf) through
Special Review
3.14:1(18,734.2 sf)
lodge and commercial
floor area
0.75:1 (4,500 sf) or
1:1 (6,000 sf) through
Special Review
Lodge: 2.99:1 (17,849.7 sf)
Commercial: 1.15:1 (6,860 sf)
average lodge unit size n/a about 186
lodge net livable area n/a 7,454 sf
A development application may request variations to any dimensional requirement of this Title.
In meeting this standard, consideration shall be given to the following criteria:
1. There exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such variations.
P26
III.B.
Exhibit A – PD, Project Review
232 E. Main Street, Base 2
11/19/14
Page 4 of 7
Staff Finding: The community will gain a new lodge with rooms averaging about 182 sf in size.
The small room sizes fill a gap in the lodging bed base. Diverse lodging has been at the
forefront of community discussion for the past few years and is included in the Aspen Area
Community Plan as a policy: “replenish the declining lodging base with an emphasis on a
balanced inventory and diverse price-points.” Staff finds this criterion is met.
2. The proposed dimensions represent a character suitable for and indicative of the primary
uses of the project.
Staff Finding: The proposed dimensions are indicative of a lodge building with retail/restaurant
on the first floor. The applicant proposes a lodge with small rooms to meet a demand for this
size and style of lodging in Aspen.
3. The project is compatible with or enhances the cohesiveness or distinctive identity of the
neighborhood and surrounding development patterns, including the scale and massing of
nearby historical or cultural resources.
Staff Finding: The proposed project requests height and floor area variations, setback
variations, parking waivers, affordable housing waivers, and impact fee waivers. According to
the application, all of these requests directly relate to the ability to develop a small lodging
project.
The property is located in the Main Street Historic District and is adjacent to the historic
Cortina Lodge. The block is mostly 19 th century historic landmarks with the exception of the
subject property and the property at the corner of Aspen and Main Street. The block across the
street is entirely 1- 2 story historic landmarks. The number of historic landmarks in the vicinity
of this property make redevelopment very challenging. On the other hand, the intensity of uses
and the mass and scale steps up significantly across Monarch Street where the zoning changes to
the Commercial Core.
The subject property is located in a transitional area at the edge of the Mixed Use Zone District,
which creates an appropriate context for larger and taller building mass toward Monarch Street
as a way to visually step up to the Commercial Core context. A map is provided in the staff
memo.
The applicant requests approval to vary the Cumulative Floor Area, and the Lodge and
Commercial Floor Area. Setback variations and height variations are requested. Parking
waivers (discussed below) and affordable housing waivers (Exhibit C) are requested as part of
the Planned Development approval.
Considering the historic context, historic district guidelines, and the property’s transitional
location on the edge of the downtown core, Staff is supportive of the overall design of the
project. As described in Exhibit B, the prominent gable roof form is appropriate and the
proposed building is an exciting and creative addition to the historic district. Staff finds that a
reduction in mass as described below, while maintaining the same style and design, is more
compatible with the neighborhood.
The Commercial Core Zone District allows a maximum height of 38’- 40’, as opposed to the
maximum height of 28’- 32’ in the Mixed Use Zone District. The applicant proposes a maximum
P27
III.B.
Exhibit A – PD, Project Review
232 E. Main Street, Base 2
11/19/14
Page 5 of 7
of 39.’ Staff is less concerned about the building height adjacent to Monarch Street (38’3”),
which fronts the large 4-story Hotel Jerome, and is more concerned about the impact of the
height adjacent to the Cortina Lodge. Staff is concerned that the building is too big considering
the context of the block. Staff recommends that the applicant reduce the size of the building –
possibly by reducing the west elevation to two stories to inflect to the Cortina Lodge and
creating a visual transition to the taller 3-story gable end and the downtown core.
Considering the context - a 0’ front setback at the Cortina Lodge - staff is supportive of the
requested setback variations. The adjacent Commercial Core Zone District has 0’ setback
requirements for all yards, which is consistent with the proposed project.
Staff recommends a restudy to reduce the mass and to better meet the review criterion.
4. The number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the probable
number of cars to be operated by those using the proposed development and the nature of
the proposed uses. The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities,
including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile
disincentive techniques in the proposed development, and the potential for joint use of
common parking may be considered when establishing a parking requirement.
Staff Finding: The applicant requests establishment of 0 parking spaces required for the project.
The required number of parking spaces is 21.6 spaces. The applicant proposes to work with the
City to possibly secure a certain number of parking spaces in the Rio Grande Parking Garage in
addition to offering lodge parking passes. A shared airport shuttle service with Base 1 is also
proposed. The project is centrally located downtown and a RFTA bus stop is located 2 blocks
away at Paepcke Park. Staff finds that the central location is supportive of a reduction in
parking requirement, and suggests that the applicant continue to work with the City to
determine options for parking and alternate transportation.
5. The Project Review approval, at City Council’s discretion, may include specific
allowances for dimensional flexibility between Project Review and Detailed Review.
Changes shall be subject to the amendment procedures of Section 26.445.110 –
Amendments.
Staff Finding: This criterion is not applicable at this time.
E. Design Standards. The design of the proposed development is compatible with the
context and visual character of the area. In meeting this standard, the following criteria shall be
used:
1. The design complies with applicable design standards, including those outlined in
Chapter 26.410, Residential Design Standards , Chapter 26.412, Commercial Design
Standards , and Chapter 26.415, Historic Preservation .
Staff Finding: Exhibit B specifically addresses the applicable design standards. Staff finds that
the review criteria are not met and recommends a restudy of specific aspects of the project as
described in the attached exhibits.
P28
III.B.
Exhibit A – PD, Project Review
232 E. Main Street, Base 2
11/19/14
Page 6 of 7
2. The proposed materials are compatible with those called for in any applicable design
standards, as well as those typically seen in the immediate vicinity. Exterior materials are
finalized during Detailed Review, but review boards may set forth certain expectations or
conditions related to architectural character and exterior materials during Project Review.
Staff Finding: Staff finds that the proposed materials –brick, board formed concrete, glass and
metal- are appropriate for the Main Street historic district and are compatible with the Cortina
Lodge. These materials are consistent with traditional building in the historic district but with a
contemporary application. Staff finds this criterion is met.
F. Pedestrian, bicycle & transit facilities. The development improves pedestrian, bicycle,
and transit facilities. These facilities and improvements shall be prioritized over vehicular
facilities and improvements. Any vehicular access points, or curb cuts, minimize impacts on
existing or proposed pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. The City may require specific
designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed
Review and documented within a Development Agreement.
Staff Finding: The applicant proposes to replace sidewalks and curb and gutter in accordance
with City requirements. The existing curb cuts will be removed and replaced with curb and
gutter and sidewalks. Staff finds this criterion is met.
G. Engineering Design Standards. There has been accurate identification of engineering
design and mitigation techniques necessary for development of the project to comply with the
applicable requirements of Municipal Code Title 29 – Engineering Design Standards and the
City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP). The City Engineer may require
specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the
Detailed Review and documented within a Development Agreement.
Staff Finding: The Engineering Department has concerns about the construction impacts of this
project regarding staging, construction phases, parking and truck traffic, and requests a
preliminary construction management plan be submitted prior to Detailed Review. This is added
as a condition of approval. Staff finds that this criterion is met with conditions.
H. Public Infrastructure and Facilities. The proposed Planned Development shall
upgrade public infrastructure and facilities necessary to serve the project. Improvements shall be
at the sole costs of the developer. The City Engineer may require specific designs, mitigation
techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and
documented within a Development Agreement.
Staff Finding: The applicant represents that they will upgrade public infrastructure as needed to
serve the project and the public. This is included as a condition of approval. Staff finds that this
criterion is met with conditions.
I. Access and Circulation. The proposed development shall have perpetual unobstructed
legal vehicular access to a public way. A proposed Planned Development shall not eliminate or
obstruct legal access from a public way to an adjacent property. All streets in a Planned
Development retained under private ownership shall be dedicated to public use to ensure
P29
III.B.
Exhibit A – PD, Project Review
232 E. Main Street, Base 2
11/19/14
Page 7 of 7
adequate public and emergency access. Security/privacy gates across access points and
driveways are prohibited.
Staff Finding: The property has access from an alleyway and from a public street. There are no
gates proposed. Staff finds that this criterion is met.
26.445.060. Use Variation Standards.
A development application may request variations in the allowed uses permitted in the zone
district. The burden shall rest upon an Applicant to show the reasonableness of the request and
its conformity to the standards and procedures of this Chapter and this Title. The permitted and
conditional uses allowed on the property according to its zoning shall be used as a guide, but not
an absolute limitation, to the land uses which may be considered during the review. Any use
variation allowed shall be specified in the ordinance granting Project Review approval. In the
review of a development application for a Project Review, the Planning and Zoning Commission
or the Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, and City Council shall consider the
following standards related to Use Variations:
A. The proposed use variation is compatible with the character of existing and planned land
uses in the project and surrounding area. In meeting this standard, consideration shall be given
to the existence of similar uses in the immediate vicinity, as well as how the proposed uses may
enhance the project or immediate vicinity.
B. The proposed use variation is effectively incorporated into the project’s overall mix of
uses. In meeting this standard, consideration shall be given to how the proposed uses within a
project will interact and support one another.
C. The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed use variation
minimizes adverse effects on the neighborhood and surrounding properties.
D. The proposed use variation complies with applicable adopted regulatory plans.
Staff Findings: The Applicant is not proposing any use variations as part of the application.
Staff finds this section is not applicable.
P30
III.B.
Exhibit B- Commercial Design Standards and
Major HP Review
232 East Main Street – Base 2
Page 1 of 7
Exhibit B - Commercial Design Standards and HPC Major Development Conceptual for
Base 2 (232 East Main Street)
26.412.010. Purpose.
The purpose of commercial design review is to preserve and foster proper commercial district
scale and character and to ensure that the City's commercial areas and streetscapes are public
places conducive to walking. The review standards do not prescribe architectural style, but do
require that certain building elements contribute to the streetscape.
The character of the City's commercial district is largely established by the variety of uses and
the relationship between front facades of buildings and the streets they face. By requiring certain
building elements to be incorporated in the design of new and remodeled buildings, storefronts
are more appealing and can contribute to a well-designed, exciting commercial district.
Accommodation of the automobile within commercial districts is important to the consistency
and quality of pedestrian streetscapes. The standards prescribe certain methods of
accommodating on-site parking to achieve environments conducive to walking.
Acknowledgement of the context that has been established by the existing built environment is
important to protecting the uniqueness of the City. To achieve compatibility, certain standards
require building elements to be influenced by adjoining development, views, pedestrian malls or
sun angles.
Finally, along with creating architecturally interesting and lively primary streets, the pedestrian
nature of downtown can be further enhanced by making alleys an attractive place to walk. Store
entrances and display windows along alleyways are encouraged to augment, while not detracting
from, the pedestrian interest of primary streets.
26.412.050. Review Criteria.
An application for commercial design review may be approved, approved with conditions or
denied based on conformance with the following criteria:
A. The proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial
design standards, or any deviation from the standards provides a more appealing pattern of
development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of
the particular standard. Unique site constraints can justify a deviation from the standards.
Compliance with Section 26.412.070, Suggested design elements, is not required but may be
used to justify a deviation from the standards.
Staff Findings:
The proposed project requests height and floor area variations, setback variations, parking
waivers and impact fee waivers through the Planned Development process. The property is
located in the Main Street Historic District and is adjacent to the historic Cortina Lodge. The
block is mostly 19 th century historic landmarks with the exception of the subject property and the
P31
III.B.
Exhibit B- Commercial Design Standards and
Major HP Review
232 East Main Street – Base 2
Page 2 of 7
property at the corner of Aspen and Main Street. The block across the street is entirely 1- 2
story historic landmarks. The historic context of this property is very challenging.
The zoning across Monarch Street, starting at Carl’s, changes to the Commercial Core Historic
District which allows taller and bigger buildings such as the Hotel Jerome. This property is
located in a transitional area at the edge of the Mixed Use Zone District. The transitional
position of the subject property supports larger and taller mass toward Monarch Street as a way
to visually step up to the Commercial Core context.
The applicant requests approval to vary the Cumulative Floor Area, and the Lodge and
Commercial Floor Area. Setback variations and height variations are requested. Parking
waivers are requested.
The Commercial Core Zone District allows a maximum height of 38’- 40’, as opposed to the
maximum height of 28’- 32’ in the Mixed Use Zone District. The applicant proposes a maximum
height of 39.’ Staff is less concerned about the height adjacent to Monarch Street, which faces
the large Hotel Jerome, and is more concerned about the impact of the height adjacent to the
Cortina Lodge.
Considering the context - a 0’ front setback at the Cortina Lodge - staff is supportive of the
requested setback variations. The adjacent Commercial Core Zone District has 0’ setback
requirements for all yards, which is consistent with the proposed project.
Staff is supportive of the overall style of the project and finds that a gable and flat roof are
appropriate. The two roof forms provide height variations and relate to the historic resources
in the block. Staff is concerned that the building is too big considering the context of the block.
Staff recommends that the applicant reduce the size of the building – possibly by reducing the
west elevation to two stories to inflect to the Cortina Lodge to better meet Guidelines 7.13 and
7.14 below.
7.13 A new building or addition should reflect the range and variation in building height of
the Main Street Historic District.
• Refer to the zone district regulations to determine the maximum height limit on the
subject property.
• A minimum second story floor to ceiling height of 9 ft. should be used in a method that is
respectful to historic buildings.
• Additional height, as permitted in the zone district, may be added for one or more of the
following reasons:
o The primary function of the building is civic. (i.e. the building is a Museum,
Performance Hall, Fire Station, etc.)
o Some portion of the property is affected by a height restriction due to its
proximity to a historic resource, or location within a View Plane, therefore relief
in another area may be appropriate.
o To benefit the livability of Affordable Housing units.
o To make a demonstrable (to be verified by the Building Department) contribution
to the building’s overall energy efficiency, for instance by providing improved
daylight.
P32
III.B.
Exhibit B- Commercial Design Standards and
Major HP Review
232 East Main Street – Base 2
Page 3 of 7
7.14 Design a new building to appear similar in scale to those in the district during the
mining era.
• Generally, a new building should be one to two stories in height.
B. For proposed development converting an existing structure to commercial use, the
proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial design
standards, to the greatest extent practical. Changes to the façade of the building may be required
to comply with this Section.
Staff Finding: n/a.
C. The application shall comply with the guidelines within the Commercial, Lodging and
Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines as determined by the appropriate
Commission. The guidelines set forth design review criteria, standards and guidelines that are to
be used in making determinations of appropriateness. The City shall determine when a proposal
is in compliance with the criteria, standards and guidelines. Although these criteria, standards
and guidelines are relatively comprehensive, there may be circumstances where alternative ways
of meeting the intent of the policy objectives might be identified. In such a case, the City must
determine that the intent of the guideline is still met, albeit through alternative means.
Staff Finding: See discussion above.
26.412.060. Commercial Design Standards.
The following design standards, in addition to the commercial, lodging and historic district
design objectives and guidelines, shall apply to commercial, lodging and mixed-use
development:
A. Public Amenity Space. Creative, well-designed public places and settings contribute to
an attractive, exciting and vital downtown retail district and a pleasant pedestrian shopping and
entertainment atmosphere. Public amenity can take the form of physical or operational
improvements to public rights-of-way or private property within commercial areas.
On parcels required to provide public amenity, pursuant to Section 26.575.030, Public amenity,
the following standards shall apply to the provision of such amenity. Acceptance of the method
or combination of methods of providing the public amenity shall be at the option of the Planning
and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, according to
the procedures herein and according to the following standards:
1. The dimensions of any proposed on-site public amenity sufficiently allow for a variety of
uses and activities to occur, considering any expected tenant and future potential tenants
and uses.
Staff Finding: The proposed public amenity is located on the roof. The roof will be open to the
public and a public access easement will be provided to ensure accessibility. A small courtyard
area is proposed along the west elevation accessed from the interior of the building. Section
26.575.030 allows alternative methods of public amenity as described below:
P33
III.B.
Exhibit B- Commercial Design Standards and
Major HP Review
232 East Main Street – Base 2
Page 4 of 7
“The Commission may accept any method of providing public amenity not otherwise
described herein if the Commission finds that such method equals or exceeds the value,
which may be nonmonetary community value, of a otherwise required cash-in-lieu payment.”
Staff is supportive of the proposed rooftop public amenity space which provides significantly
more public amenity than required – 600 sf is required and 2,727 sf is proposed including the
courtyard. Staff is less supportive of the courtyard, which does not meet the purpose of the
public amenity requirement which is to “contribute to an attractive commercial and lodging
district by creating public places an settings conducive to an exciting pedestrian shopping and
entertainment atmosphere.” Staff finds that the public rooftop deck is an acceptable alternate
public amenity that meets the purpose of the requirement and recommends approval with the
condition that an access easement be provided for the public. Staff finds this criterion is met
with conditions.
2. The public amenity contributes to an active street vitality. To accomplish this
characteristic, public seating, outdoor restaurant seating or similar active uses, shade
trees, solar access, view orientation and simple at-grade relationships with adjacent
rights-of-way are encouraged.
Staff Finding: n/a. An alternate method is proposed that is not at grade.
3. The public amenity and the design and operating characteristics of adjacent structures,
rights-of-way and uses contribute to an inviting pedestrian environment.
Staff Finding: n/a. An alternate method is proposed that is not at grade.
4. The proposed amenity does not duplicate existing pedestrian space created by malls,
sidewalks or adjacent property, or such duplication does not detract from the pedestrian
environment.
Staff Finding: The proposed amenity space does not duplicate existing spaces. Rather it
provides a positive and creative area that provided mountain views to the public. Staff finds this
criterion is met.
5. Any variation to the design and operational standards for public amenity, Subsection
26.575.030.F., promotes the purpose of the public amenity requirements.
Staff Finding: Staff is supportive of the proposed rooftop public amenity space which provides
significantly more public amenity than required – 600 sf is required and 2,727 sf is proposed
including the courtyard. Staff is less supportive of the courtyard, which does not meet the
purpose of the public amenity requirement which is to “contribute to an attractive commercial
and lodging district by creating public places an settings conducive to an exciting pedestrian
shopping and entertainment atmosphere.” Staff finds that the public rooftop deck is an
acceptable alternate public amenity that meets the purpose of the requirement and
recommends approval with the condition that an access easement be provided for the public.
Staff finds this criterion is met with conditions.
B. Utility, delivery and trash service provision. When the necessary logistical elements of
a commercial building are well designed, the building can better contribute to the overall success
P34
III.B.
Exhibit B- Commercial Design Standards and
Major HP Review
232 East Main Street – Base 2
Page 5 of 7
of the district. Poor logistics of one (1) building can detract from the quality of surrounding
properties. Efficient delivery and trash areas are important to the function of alleyways. The
following standards shall apply:
1. A trash and recycle service area shall be accommodated on all projects and shall meet the
minimum size and location standards established by Title 12, Solid Waste , of the
Municipal Code, unless otherwise established according to said Chapter.
Staff Finding: The trash recycle area is located on the property adjacent to the
restaurant/eating area and is accessed off of the alley. The area is 15’w x 20’d x 10’h. The
applicant is working with the Environmental Health Department to receive approval for a
reduced trash size. The required size for this type of development is 20’w x 20’d x 20’h.
2. A utility area shall be accommodated on all projects and shall meet the minimum
standards established by Title 25, Utilities , of the Municipal Code, the City’s Electric
Distribution Standards, and the National Electric Code, unless otherwise established
according to said Codes.
Staff Finding: The Utility Department is concerned about the location of the transformer and the
ability for the transformer to be open to the sky (it is currently covered). Resolution of the
transformer location/design is required as part of Detailed Review. The applicant is required to
meet the above mentioned Codes. Staff finds this criterion is met with conditions.
3. All utility, trash and recycle service areas shall be co-located and combined to the greatest
extent practical.
Staff Finding: The utility and trash areas are co-located along the alley. Staff finds this
criterion is met to the extent practical.
4. If the property adjoins an alleyway, the utility, trash and recycle service areas shall be
along and accessed from the alleyway, unless otherwise approved through Title 12, Solid
Waste , of the Municipal Code, or through Chapter 26.430, Special Review .
Staff Finding: These areas are located off of the alley. Staff finds this criterion is met.
5. All utility, trash and recycle service areas shall be fenced so as not to be visible from the
street, unless they are entirely located on an alleyway or otherwise approved though Title
12, Solid Waste , of the Municipal Code, or through Chapter 26.430, Special Review . All
fences shall be six (6) feet high from grade, shall be of sound construction, and shall be
no less than ninety percent (90%) opaque, unless otherwise varied through Chapter
26.430, Special Review .
Staff Finding: The utility trash area is located on an alley. A fence shall be reviewed during
Detail Review. Staff finds this criterion is met with conditions.
6. Whenever utility, trash, and recycle service areas are required to be provided abutting an
alley, other portions of a building may extend to the rear property line if otherwise
allowed by this Title, provided that the utility, trash and recycle area is located at grade
and accessible to the alley.
P35
III.B.
Exhibit B- Commercial Design Standards and
Major HP Review
232 East Main Street – Base 2
Page 6 of 7
Staff Finding: A rear yard variance is requested for the building along the alley. The setback
variance is discussed in Exhibit A, Planned Development – Project Review. Staff finds this
criterion is met.
7. All utility service pedestals shall be located on private property. Easements shall allow
for service provider access. Encroachments into the alleyway shall be minimized to the
extent practical and should only be necessary when existing site conditions, such as an
historic resource, dictate such encroachment. All encroachments shall be properly
licensed.
Staff Finding: The utility areas are proposed to be located on private property. An easement is
required for service provider access and is included as a condition of approval. Staff finds this
criterion is met.
8. All commercial and lodging buildings shall provide a delivery area. The delivery area
shall be located along the alley if an alley adjoins the property. The delivery area shall be
accessible to all tenant spaces of the building in a manner that meets the requirements of
the International Building Code Chapters 10 and 11 as adopted and amended by the City
of Aspen. All non-ground floor commercial spaces shall have access to an elevator or
dumbwaiter for delivery access. Alleyways (vehicular rights-of-way) may not be utilized
as pathways (pedestrian rights-of-way) to meet the requirements of the International
Building Code. Any truck loading facility shall be an integral component of the building.
Shared facilities are highly encouraged.
Staff Finding: The delivery area shall be noted on the site plan for review during Detailed
Review. Staff finds this criterion is not met and requests more information from the applicant
to explain the delivery area for Detailed Review..
9. All commercial tenant spaces located on the ground floor in excess of 1,500 square feet
shall contain a vestibule (double set of doors) developed internal to the structure to meet
the requirements of the International Energy Conservation Code as adopted and amended
by the City of Aspen, or an air curtain.
Staff Finding: A vestibule is not included in the floor plans. Staff finds that this criterion is not
met and recommends a vestibule be added to the plans for Detailed Review.
10. Mechanical exhaust, including parking garage ventilation, shall be vented through the
roof. The exhaust equipment shall be located as far away from the street as practical.
Staff Finding: The applicant represents that all mechanical shall be vented through the roof. A
roof plan shall be provided for Detailed Review to meet this criterion. Staff finds this criterion
is not met and recommends further information for Detailed Review.
11. Mechanical ventilation equipment and ducting shall be accommodated internally within
the building and/or located on the roof, minimized to the extent practical and recessed
behind a parapet wall or other screening device such that it shall not be visible from a
public right-of-way at a pedestrian level. New buildings shall reserve adequate space for
future ventilation and ducting needs.
P36
III.B.
Exhibit B- Commercial Design Standards and
Major HP Review
232 East Main Street – Base 2
Page 7 of 7
Staff Finding: The rooftop mechanical shall be consolidated into one area and screened from
view. The applicant proposes significant setbacks for the mechanical equipment, which is
clustered toward the rear of the building. Staff finds this criterion is met.
12. The trash and recycling service area requirements may be varied pursuant to Title 12,
Solid Waste , of the Municipal Code. All other requirements of this subsection may be
varied by special review (see Chapter 26.430.040.E, Utility and delivery service area
provisions ).
Staff Finding: A reduction to the trash and recycle area is subject to review by the
Environmental Health Department pursuant to the requirements in Title 12 of the Municipal
Code. Staff finds this criterion is met with conditions.
P37
III.B.
Exhibit C
Base 2 – 232 E. Main St.
Growth Management
Page 1 of 6
Exhibit C – Staff Findings, Growth Management
26.470.050. General requirements.
A. Purpose: The intent of growth management is to provide for orderly development and
redevelopment of the City while providing mitigation from the impacts said development and
redevelopment creates. Different types of development are categorized below, as well as the
necessary review process and review standards for the proposed development. A proposal may
fall into multiple categories and therefore have multiple processes and standards to adhere to and
meet.
B. General requirements: All development applications for growth management review shall
comply with the following standards. The reviewing body shall approve, approve with
conditions or deny an application for growth management review based on the following
generally applicable criteria and the review criteria applicable to the specific type of
development:
1. Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the proposed
development, pursuant to Subsection 26.470.030.D. Applications for multi-year
development allotment, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.1 shall not be required to meet
this standard.
Staff Finding: The applicant requests new 80 lodge pillows (40 lodge bedrooms). There are
about 40 pillows available for the 2014 allotment year. The applicant is required to request the
additional 40 pillows through a new GMQS application in 2015. Staff finds that this criterion
is met with the condition that the applicant request additional allotments in 2015.
2. The proposed development is compatible with land uses in the surrounding area, as well
as with any applicable adopted regulatory master plan.
Staff Finding: The proposed development is consistent with surrounding land uses which
include the Hotel Jerome across Monarch Street. There are no applicable regulatory master
plans. Staff finds that this criterion is met.
3. The development conforms to the requirements and limitations of the zone district.
Staff Finding: The development is requesting a Planned Development site specific approval to
define dimensional requirements. Staff finds that this criterion is met.
4. The proposed development is consistent with the Conceptual Historic Preservation
Commission approval, the Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval and the
Planned Development – Project Review approval, as applicable.
Staff Finding: Pursuant to the Land Use Code, Staff is processing the Conceptual design
approvals and the Project Review approval concurrent with the Growth Management review.
Staff finds that this criterion is met.
P38
III.B.
Exhibit C
Base 2 – 232 E. Main St.
Growth Management
Page 2 of 6
5. Unless otherwise specified in this Chapter, sixty percent (60%) of the employees
generated by the additional commercial or lodge development, according to Subsection
26.470.100.A, Employee generation rates, are mitigated through the provision of
affordable housing. The employee generation mitigation plan shall be approved pursuant
to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing, at a Category 4 rate as defined in the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may
choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. If an applicant
chooses to use a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation, pursuant to
Chapter 26.540, such Certificate shall be extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.540.90
Criteria for Administrative Extinguishment of the Certificate.
Staff Finding: See review criteria below specific to lodge development.
6. Affordable housing net livable area, for which the finished floor level is at or above
natural or finished grade, whichever is higher, shall be provided in an amount equal to at
least thirty percent (30%) of the additional free-market residential net livable area, for
which the finished floor level is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is
higher.
Affordable housing shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable
housing, and be restricted to a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide
mitigation units at a lower category designation. Affordable housing units that are being
provided absent a requirement ("voluntary units") may be deed-restricted at any level of
affordability, including residential occupied. If an applicant chooses to use a Certificate
of Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation, pursuant to Chapter 26.540, such Certificate
shall be extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.540.90 Criteria for Administrative
Extinguishment of the Certificate, utilizing the calculations in Section 26.470.100
Employee/Square Footage Conversion.
Staff Finding: n/a. No free market residential development is proposed.
7. The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure, or such
additional demand is mitigated through improvement proposed as part of the project.
Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment,
energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid
waste disposal, parking and road and transit services.
Staff Finding: The applicant represents an intention to accommodate all impacts on
infrastructure. Staff finds this criterion is met.
26.470.070 Planning and Zoning Commission applications.
The following types of development shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by
the Planning and Zoning Commission, pursuant to Section 26.470.110, Procedures for review,
and the criteria for each type of development described below. Except as noted, all growth
management applications shall comply with the general requirements of Section 26.470.050.
Except as noted, the following types of growth management approvals shall be deducted from
P39
III.B.
Exhibit C
Base 2 – 232 E. Main St.
Growth Management
Page 3 of 6
the respective development ceiling levels but shall not be deducted from the annual development
allotments. Approvals apply cumulatively. Growth Management approvals for Subsections
26.470.080(6-10) shall be deducted from the respective annual development allotments.
26.470.70.4 Affordable housing. The development of affordable housing deed-restricted in
accordance with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines shall be approved,
approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the
following criteria:
a. The proposed units comply with the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be
required for this standard. The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority may choose to
hold a public hearing with the Board of Directors.
Staff Finding: The applicant requests a waiver of affordable housing mitigation in lieu of the
development of affordable lodge units. APCHA recommends mitigation onsite or in the form of
affordable housing credits. The referral comments are included in Exhibit D.
b. Affordable housing required for mitigation purposes shall be in the form of actual newly
built units or buy-down units. Off-site units shall be provided within the City limits.
Units outside the City limits may be accepted as mitigation by the City Council, pursuant
to Paragraph 26.470.090.2. If the mitigation requirement is less than one (1) full unit, a
cash-in-lieu payment may be accepted by the Planning and Zoning Commission upon a
recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. If the mitigation
requirement is one (1) or more units, a cash-in-lieu payment shall require City Council
approval, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.3. A Certificate of Affordable Housing
Credit may be used to satisfy mitigation requirements by approval of the Community
Development Department Director, pursuant to Section 26.540.080 Extinguishment of
the Certificate. Required affordable housing may be provided through a mix of these
methods.
Staff Finding: n/a.
c. Each unit provided shall be designed such that the finished floor level of fifty percent
(50%) or more of the unit's net livable area is at or above natural or finished grade,
whichever is higher. This dimensional requirement may be varied through Special
Review, Pursuant to Chapter 26.430.
Staff Finding: n/a.
d. The proposed units shall be deed-restricted as "for sale" units and transferred to qualified
purchasers according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. The
owner may be entitled to select the first purchasers, subject to the aforementioned
qualifications, with approval from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. The
deed restriction shall authorize the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority or the City to
own the unit and rent it to qualified renters as defined in the Affordable Housing
Guidelines established by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, as amended.
P40
III.B.
Exhibit C
Base 2 – 232 E. Main St.
Growth Management
Page 4 of 6
The proposed units may be rental units, including but not limited to rental units owned by
an employer or nonprofit organization, if a legal instrument in a form acceptable to the
City Attorney ensures permanent affordability of the units. The City encourages
affordable housing units required for lodge development to be rental units associated with
the lodge operation and contributing to the long-term viability of the lodge.
Units owned by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, the City of Aspen, Pitkin
County or other similar governmental or quasi-municipal agency shall not be subject to
this mandatory "for sale" provision.
Staff Finding: n/a.
e. Non-Mitigation Affordable Housing. Affordable housing units that are not required for
mitigation, but meet the requirements of Section 26.470.070.4(a-d). The owner of such
non-mitigation affordable housing is eligible to receive a Certificate of Affordable
Housing Credit pursuant to Chapter 26.540.
Staff Finding: n/a.
Lodge development . The expansion of an existing lodge or the development of a new lodge
shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission
based on the following criteria:
a. If the project contains a minimum of one (1) lodge unit per five hundred (500) square feet
of lot area, the following affordable housing mitigation standards shall apply:
1) Affordable housing net livable area equaling a percentage, as defined in the unit size
table below, of the additional free-market residential net livable area shall be
mitigated through the provision of affordable housing.
2) A percentage, as defined in the table below, of the employees generated by the
additional lodge, timeshare lodge, exempt timeshare units and associated commercial
development, according to Paragraph 26.470.100.A.1, Employee generation, shall be
mitigated through the provision of affordable housing.
Average Net Livable
Area of Lodge Units
Being Added to the
Parcel
Affordable Housing Net
Livable Area Required
(Percentage of Free-
Market Net Livable
Area)
Percentage of
Employee Generation
Requiring the
Provision of Mitigation
600 square feet or
greater
30% 60%
500 square feet 30% 40%
400 square feet 20% 20%
300 square feet or
smaller
10% 10%
P41
III.B.
Exhibit C
Base 2 – 232 E. Main St.
Growth Management
Page 5 of 6
When the average unit size falls between the square-footage categories, the required
affordable housing shall be determined by interpolating the above schedule. For
example, a lodge project with an average unit size of four hundred fifty (450) square
feet shall be required to provide mitigation for thirty percent (30%) of the employees
generated.
Affordable housing units provided shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph
26.470.070.4, Affordable housing, and be restricted to a maximum of a Category 4
rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as
amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category
designation.
Staff Finding: The project proposes to increase the existing commercial net leasable area and
add lodge net livable area (nla). Following is the calculation for affordable housing mitigation:
Commercial:
Existing: 1,500 sf nla [1,5000 sf * 3.6 FTEs/1,000 sf = 5.4 FTEs ]
Proposed: 3,105 sf nla [3,105 sf * 3.6FTEs/1,000 sf = 11.18 FTE ]
Employees Generated by Commercial: 11.18- 5.55 = 5.78 FTEs
Mitigated at 10% according to the chart above: 0.58 FTEs require mitigation
Lodge:
Existing: 0 lodge bedrooms
Proposed: 40 lodge bedrooms
40 new lodge bedrooms = (40 * 0.6 FTEs/bdrm) = 24 FTEs @ 10% rate = 2.4 FTEs require
mitigation
The mitigation requirement is 0.58 FTEs + 2.4 FTEs = 2.98 FTEs.
The applicant proposes no affordable housing mitigation as a trade-off for the proposed
affordable lodge project. An employee generation review pursuant to the following criteria is
requested to determine that the Lodge Preservation generation rate of 0.3 FTEs per bedroom is
applicable to this project as opposed to the 0.6 FTEs per bedroom which is specified for lodges
in the mixed use zone district:
a) The expected employee generation of the use considering the employment generation pattern
of the use or of a similar use within the City or a similar resort economy,
b) Any unique employment characteristic of the operation.
c) The extent to which employees of various uses within a mixed-use building or of a related
off-site operation will overlap or serve multiple functions.
d) A proposed restriction requiring full employee generation mitigation upon vacation of the
type of business acceptable to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
P42
III.B.
Exhibit C
Base 2 – 232 E. Main St.
Growth Management
Page 6 of 6
e) Any proposed follow-up analysis of the project (e.g. an audit) to confirm actual employee
generation.
f) For lodge projects: An efficiency or reduction in the number of employees required for the
lodging component of the project may, at the discretion of the Commission as a means of
incentivizing a lodge project, be applied as a credit towards the mitigation requirement of the
free-market residential component of the project. Any approved reduction shall require an audit
to determine actual employee generation after two (2) complete years of operation of the lodge.
The applicant makes an argument that the FTE generation rate of 0.6 FTE/bedroom that applies
to lodges within the Lodge, Commercial Lodge and Ski Base and other zone districts should not
apply. The lodges in these areas are located at the base of the mountain: Sky Hotel, Little Nell,
St. Regis, and the Grand Hyatt. All of the lodges along Main Street have Lodge Preservation
Overlay (LP) zone district. Because this property has not historically been lodging, it does not
have the LP designation. The high level of services provided by the hotels is reflected in the
generation rate. Hotels with a LP Overlay have a much lower employee mitigation rate of 0.3
FTE/bedroom due. The Lodge Preservation zone district applies to smaller lodges. The
applicant had the option to apply to rezone the property with the Lodge Preservation Overlay,
but decided to keep the current Mixed Use zoning and apply to adjust the employee generation
rate to be that of the LP zone district. The calculation using the 0.3 FTE/bedroom generation
rate is (0.58 + 1.2) 1.78 FTEs.
In either the 0.6 or 0.3 generation rate scenario, the affordable housing requirement is minimal
(2.98 or 1.78 FTEs). The applicant requests a waiver of affordable housing requirement. The
project provides lodging with room sizes that are about 182 square feet and some ground floor
commercial space. Staff is supportive of the adjustment of the employee generation rate to 0.3
FTEs/bedroom considering the type of lodge proposed and the intent of the lower generation
rate for smaller lodges. Through the PD process City Council is asked to determine whether a
waiver of the employee mitigation requirement is appropriate.
P43
III.B.
Exhibit D – Demolition
232 E. Main, Base 2
Page 1 of 1
Exhibit D – Demolition
26.415.080. Demolition of designated historic properties or properties within a historic
district.
It is the intent of this Chapter to preserve the historic and architectural resources that have
demonstrated significance to the community. Consequently no demolition of properties
designated on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Site and Structures or properties within
a Historic District will be allowed unless approved by the HPC in accordance with the standards
set forth in this Section.
4. The HPC shall review the application, the staff report and hear evidence presented by the
property owners, parties of interest and members of the general public to determine if the
standards for demolition approval have been met. Demolition shall be approved if it is
demonstrated that the application meets any one of the following criteria:
a) The property has been determined by the City to be an imminent hazard to public
safety and the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely
manner,
b) The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to
properly maintain the structure,
c) The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen
or
d) No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic,
architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance and
Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met:
a) The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or Historic District
in which it is located and
b) The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of
the Historic District or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent
designated properties and
c) Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs
of the area.
Staff Finding: Staff finds that the existing development, does not have historic significance and
does not contribute to the integrity of the Main Street Historic District. Staff finds that criteria d,
and a – c are met and recommends approval of demolition.
P44
III.B.
1
Exhibit E - DRC- Comments for BASE 2
Engineering Department
Hailey Guglielmo, 970.429.2751, hailey.guglielmo@cityofaspen.com
These comments are not intended to be exclusive, but an initial response to the project packet
submitted for purpose of the DRC meeting.
1) Transportation Impact Analysis:
a) Provide a TIA narrative which follows page 12 of the TIA Guidelines. Explain which
TDM and MMLOS measures were selected, how they apply to this project, and why
these specific measures were selected to benefit the public.
b) While the landscape buffer is greater than the standard minimum along Main St, there is
no buffer along Monarch, and thus as is the project will not receive MMLOS credit for a
landscape buffer.
c) The TIA states the project proposes new signage, striping, mirrors, and other approved
devices to address pedestrian-vehicle conflicts at driveways. It is not clear on the plan
sheet how this is accomplished and should be elaborated to receive TDM credit for the
measure.
d) Demonstrate the pedestrian directness factor is between 1 and 1.2.
2) Drainage:
a) Provide a full major drainage report that meets URMP and Engineering Design
Standards. The conceptual design does not address WQCV or drainage requirements. If
WQCV is to be handled within the ROW, a portion of the ROW tributary area must also
be treated within the system.
3) Snow Storage:
a) Address snow shed on the east side of the building. Within the proposed plan snow will
slide from the roof onto pedestrians below.
b) Address snow shed on the west side of the building. Snow falling into the trash area from
both buildings could limit the available area. To maintain a functioning trash area how
will snow be accommodated? Ensure no snow sheds onto the neighboring property.
c) A minimum functional area equaling 30% of the paved area shall be provided contiguous
to the paved and designed to accommodate snow storage. For heated areas, the
functional area can be reduced to 10%. If the rooftop deck is to be utilized throughout the
winter, where will snow storage from the roof take place?
4) Sidewalk and Curb and Gutter:
a) All sidewalk, curb and gutter must meet the Engineering Standards as outlined in Title 21
and the Engineering Design Standards adopted by Title 29. Due to the current condition,
the curb and gutter along Monarch St will need to be replaced.
b) The sidewalk along Monarch should be detached with an 8’ width and 5’ buffer.
c) Detectable domes are not required where pedestrian walkways cross an alley.
d) The existing ramps on the corner of Main St and Monarch are non-complying ramps.
Curbheads along ramps are only permitted if the curbhead is adjacent to a planting or
P45
III.B.
2
other non-walking surface. Since this particular corner is paved throughout, winged
ramps are required.
5) Alley:
a) Alley entrance shall meet COA Standards.
b) Identify utility pedestals serving the property. Relocate all utility pedestals to within the
property boundary.
c) Locate any new electric transformer within the property boundary.
d) Building shall not overhang into the alley.
6) Parking:
a) Parking lanes shall not be located within twenty feet of a crosswalk at an intersection or
within thirty feet of any signal.
b) Include a guest loading/unloading area. A designated area must be provided as guest
loading shall not take place within the travel lanes of the street.
7) Environmental Site Assessment:
a) Due to the previous use of the site as a gas station and the location of an underground
storage tank an environmental site assessment and soils test is required. The site
assessment and remediation is to comply with the Colorado Department of Labor and
Employment – Division of Oil and Public Safety.
8) Construction Management:
a) Engineering is concerned about the Construction Impacts of this site. A construction
management plan shall be submitted for review. The plan must include a planned
sequence of construction that minimizes construction impacts. The plan shall describe
mitigation for parking, staging/encroachments, and truck traffic.
9) Excavation Stabilization:
a) Due to the proximity of the neighboring property and the excavation of the building the
City will require an excavation stabilization plan prior to building permit submittal.
10) Survey Requirements:
a) A survey requirement is to pothole and provide depth to utilities. Please comply with this
requirement at building permit submittal.
Environmental Health
C.J. Oliver, 970.920.5008, CJ.Oliver@cityofaspen.com
Our comments for Base 1 are that this project fits under the category of a lodge with a restaurant
and fewer than 60 rooms which means it will need 200 square feet of trash space that fits the
following section on the municipal code Sec. 12.10.040. Space required for trash and
recycling storage for Lodges , specifically paragraph c which states-
c. Lodges with sixty (60) or fewer guest rooms must provide a minimum of twenty (20) linear
feet adjacent to the alleyway for trash and recycling storage. The required area shall have a
P46
III.B.
3
minimum vertical clearance of ten (10) feet and a minimum depth of ten (10) feet at ground
level.
Base 2 would need to fit the same requirements. On this project I am concerned about the layout
of the proposed trash and recycling area as it has no shown alleyway access and the current
layout appears to allow for only small 96 gallon roller containers and not dumpsters or a
compactor that would be needed to best serve a building with the proposed features of Base 2.
Current drawings show a space that is 30 x 8. The 8 foot width would not allow for employees
to access the containers appropriately if they were standard sized 3 or 5 yard dumpsters. With
the extra commercial space in the building it may be best for this building to consider going with
the space requirements for a commercial building with a restaurant of 300 square feet described
in Sec. 12.10.030. Space required for trash and recycling storage for Commercial
Buildings. Paragraph b states-
b. For Commercial Buildings that will contain or that will have the capacity to contain an establishment
with a Retail Food Service License, as defined by the State of Colorado Retail Food Establishment Rules
and Regulations, a minimum of twenty (20) linear feet adjacent to the alleyway must be reserved for trash
and recycling storage. The required area shall have a minimum vertical clearance of ten (10) feet and a
minimum depth of fifteen (15) feet at ground level.
ACSD
Tom Bracewell, 970.925.3601, tom@aspensan.com
The applicant for these proposed developments shall commit to funding the replacement of the
existing District owned main sanitary sewer lines the alleys serving the proposed developments.
Service is contingent upon compliance with the District’s rules, regulations, and specifications,
which are on file at the District office.
ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that clear water connections (roof,
foundation, perimeter, patio drains) are not connected to the sanitary sewer system.
On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD.
Oil and Grease interceptors (not traps) are required for all food processing establishments.
Oil and Sand separators are required for parking garages and vehicle maintenance establishments.
Driveway entrance drains must drain to drywells.
Elevator shafts drains must flow thru o/s interceptor
Old service lines must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to
specific ACSD requirements and prior to soil stabilization. Soil nails are not allowed in ROW.
Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system. Above grade development
shall flow by gravity.
One tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements may be required where more
than one unit is served by a single service line.
P47
III.B.
4
Permanent improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or right of ways. Landscaping plans will
require approval by ACSD where soft and hard landscaping may impact public ROW or easements to
be dedicated to the district.
All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. Peg in our office can develop
an estimate for this project once detailed plans have been made available to the district.
Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the planned reserve capacity
of the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an additional proportionate fee
will be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection system or treatment capacity constraint.
Additional proportionate fees would be collected over time from all development in the area of
concern in order to fund the improvements needed.
Where additional development would produce flows that would overwhelm the planned capacity of
the existing collection system and or treatment facility, the development will be assessed fees to
cover the costs of replacing the entire portion of the system that would be overwhelmed. The District
would fund the costs of constructing reserve capacity in the area of concern (only for the material
cost difference for larger line).
A “Line Replacement Request” and a “Collection System Agreement are required for these projects.
Both are ACSD Board of Director’s action items.
Pool drain sizing shall be approved by the District.
Glycol heating and snow melt systems must be designed to prohibit and discharge of glycol to any
portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. The glycol storage areas must have
approved containment facilities.
The applicant’s engineer shall furnish average and peak flows as well as proposed service size prior
to final design.
The district will be able to respond with more specific comments and requirements once detailed
building and utility plans are available.
Parks Department
Ben Carlsen, 970.429.2034, ben.carlsen@cityofaspen.com
I would like for the contractors to plan on preservation of the cottonwood tree in the right of way
in front of Johnny McGuire’s. I apologize for not being clear on that in the beginning.
However, after taking a closer look at that tree, I would like to discuss a plan for its
preservation. It will take some planning and management, however, I think that there are real
benefits to maintaining that canopy on site. The spruce tree in front will likely be full mitigation,
but may be removed.
P48
III.B.
5
Transportation
Lynn Rumbaugh, 970.920.5038, lynn.rumbaugh@cityofaspen.com
1. Parking: Parking requirements are not meant to be waived via the TIA. These are two
separate and distinct programs. Should the two be linked, staff would recommend that
additional/enhanced use of TDM/MMLOS measures be required.
2. Narrative: There is no narrative included with the TIA. There is some narrative
throughout the other documents, but it is not necessarily related to the TIA. For example
other areas of the application mention WE-cycle, marketing and bus passes that are not
indicated in the TDM tool. Staff would request that the TIA be completed as per the
guidelines along with a narrative that directly corresponds to the TDM/MMLOS tools.
3. TDM tool
a. On-site servicing is selected in the tool, but without narrative on what that is – we
cannot determine whether it applies to the site as intended.
b. A carpool matching strategy is selected on the tool for Base 2 but not Base 1. Can
the narrative please describe the following:
i. Why is carpooling included as an option for one location and not the
other?
ii. How does the applicant plan to make use of the CommuterConnect
program as discussed in the TIA (this is the carpool matching program we
prefer to be used)?
c. Shared shuttle service is discussed throughout the application but not included in
the tool selections. Should this be an oversight, please refer to the shared shuttle
service discussion for Base 1 for further questions.
d. Bike sharing is discussed throughout the application but not included in the tool.
Should a revised TIA include bike sharing as a measure, detail should be provided
in the narrative including:
1. Is participation in the form of memberships or something larger
such as capital?
2. Are passes made free or subsidized?
3. Who receives passes (employees/guests/both)?
e. Transit subsidies are discussed throughout the application but not included in the
tool. Should a revised TIA include pass subsidies as a measure, detail should be
provided in the narrative including:
1. Amount of subsidy
2. Eligibility for subsidy (employees and/or guest)
P49
III.B.
6
Utilities Department
Andy Rossello, 970.429.1999, andy.rossello@cityofaspen.com
Base 2 may require an onsite transformer, as load calculations have not been delivered yet it is
difficult to state whether or not there is sufficient capacity in existing transformers. There is
however a 3 phase circuit and single phase circuits available in this vicinity and system
improvements might not be necessary. The City Water System has sufficient Capacity in this
area, and all 2014 (or newest adopted at time of building permit) Water Distribution System
Standards will apply.
Please note all tap fees must be paid, and abandonments of existing taps should occur prior to
utilizing new taps.
Building Department
Denis Murray, 970.429.2761, denis.murray@cityofaspen.com
1) Percentage of openings on the north and west side of both structures in relation to the fire
separation distance. May need to be reduced.
2) The allowed projection of the awning, canopy, marquee into the ROW. May need to be
reduced.
3) The snow shed design of the roofs need to be addressed.
4) Neither plan shows a passenger drop off and do not have parking?
5) Both buildings need to show an accessible route from each unit to the trash and recycling
area and toilet facility from within the property.
6) The size of the trash and recycling area must not interfere with the utility and meters.
7) If restaurants are proposed shafts or some provision for exhausting kitchen equipment
must be made. Grease and oil and sand interceptors will be required.
8) The accessible sleeping units are required to be provided with roll in showers.
9) An accessible route to recreation facilities, dining seating at bars, counters, tables will
need to be provided.
10) The projects interfaces with CDOT ROW's be aware they have their own permit process.
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority
Cindy Christensen, 970.920.5455, cindy.christensen@cityofaspen.com
RECOMMENDATION: Based on the type of development for the property of which generates
additional employees in the service industry, the APCHA Board is recommending approval of the
redevelopment of 232 East Main Street with the requirement that the applicant must provide on-
site mitigation for 3.44 FTE’s.
Should the applicant be unable to provide on-site housing, the preferred method for the mitigation
requirement of 3.44 FTE’s is via the Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit program. The
redevelopment as a lodge creates employee generation within the service industry; therefore, the
Board recommends that the 3.44 FTE’s are mitigated at no higher than Category 2.
P50
III.B.
7
The land use code states that the additional employee generation mitigation of 3.44 can be satisfied
at a Category 4 rate, with the applicant having the right to choose to provide mitigation at a lower
category designation. Due to the nature of the business, the employees that are generated by the
development are within the service industry – Category 1 and 2 income levels, thus the
recommendation is that the mitigation is satisfied at no higher than Category 2.
P51
III.B.
P
5
2
I
I
I
.
B
.
P
5
3
I
I
I
.
B
.
P
5
4
I
I
I
.
B
.
P
5
5
I
I
I
.
B
.
P
5
6
I
I
I
.
B
.
P
5
7
I
I
I
.
B
.
P
5
8
I
I
I
.
B
.
P
5
9
I
I
I
.
B
.
P
6
0
I
I
I
.
B
.
P
6
1
I
I
I
.
B
.
P
6
2
I
I
I
.
B
.
P
6
3
I
I
I
.
B
.
P
6
4
I
I
I
.
B
.
P
6
5
I
I
I
.
B
.
P
6
6
I
I
I
.
B
.
P
6
7
I
I
I
.
B
.
P
6
8
I
I
I
.
B
.
P
6
9
I
I
I
.
B
.
P
7
0
I
I
I
.
B
.
P
7
1
I
I
I
.
B
.
P
7
2
I
I
I
.
B
.
P
7
3
I
I
I
.
B
.
P
7
4
I
I
I
.
B
.
P
7
5
I
I
I
.
B
.
P
7
6
I
I
I
.
B
.
P
7
7
I
I
I
.
B
.
P
7
8
I
I
I
.
B
.
P
7
9
I
I
I
.
B
.
P
8
0
I
I
I
.
B
.
P
8
1
I
I
I
.
B
.
P
8
2
I
I
I
.
B
.
P
8
3
I
I
I
.
B
.
P
8
4
I
I
I
.
B
.
P
8
5
I
I
I
.
B
.
P
8
6
I
I
I
.
B
.
P
8
7
I
I
I
.
B
.
P
8
8
I
I
I
.
B
.
P
8
9
I
I
I
.
B
.
P
9
0
I
I
I
.
B
.
P
9
1
I
I
I
.
B
.
P
9
2
I
I
I
.
B
.
P
9
3
I
I
I
.
B
.
P
9
4
I
I
I
.
B
.
P
9
5
I
I
I
.
B
.
P
9
6
I
I
I
.
B
.
P
9
7
I
I
I
.
B
.
P
9
8
I
I
I
.
B
.
P
9
9
I
I
I
.
B
.
P
1
0
0
I
I
I
.
B
.
P
1
0
1
I
I
I
.
B
.
P
1
0
2
I
I
I
.
B
.
P
1
0
3
I
I
I
.
B
.
P
1
0
4
I
I
I
.
B
.
P
1
0
5
I
I
I
.
B
.
P
1
0
6
I
I
I
.
B
.
P
1
0
7
I
I
I
.
B
.
P
1
0
8
I
I
I
.
B
.
P
1
0
9
I
I
I
.
B
.
P
1
1
0
I
I
I
.
B
.
P
1
1
1
I
I
I
.
B
.
P
1
1
2
I
I
I
.
B
.
P
1
1
3
I
I
I
.
B
.
P
1
1
4
I
I
I
.
B
.
P
1
1
5
I
I
I
.
B
.
P
1
1
6
I
I
I
.
B
.
P
1
1
7
I
I
I
.
B
.
P
1
1
8
I
I
I
.
B
.
P
1
1
9
I
I
I
.
B
.
P
1
2
0
I
I
I
.
B
.
P
1
2
1
I
I
I
.
B
.
P
1
2
2
I
I
I
.
B
.
P
1
2
3
I
I
I
.
B
.
P
1
2
4
I
I
I
.
B
.
P
1
2
5
I
I
I
.
B
.
P
1
2
6
I
I
I
.
B
.
P
1
2
7
I
I
I
.
B
.
P
1
2
8
I
I
I
.
B
.
DRAWING TITLE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:DATE:REVIEWED:PROJECT NO.:LOCATION NO.:ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL HEREIN CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUNLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT, AND THE SAME MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. COPYRIGHT: CAMBURAS & THEODORE, LTD.NU 11/11/14 TTRA11-11-14 1ISSUE FOR CITY SUBMISSION CS-1COVER SHEET__232 EAST MAIN ST.ASPEN, CO
AS
P
E
N
,
C
O
LO
C
A
L
J
U
R
I
S
D
I
C
T
I
O
N
:
TH
E
C
I
T
Y
O
F
A
S
P
E
N
13
0
S
.
G
A
L
E
N
A
S
T
R
E
E
T
AS
P
E
N
,
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
TE
L
(
9
7
0
)
4
2
9
-
2
7
6
1
CO
N
T
A
C
T
:
B
Y
D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T
AR
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
:
CA
M
B
U
R
A
S
&
T
H
E
O
D
O
R
E
,
L
T
D
.
24
5
4
E
.
D
E
M
P
S
T
E
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
,
S
U
I
T
E
2
0
2
DE
S
P
L
A
I
N
E
S
,
I
L
6
0
0
1
6
TE
L
(
8
4
7
)
2
9
8
-
1
5
2
5
CO
N
T
A
C
T
:
T
E
D
J
.
T
H
E
O
D
O
R
E
,
N
C
A
R
B
,
L
E
E
D
A
P
OR
R
O
B
A
V
I
L
A
,
L
E
E
D
A
P
LA
N
D
P
L
A
N
N
E
R
:
HA
A
S
L
A
N
D
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
,
L
L
C
42
0
E
A
S
T
M
A
I
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
,
S
T
E
.
1
0
-
B
AS
P
E
N
,
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
TE
L
(
9
7
0
)
9
2
5
-
7
8
1
9
CO
N
T
A
C
T
:
M
I
T
C
H
H
A
A
S
VI
C
I
N
I
T
Y
M
A
P
DRAWING LIST:
SH
E
E
T
N
U
M
B
E
R
SHEET NAME
CS
-
1
COVER SHEET
PA
-
1
EXISTING PUBLIC AMENITY
PA
-
2
PROPOSED PUBLIC AMENITY
PA
-
3
PROPOSED PUBLIC AMENITY - ROOF
A-
0
1
0
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
FA
R
-
1
FLOOR PLAN - FAR CALCULATIONS
FA
R
-
2
FLOOR PLAN - FAR CALCULATIONS
NL
-
1
FLOOR PLAN - NET LE ASABLE/NET LIVABLE
NL
-
2
FLOOR PLAN - NET LE ASABLE/NET LIVABLE
A-
2
1
0
EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
A-
2
1
1
EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
AL
T
A
EXISTING LAND SURVEY
EC
-
1
EXISTING CONDITION FLOOR PLAN
A-
1
1
1
PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN
A-
1
1
2
PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN REVISIONS NO.DATEBYDESCRIPTION
OW
N
E
R
'
S
R
E
P
R
E
S
E
N
T
A
T
I
V
E
:
M
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
20
0
1
N
.
H
A
L
S
T
E
D
S
T
.
,
S
U
I
T
E
3
0
4
CH
I
C
A
G
O
,
I
L
6
0
6
1
4
CO
N
T
A
C
T
:
M
A
R
K
H
U
N
T
HC
-
1
HEIGHT COMPARISON PLAN
P129
III.B.
P
1
3
0
I
I
I
.
B
.
TH
I
S
L
O
T
D
O
E
S
N
O
T
HA
V
E
A
N
Y
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
PU
B
L
I
C
A
M
E
N
I
T
Y
S
P
A
C
E
DRAWING TITLE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:DATE:REVIEWED:PROJECT NO.:LOCATION NO.:ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL HEREIN CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUNLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT, AND THE SAME MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. COPYRIGHT: CAMBURAS & THEODORE, LTD.NU 11/11/14 TTRA11-11-14 1ISSUE FOR CITY SUBMISSION PA-1EXISTING PUBLIC AMENITY__232 EAST MAIN ST.ASPEN, CO
3
/
3
2
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
1
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
P
U
B
L
I
C
A
M
E
N
I
T
Y
CA
L
C
U
L
A
T
I
O
N
S
REVISIONS NO.DATEBYDESCRIPTION
P131
III.B.
NE
T
L
E
A
S
A
B
L
E
A
R
E
A
-
1
5
0
0
S
F
LE
A
S
A
B
L
E
A
R
E
A
-
1
5
0
0
S
F
DRAWING TITLE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:DATE:REVIEWED:PROJECT NO.:LOCATION NO.:ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL HEREIN CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUNLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT, AND THE SAME MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. COPYRIGHT: CAMBURAS & THEODORE, LTD.NU 11/11/14 TTRA11-11-14 1ISSUE FOR CITY SUBMISSION EC-1EXISTING FLOOR PLANS__232 EAST MAIN ST.ASPEN, COREVISIONSNO.DATEBYDESCRIPTION
P132
III.B.
AL
L
E
Y
3
0
M
I
N
.
P
U
B
L
I
C
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
MA
I
N
S
T
.
A
D
J
A
C
E
N
T
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
(
L
O
D
G
E
)
FE
N
C
E
BU
S
S
T
O
P
PL
A
N
T
E
R
LA
N
S
C
A
P
I
N
G
S
I
T
E
T
R
I
A
N
G
L
E
30
'
-
0
"
L
A
N
D
S
C
A
P
I
N
G
S
I
T
E
T
R
I
A
N
G
L
E
3
0
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
TR
A
F
F
I
C
SI
G
N
A
L
TR
A
F
F
I
C
SI
G
N
A
L
TR
A
F
F
I
C
SI
G
N
A
L
TR
A
F
F
I
C
SI
G
N
A
L
2
S
T
O
R
Y
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
(C
A
R
L
'
S
P
H
A
R
M
A
C
Y
)
1
S
T
O
R
Y
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
3
S
T
O
R
Y
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
ST
R
E
E
T
LI
G
H
T
ST
R
E
E
T
LI
G
H
T
1 STORY BUILDING
BR
I
C
K
PA
V
E
R
S
BR
I
C
K
PA
V
E
R
S
BR
I
C
K
PA
V
E
R
S
1
S
T
O
R
Y
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
AL
L
E
Y
M
O
N
A
R
C
H
S
T
.
P
L
A
N
T
E
R
7
'
-
0
"
44
'
-
9
"
MA
I
N
S
T
.
3
S
T
O
R
Y
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
(B
A
S
E
2
L
O
D
G
I
N
G
)
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
59
'
-
9
"
1
0
0
'
-
0
"
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
P
U
B
L
I
C
A
M
E
N
I
T
Y
LA
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
A
R
E
A
94
0
S
.
F
.
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
P
U
B
L
I
C
A
M
E
N
I
T
Y
LA
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
A
R
E
A
31
3
.
2
5
S
.
F
.
10
'
-
0
"
5
'
-
0
"
15
'
-
0
"
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
P
U
B
L
I
C
A
M
E
N
I
T
Y
CO
U
R
T
Y
A
R
D
A
R
E
A
36
0
S
.
F
.
TR
A
S
H
AR
E
A
2
0
'
-
0
"
7
'
-
6
"
7'
-
0
"
9'
-
5
"
9
9
'
-
1
0
"
S
T
R
E
E
T
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
L
O
D
G
E
P
I
C
K
-
U
P
D
R
O
P
-
O
F
F
L
O
D
G
E
P
I
C
K
-
U
P
D
R
O
P
-
O
F
F
DRAWING TITLE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:DATE:REVIEWED:PROJECT NO.:LOCATION NO.:ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL HEREIN CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUNLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT, AND THE SAME MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. COPYRIGHT: CAMBURAS & THEODORE, LTD.NU 11/11/14 TTRA11-11-14 1ISSUE FOR CITY SUBMISSION PA-2PROPOSED PUBLIC AMENITY__232 EAST MAIN ST.ASPEN, CO
1
"
=
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
P
U
B
L
I
C
A
M
E
N
I
T
Y
CA
L
C
U
L
A
T
I
O
N
REVISIONS NO.DATEBYDESCRIPTION
P133
III.B.
DN
BA
R
OU
T
D
O
O
R
TE
R
R
A
C
E
2'
-
7
"
5'
-
0
"
4'
-
4
"
ST
A
I
R
#
1
40
1
ST
A
I
R
#
2
40
4 23
6
5
.
0
4
S
.
F
.
PU
B
L
I
C
A
M
E
N
I
T
Y
ME
C
H
.
SC
R
E
E
N
I
N
G
40
6
OU
T
D
O
O
R
TE
R
R
A
C
E
40
5
TO
I
L
E
T
H
C
40
7
TO
I
L
E
T
H
C
40
8
TO
I
L
E
T
1
40
9
TO
I
L
E
T
2
41
0
TO
I
L
E
T
3
41
1
TO
I
L
E
T
4
41
2
EL
E
V
.
40
2
EL
E
V
.
40
3
DRAWING TITLE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:DATE:REVIEWED:PROJECT NO.:LOCATION NO.:ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL HEREIN CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUNLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT, AND THE SAME MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. COPYRIGHT: CAMBURAS & THEODORE, LTD.NU 11/11/14 TTRA11-11-14 1ISSUE FOR CITY SUBMISSION PA-3ROOF PLAN PUBLIC AMENITY__232 EAST MAIN ST.ASPEN, CO
3
/
1
6
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
1
RO
O
F
P
L
A
N
-
P
U
B
L
I
C
A
M
E
N
I
T
Y
REVISIONS NO.DATEBYDESCRIPTION
P134
III.B.
AL
L
E
Y
3
0
M
I
N
.
P
U
B
L
I
C
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
A
D
J
A
C
E
N
T
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
(
L
O
D
G
E
)
FE
N
C
E
BU
S
S
T
O
P
PL
A
N
T
E
R
LA
N
S
C
A
P
I
N
G
S
I
T
E
T
R
I
A
N
G
L
E
30
'
-
0
"
L
A
N
D
S
C
A
P
I
N
G
S
I
T
E
T
R
I
A
N
G
L
E
3
0
'
-
0
"
NE
W
L
A
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
A
R
E
A
N
E
W
L
A
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
A
R
E
A
10
'
-
0
"
TR
A
F
F
I
C
SI
G
N
A
L
TR
A
F
F
I
C
SI
G
N
A
L
2
S
T
O
R
Y
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
(C
A
R
L
'
S
P
H
A
R
M
A
C
Y
)
3
S
T
O
R
Y
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
ST
R
E
E
T
LI
G
H
T
1 STORY BUILDING
BR
I
C
K
PA
V
E
R
S
BRICK PAVERS
AL
L
E
Y
P
L
A
N
T
E
R
7
'
-
0
"
44
'
-
9
"
3
S
T
O
R
Y
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
(B
A
S
E
2
L
O
D
G
I
N
G
)
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
59
'
-
9
"
1
0
0
'
-
0
"
15
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
5
'
-
0
"
2
0
'
-
0
"
7'
-
0
"
9'
-
5
"
9
9
'
-
1
0
"
S
T
R
E
E
T
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
L
O
D
G
E
P
I
C
K
-
U
P
D
R
O
P
-
O
F
F
L
O
D
G
E
P
I
C
K
-
U
P
D
R
O
P
-
O
F
F
2
4
'
-
0
"
2
4
'
-
0
"
2
4
'
-
0
"
DRAWING TITLE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:DATE:REVIEWED:PROJECT NO.:LOCATION NO.:ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL HEREIN CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUNLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT, AND THE SAME MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. COPYRIGHT: CAMBURAS & THEODORE, LTD.NU 11/11/14 TTRA11-11-14 1ISSUE FOR CITY SUBMISSION A-010SITE PLAN__232 EAST MAIN ST.ASPEN, CO
1
"
=
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
SI
T
E
P
L
A
N
-
A
L
T
A
U
N
D
E
R
L
A
Y
REVISIONS NO.DATEBYDESCRIPTION
P135
III.B.
UP
DN
UP
59
'
-
9
"
1
0
0
'
-
0
"
ST
A
I
R
#
1
L1
0
8
ST
A
I
R
#
2
L1
0
9
ME
C
H
A
N
I
C
A
L
L1
0
7
BA
R
L1
0
2
LI
B
R
A
R
Y
L1
0
1
LO
U
N
G
E
L1
0
0
CO
R
R
I
D
O
R
L1
0
3
HA
M
A
M
L1
0
5
ME
N
'
S
L
O
C
K
E
R
L1
0
6
WO
M
E
N
'
S
LO
C
K
E
R
L1
0
4
BA
C
K
O
F
H
O
U
S
E
L1
1
0
EL
E
V
A
T
O
R
L1
1
2
EL
E
V
A
T
O
R
L1
1
1
59
'
-
9
"
15
'
-
0
"
1
0
0
'
-
0
"
1
'
-
9
"
1
9
'
-
1
0
"
MONARCH STREET
MA
I
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
RE
T
A
I
L
5
'
-
0
"
6'
-
1
0
"
130 SFSKI STORAGE 106 118 SFRECEPTION107
ST
A
I
R
#
1
10
9
ST
A
I
R
#
2
10
4
EL
E
V
A
T
O
R
10
3
EXIT
PA
S
S
A
G
E
W
A
Y
105
EL
E
V
A
T
O
R
11
0
TR
A
S
H
A
N
D
UT
I
L
I
T
Y
A
R
E
A
11
3
12
'
-
7
"
2
0
'
-
0
"
2
0
'
-
0
"
2
0
'
-
0
"
3
5
'
-
0
"
HO
T
E
L
F
/
B
27
'
-
7
"
2
1
'
-
3
"
22
'
-
2
"
4
8
'
-
9
"
4
9
'
-
0
"
17
'
-
1
1
"
RE
T
A
I
L
10
1
HO
T
E
L
F
/
B
10
2
OFFICE 108
PA
S
S
A
G
E
11
1
CO
U
R
T
Y
A
R
D
11
2
LOBBY 100 DRAWING TITLE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:DATE:REVIEWED:PROJECT NO.:LOCATION NO.:ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL HEREIN CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUNLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT, AND THE SAME MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. COPYRIGHT: CAMBURAS & THEODORE, LTD.NU 11/11/14 TTRA11-11-14 1ISSUE FOR CITY SUBMISSION A-111PRELIMINARY FLOOR PLANS__232 EAST MAIN ST.ASPEN, CO
3
/
1
6
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
1
LO
W
E
R
L
E
V
E
L
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
3
/
1
6
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
2
MA
I
N
F
L
O
O
R
REVISIONS NO.DATEBYDESCRIPTION
P136
III.B.
UP
DN
DN
4'
-
6
"
38
B
E
D
S
P
E
R
F
L
O
O
R
20
U
N
I
T
S
P
E
R
F
L
O
O
R
6"
9'
-
4
"
6"
9'
-
4
"
6"
9'
-
4
"
6"
9'
-
4
"
1'
-
0
"
AD
A
G
U
E
S
T
RO
O
M
4'
-
6
"
1
8
'
-
7
"
4
'
-
9
"
4
'
-
6
"
4
'
-
6
"
1
6
'
-
5
"
7'
-
9
"
1
6
'
-
5
"
5
'
-
0
"
Ro
o
m
4
20
8
Ro
o
m
5
20
9
EL
E
V
.
20
3
Ro
o
m
1
5
21
9
Ro
o
m
1
4
21
8
Ro
o
m
8
21
2
Ro
o
m
1
1
21
5
Ro
o
m
1
2
21
6 Ro
o
m
1
3
21
7
ST
A
I
R
#
1
20
1
Ro
o
m
6
21
0
Ro
o
m
7
21
1
Ro
o
m
1
6
22
0
AD
A
D
O
R
M
UN
I
T
4
'
-
6
"
4
'
-
9
"
4
'
-
9
"
4
'
-
2
"
2'
-
3
"
4
'
-
9
"
3'
-
8
"
3'
-
8
"
4
'
-
9
"
3'
-
8
"
4
'
-
9
"
4
'
-
9
"
Ro
o
m
3
20
7
3'
-
8
"
3'
-
8
"
3'
-
8
"
3'
-
8
"
9'
-
8
"
1
8
'
-
1
"
1
3
'
-
1
1
"
1
3
'
-
1
1
"
1
8
'
-
7
"
9'
-
4
"
9'
-
4
"
17
'
-
5
"
2
4
'
-
8
"
2
3
'
-
7
"
3'
-
8
"
9'
-
4
"
9'
-
4
"
9'
-
4
"
9'
-
4
"
2
0
'
-
0
"
17
'
-
1
1
"
9'
-
4
"
9'
-
4
"
6
'
-
8
"
8'
-
4
"
3
'
-
0
"
2'
-
5
"
2
'
-
4
"
2
'
-
4
"
6'
-
8
"
3'
-
8
"
4
'
-
3
"
9
'
-
8
"
1
4
'
-
6
"
1
4
'
-
6
"
9
'
-
8
"
2
3
'
-
7
"
9'
-
1
0
"
4
'
-
4
"
CO
U
R
T
Y
A
R
D
BE
L
O
W
Ro
o
m
2
20
6
Ro
o
m
1
8
22
2
16
'
-
1
0
"
4'
-
2
"
4
'
-
9
"
3'
-
8
"
4
'
-
2
"
3'
-
0
"
BU
N
K
B
E
D
BU
N
K
B
E
D
BU
N
K
B
E
D
BU
N
K
B
E
D
B
U
N
K
B
E
D
B
U
N
K
B
E
D
B
U
N
K
B
E
D
B
U
N
K
B
E
D
B
U
N
K
B
E
D
B
U
N
K
B
E
D
3'
-
8
"
B
U
N
K
B
E
D
B
U
N
K
B
E
D
3'
-
8
"
CL
O
S
E
T
22
5
3'
-
1
"
3
'
-
0
"
8
'
-
4
"
1'
-
1
1
"
1'
-
1
1
"
6
'
-
0
"
Ro
o
m
1
20
5
Ro
o
m
9
21
3
Ro
o
m
1
0
21
4
CO
R
R
I
D
O
R
20
0
Ro
o
m
1
7
22
1
EL
E
V
.
20
2
ST
A
I
R
#
2
20
4
Ro
o
m
1
9
22
3
Ro
o
m
2
0
22
4
5
'
-
8
"
5'
-
7
"
8
'
-
5
"
4'
-
2
"
3'
-
0
"
4
'
-
9
"
6
'
-
9
"
3'
-
0
"
9
'
-
0
"
3
'
-
8
"
2'
-
8
"
3
'
-
0
"
2
'
-
4
"
2
'
-
3
"
OU
T
D
O
O
R
TE
R
R
A
C
E
2' - 7"4' - 4"
ST
A
I
R
#
1
40
1
ST
A
I
R
#
2
40
4
50
'
-
1
0
"
18
'
-
1
1
"
BA
R
ME
C
H
.
SC
R
E
E
N
I
N
G
40
6
5
'
-
0
"
9'
-
1
0
"
CO
U
R
T
Y
A
R
D
BE
L
O
W
14
'
-
2
"
3
8
'
-
0
"
3
8
'
-
0
"
27
'
-
7
"
9'
-
1
"
5'
-
0
"
7
'
-
6
"
7
'
-
6
"
7
'
-
6
"
7
'
-
6
"
7
'
-
6
"
7
'
-
6
"
7' - 1"
OU
T
D
O
O
R
TE
R
R
A
C
E
40
5
TO
I
L
E
T
H
C
407
TO
I
L
E
T
H
C
408
TO
I
L
E
T
1
409
TO
I
L
E
T
2
410
TO
I
L
E
T
3
411
TO
I
L
E
T
4
412
EL
E
V
.
40
2
EL
E
V
.
40
3
DRAWING TITLE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:DATE:REVIEWED:PROJECT NO.:LOCATION NO.:ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL HEREIN CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUNLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT, AND THE SAME MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. COPYRIGHT: CAMBURAS & THEODORE, LTD.NU 11/11/14 TTRA11-11-14 1ISSUE FOR CITY SUBMISSION A-112PRELIMINARY FLOOR PLANS__232 EAST MAIN ST.ASPEN, CO
3
/
1
6
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
1
SE
C
O
N
D
A
N
D
T
H
I
R
D
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
3
/
1
6
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
2
RO
O
F
P
L
A
N
-
F
O
U
R
T
H
F
L
O
O
R
REVISIONS NO.DATEBYDESCRIPTION
P137
III.B.
UP
59
'
-
9
"
15
'
-
0
"
1
0
0
'
-
0
"
27
'
-
7
"
M
O
N
A
R
C
H
S
T
R
E
E
T
MA
I
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
NO
N
-
U
N
I
T
CO
M
M
O
N
A
R
E
A
30
0
S
F
(
E
X
E
M
P
T
ST
O
R
A
G
E
)
RE
S
T
A
U
R
A
N
T
/
B
A
R
RE
T
A
I
L
2'
-
9
"
3'
-
6
"
3'
-
6
"
3'
-
6
"
3'
-
6
"
3'
-
5
"
3'
-
5
"
3'
-
0
"
3'
-
0
"
6'
-
1
0
"
SK
I
S
T
O
R
A
G
E
10
6
RE
C
E
P
T
I
O
N
10
7
EL
E
V
A
T
O
R
10
3
ST
A
I
R
#
2
10
4
ST
A
I
R
#
1
10
9
EX
I
T
PA
S
S
A
G
E
W
A
Y
10
5
EL
E
V
A
T
O
R
11
0
TO
T
A
L
C
O
M
M
E
R
C
I
A
L
AR
E
A
3
5
1
9
.
0
1
S
F
CO
U
R
T
Y
A
R
D
NO
N
-
U
N
I
T
CO
M
M
O
N
AR
E
A
3
6
0
S
F
(E
X
E
M
P
T
PA
T
I
O
)
TR
A
S
H
A
N
D
UT
I
L
I
T
Y
A
R
E
A
11
3
NO
N
-
U
N
I
T
C
O
M
M
O
N
AR
E
A
1
7
1
5
.
4
9
S
F
2
0
'
-
0
"
4
'
-
1
1
"
LO
B
B
Y
10
0
RE
T
A
I
L
10
1
HO
T
E
L
F
/
B
10
2
PA
S
S
A
G
E
11
1
59
'
-
9
"
1
0
0
'
-
0
"
BA
C
K
O
F
H
O
U
S
E
L1
1
0
LI
B
R
A
R
Y
L1
0
1
ST
A
I
R
#
1
L1
0
8
EL
E
V
A
T
O
R
L1
1
1
EL
E
V
A
T
O
R
L1
1
2
LO
U
N
G
E
L1
0
0
BA
R
L1
0
2
ME
C
H
A
N
I
C
A
L
L1
0
7
CO
R
R
I
D
O
R
L1
0
3
HA
M
A
M
L1
0
5
ME
N
'
S
L
O
C
K
E
R
L1
0
6
WO
M
E
N
'
S
LO
C
K
E
R
L1
0
4
ST
A
I
R
#
2
L1
0
9
NO
N
-
U
N
I
T
C
O
M
M
O
N
AR
E
A
5
9
7
5
.
0
0
S
F
(E
X
E
M
P
T
S
U
B
G
R
A
D
E
)
DRAWING TITLE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:DATE:REVIEWED:PROJECT NO.:LOCATION NO.:ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL HEREIN CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUNLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT, AND THE SAME MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. COPYRIGHT: CAMBURAS & THEODORE, LTD.NU 11/11/14 TTRA11-11-14 1ISSUE FOR CITY SUBMISSION FAR-1FAR CALCULATIONS__232 EAST MAIN ST.ASPEN, CO
3
/
1
6
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
1
MA
I
N
F
L
O
O
R
-
F
A
R
C
A
L
C
U
L
A
T
I
O
N
S
3
/
1
6
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
2
LO
W
E
R
L
E
V
E
L
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
FLOOR AREA SUMMARY:
MA
I
N
L
E
V
E
L
:
5
,
8
9
4
.
5
0
S
F
CO
M
M
E
R
C
I
A
L
A
R
E
A
:
3
,
5
1
9
.
0
1
S
F
NO
N
-
U
N
I
T
C
O
M
M
O
N
A
R
E
A
:
2
,
3
7
5
.
4
9
SF (INCLUDES STORAGE & PATIO)
2N
D
L
E
V
E
L
:
5
,
6
4
1
.
9
4
S
F
LO
D
G
I
N
G
A
R
E
A
:
4
,
5
7
8
.
4
0
S
F
NO
N
-
U
N
I
T
C
O
M
M
O
N
A
R
E
A
:
1
,
0
6
3
.
5
4
S
F
RO
O
F
L
E
V
E
L
:
4
3
0
5
.
5
5
S
F
LO
W
E
R
L
E
V
E
L
:
5
,
9
7
5
S
F
DE
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
S
:
6
6
0
S
F
(
S
T
O
RAGE & COURTYARD-PATIO)
AR
E
A
T
O
W
A
R
D
S
F
A
R
:
5
,
2
3
4
.
5
0
S
F
DE
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
S
:
0
S
F
AR
E
A
T
O
W
A
R
D
S
F
A
R
:
5
,
6
4
1
.
9
4
S
F
3R
D
L
E
V
E
L
:
5
,
6
4
1
.
9
4
S
F
TOTAL FAR: 18,734.19 SF (3.14:1 FAR)
LO
D
G
I
N
G
A
R
E
A
:
4
,
5
7
8
.
4
0
S
F
NO
N
-
U
N
I
T
C
O
M
M
O
N
A
R
E
A
:
1
,
0
6
3
.
5
4
S
F
DE
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
S
:
0
S
F
AR
E
A
T
O
W
A
R
D
S
F
A
R
:
5
,
6
4
1
.
9
4
S
F
NO
N
-
U
N
I
T
C
O
M
M
O
N
A
R
E
A
:
2
,
2
1
5
.
8
1
S
F
DE
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
S
:
2
,
0
8
9
.
7
4
S
F
(OUTDOOR TERRACE-DECK)
AR
E
A
T
O
W
A
R
D
S
F
A
R
:
2
,
2
1
5
.
8
1
S
F
NO
N
-
U
N
I
T
C
O
M
M
O
N
A
R
E
A
:
5
,
9
7
5
S
F
DE
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
S
:
5
,
9
7
5
S
F
(SUBGRADE EXEMPT)
AR
E
A
T
O
W
A
R
D
S
F
A
R
:
0
S
F
ZO
N
I
N
G
I
N
F
O
R
M
A
T
I
O
N
&
C
A
L
C
U
L
A
T
I
O
N
S
:
ZO
N
I
N
G
:
(
M
U
)
M
I
X
E
D
U
S
E
NE
T
L
O
T
A
R
E
A
:
5
,
9
7
6
S
F
(
5
9
.
6
7
'
x
1
0
0
'
)
ZO
N
I
N
G
A
L
L
O
W
A
N
C
E
(
2
:
1
)
:
1
1
,
9
5
2
S
F
(
2
x
5
,
9
7
6
S
F
)
LO
W
E
R
L
E
V
E
L
:
0
%
E
X
P
O
S
E
D WALLS (100% EXEMPT)
CA
L
C
U
L
A
T
I
O
N
S
:
GR
O
S
S
F
L
O
O
R
A
R
E
A
:
CO
M
M
E
R
C
I
A
L
S
P
A
C
E
:
3,519.01 SF
LO
D
G
I
N
G
S
P
A
C
E
:
9,156.80 SF
NO
N
-
U
N
I
T
S
P
A
C
E
:
11,393.05 SF
GR
O
S
S
N
O
N
-
U
N
I
T
A
R
E
A
:
1S
T
:
1
,
7
1
5
.
4
9
S
F
2N
D
:
1
,
0
6
3
.
5
4
S
F
3R
D
:
1
,
0
6
3
.
5
4
S
F
4T
H
:
2
,
2
1
5
.
8
1
S
F
LL
:
5
,
9
7
5
.
0
0
S
F
TO
T
A
L
:
12,033.38 SF
TO
T
A
L
G
R
O
S
S
U
N
I
T
F
L
O
O
R
A
R
E
A
:
GR
O
S
S
F
L
O
O
R
A
R
E
A
-
N
O
N
-
U
N
I
T
F
L
O
O
R
A
R
E
A
=
24
,
7
0
9
.
1
9
S
F
-
1
2
,
0
3
3
.
3
8
S
F
=
12,675.81 SF
PE
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E
O
F
U
S
E
C
A
T
E
G
O
R
Y
PER BUILDING FLOOR AREA:
CO
M
M
E
R
C
I
A
L
:
[
(
3
,
5
1
9
.
0
1
/
1
2
,
6
7
5
.
8
1
)
x
1
0
0
]
=
27.77%
LO
D
G
I
N
G
:
[
(
9
,
1
5
6
.
8
0
/
12,675.81)x100] = 72.24%
AP
P
L
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
O
F
U
S
E
P
E
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E
S
TO NON-UNIT FLOOR AREA:
CO
M
M
E
R
C
I
A
L
:
1
2
,
0
3
3
.
3
8
x
2
7
.
7
7
%
=
3,341.67 SF
LO
D
G
I
N
G
:
1
2
,
0
3
3
.
3
8
x
7
2
.
2
4
%
=
8,692.92 SF
FI
N
A
L
F
L
O
O
R
A
R
E
A
:
CU
M
U
L
A
T
I
V
E
:
18,734.19 SF (3.14:1)
CO
M
M
E
R
C
I
A
L
:
3
,
5
1
9
.
0
1
+
3
,
3
4
1
.
6
7
=
6,860.68 SF (1.15:1)
LO
D
G
I
N
G
:
9
,
1
5
6
.
8
0
+
8
,
6
9
2
.
9
2
=
17,849.72 SF (2.99:1)REVISIONS NO.DATEBYDESCRIPTION
P138
III.B.
6
"
9
'
-
8
"
6
"
1
4
'
-
6
"
6
"
1
4
'
-
6
"
6
"
9
'
-
8
"
6
"
2
3
'
-
7
"
4'
-
6
"
TO
T
A
L
:
3
8
B
E
D
S
P
E
R
F
L
O
O
R
TO
T
A
L
:
2
0
U
N
I
T
S
P
E
R
F
L
O
O
R
9'
-
4
"
6"
9'
-
4
"
6"
9'
-
4
"
6"
9'
-
4
"
6"
9'
-
4
"
6"
9'
-
4
"
1'
-
0
"
9'
-
4
"
6"
6"
9'
-
4
"
6"
9'
-
4
"
6"
9'
-
4
"
6"
9'
-
4
"
1'
-
0
"
4
'
-
6
"
4'
-
6
"
4
'
-
6
"
4
'
-
6
"
1
6
'
-
5
"
7'
-
9
"
1
6
'
-
5
"
5
'
-
0
"
CO
U
R
T
Y
A
R
D
BE
L
O
W
Ro
o
m
1
4
21
8
4
'
-
6
"
4
'
-
2
"
4
'
-
2
"
4
'
-
6
"
Ro
o
m
4
20
8
Ro
o
m
5
20
9
EL
E
V
.
20
3
Ro
o
m
1
5
21
9
Ro
o
m
8
21
2
Ro
o
m
1
1
21
5
Ro
o
m
1
2
21
6
Ro
o
m
1
3
21
7
ST
A
I
R
#
1
20
1
Ro
o
m
6
21
0
Ro
o
m
7
21
1
Ro
o
m
1
6
22
0
BE
D
S
T
Y
P
E
S
:
TW
I
N
S
=
1
6
QU
E
E
N
S
=
1
4
KI
N
G
=
8
TO
T
A
L
P
I
L
L
O
W
S
A
L
L
L
E
V
E
L
S
:
1
2
0
LO
D
G
I
N
G
A
R
E
A
45
7
8
.
4
0
S
F
NO
N
-
U
N
I
T
C
O
M
M
O
N
AR
E
A
1
0
6
3
.
5
4
S
F
Ro
o
m
3
20
7 Ro
o
m
2
20
6
Ro
o
m
1
8
22
2
CL
O
S
E
T
22
5
Ro
o
m
1
20
5
Ro
o
m
9
21
3
Ro
o
m
1
0
21
4
CO
R
R
I
D
O
R
20
0
Ro
o
m
1
7
22
1
EL
E
V
.
20
2
ST
A
I
R
#
2
20
4
Ro
o
m
1
9
22
3
Ro
o
m
2
0
22
4
9'
-
4
"
2
3
'
-
7
"
9'
-
1
0
"
2
0
'
-
0
"
17
'
-
1
1
"
AD
A
G
U
E
S
T
RO
O
M
AD
A
D
O
R
M
UN
I
T
BU
N
K
B
E
D
BU
N
K
B
E
D
BU
N
K
B
E
D
BU
N
K
B
E
D
B
U
N
K
B
E
D
B
U
N
K
B
E
D
B
U
N
K
B
E
D
B
U
N
K
B
E
D
B
U
N
K
B
E
D
B
U
N
K
B
E
D
B
U
N
K
B
E
D
B
U
N
K
B
E
D
BA
R
OU
T
D
O
O
R
TE
R
R
A
C
E
2'
-
7
"
5'
-
0
"
4'
-
4
"
ST
A
I
R
#
1
40
1
ST
A
I
R
#
2
40
4
NO
N
-
U
N
I
T
CO
M
M
O
N
A
R
E
A
20
8
9
.
7
4
S
F
(E
X
E
M
P
T
D
E
C
K
)
NO
N
-
U
N
I
T
CO
M
M
O
N
A
R
E
A
17
9
0
.
4
1
S
F
ME
C
H
.
SC
R
E
E
N
I
N
G
40
6
OU
T
D
O
O
R
TE
R
R
A
C
E
40
5
TO
I
L
E
T
H
C
40
7
TO
I
L
E
T
H
C
40
8
TO
I
L
E
T
1
40
9
TO
I
L
E
T
2
41
0
TO
I
L
E
T
3
41
1
TO
I
L
E
T
4
41
2
EL
E
V
.
40
2
EL
E
V
.
40
3
NO
N
-
U
N
I
T
CO
M
M
O
N
A
R
E
A
42
5
.
4
0
S
F
DRAWING TITLE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:DATE:REVIEWED:PROJECT NO.:LOCATION NO.:ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL HEREIN CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUNLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT, AND THE SAME MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. COPYRIGHT: CAMBURAS & THEODORE, LTD.NU 11/11/14 TTRA11-11-14 1ISSUE FOR CITY SUBMISSION FAR-2FAR CALCULATIONS__232 EAST MAIN ST.ASPEN, CO
3
/
1
6
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
1
SE
C
O
N
D
A
N
D
T
H
I
R
D
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
3
/
1
6
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
2
RO
O
F
P
L
A
N
-
F
A
R
C
A
L
C
U
L
A
T
I
O
N
S
REVISIONS NO.DATEBYDESCRIPTIONFLOOR AREA SUMMARY:
MA
I
N
L
E
V
E
L
:
5
,
8
9
4
.
5
0
S
F
CO
M
M
E
R
C
I
A
L
A
R
E
A
:
3
,
5
1
9
.
0
1
S
F
NO
N
-
U
N
I
T
C
O
M
M
O
N
A
R
E
A
:
2
,
3
7
5
.
4
9
SF (INCLUDES STORAGE & PATIO)
2N
D
L
E
V
E
L
:
5
,
6
4
1
.
9
4
S
F
LO
D
G
I
N
G
A
R
E
A
:
4
,
5
7
8
.
4
0
S
F
NO
N
-
U
N
I
T
C
O
M
M
O
N
A
R
E
A
:
1
,
0
6
3
.
5
4
S
F
RO
O
F
L
E
V
E
L
:
4
3
0
5
.
5
5
S
F
LO
W
E
R
L
E
V
E
L
:
5
,
9
7
5
S
F
DE
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
S
:
6
6
0
S
F
(
S
T
O
RAGE & COURTYARD-PATIO)
AR
E
A
T
O
W
A
R
D
S
F
A
R
:
5
,
2
3
4
.
5
0
S
F
DE
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
S
:
0
S
F
AR
E
A
T
O
W
A
R
D
S
F
A
R
:
5
,
6
4
1
.
9
4
S
F
3R
D
L
E
V
E
L
:
5
,
6
4
1
.
9
4
S
F
TOTAL FAR: 18,734.19 SF (3.14:1 FAR)
LO
D
G
I
N
G
A
R
E
A
:
4
,
5
7
8
.
4
0
S
F
NO
N
-
U
N
I
T
C
O
M
M
O
N
A
R
E
A
:
1
,
0
6
3
.
5
4
S
F
DE
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
S
:
0
S
F
AR
E
A
T
O
W
A
R
D
S
F
A
R
:
5
,
6
4
1
.
9
4
S
F
NO
N
-
U
N
I
T
C
O
M
M
O
N
A
R
E
A
:
2
,
2
1
5
.
8
1
S
F
DE
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
S
:
2
,
0
8
9
.
7
4
S
F
(OUTDOOR TERRACE-DECK)
AR
E
A
T
O
W
A
R
D
S
F
A
R
:
2
,
2
1
5
.
8
1
S
F
NO
N
-
U
N
I
T
C
O
M
M
O
N
A
R
E
A
:
5
,
9
7
5
S
F
DE
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
S
:
5
,
9
7
5
S
F
(SUBGRADE EXEMPT)
AR
E
A
T
O
W
A
R
D
S
F
A
R
:
0
S
F
ZO
N
I
N
G
I
N
F
O
R
M
A
T
I
O
N
&
C
A
L
C
U
L
A
T
I
O
N
S
:
ZO
N
I
N
G
:
(
M
U
)
M
I
X
E
D
U
S
E
NE
T
L
O
T
A
R
E
A
:
5
,
9
7
6
S
F
(
5
9
.
6
7
'
x
1
0
0
'
)
ZO
N
I
N
G
A
L
L
O
W
A
N
C
E
(
2
:
1
)
:
1
1
,
9
5
2
S
F
(
2
x
5
,
9
7
6
S
F
)
LO
W
E
R
L
E
V
E
L
:
0
%
E
X
P
O
S
E
D WALLS (100% EXEMPT)
CA
L
C
U
L
A
T
I
O
N
S
:
GR
O
S
S
F
L
O
O
R
A
R
E
A
:
CO
M
M
E
R
C
I
A
L
S
P
A
C
E
:
3,519.01 SF
LO
D
G
I
N
G
S
P
A
C
E
:
9,156.80 SF
NO
N
-
U
N
I
T
S
P
A
C
E
:
11,393.05 SF
GR
O
S
S
N
O
N
-
U
N
I
T
A
R
E
A
:
1S
T
:
1
,
7
1
5
.
4
9
S
F
2N
D
:
1
,
0
6
3
.
5
4
S
F
3R
D
:
1
,
0
6
3
.
5
4
S
F
4T
H
:
2
,
2
1
5
.
8
1
S
F
LL
:
5
,
9
7
5
.
0
0
S
F
TO
T
A
L
:
12,033.38 SF
TO
T
A
L
G
R
O
S
S
U
N
I
T
F
L
O
O
R
A
R
E
A
:
GR
O
S
S
F
L
O
O
R
A
R
E
A
-
N
O
N
-
U
N
I
T
F
L
O
O
R
A
R
E
A
=
24
,
7
0
9
.
1
9
S
F
-
1
2
,
0
3
3
.
3
8
S
F
=
12,675.81 SF
PE
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E
O
F
U
S
E
C
A
T
E
G
O
R
Y
PER BUILDING FLOOR AREA:
CO
M
M
E
R
C
I
A
L
:
[
(
3
,
5
1
9
.
0
1
/
1
2
,
6
7
5
.
8
1
)
x
1
0
0
]
=
27.77%
LO
D
G
I
N
G
:
[
(
9
,
1
5
6
.
8
0
/
12,675.81)x100] = 72.24%
AP
P
L
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
O
F
U
S
E
P
E
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E
S
TO NON-UNIT FLOOR AREA:
CO
M
M
E
R
C
I
A
L
:
1
2
,
0
3
3
.
3
8
x
2
7
.
7
7
%
=
3,341.67 SF
LO
D
G
I
N
G
:
1
2
,
0
3
3
.
3
8
x
7
2
.
2
4
%
=
8,692.92 SF
FI
N
A
L
F
L
O
O
R
A
R
E
A
:
CU
M
U
L
A
T
I
V
E
:
18,734.19 SF (3.14:1)
CO
M
M
E
R
C
I
A
L
:
3
,
5
1
9
.
0
1
+
3
,
3
4
1
.
6
7
=
6,860.68 SF (1.15:1)
LO
D
G
I
N
G
:
9
,
1
5
6
.
8
0
+
8
,
6
9
2
.
9
2
=
17,849.72 SF (2.99:1)
P139
III.B.
DN
UP
UP
1
0
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
0
'
-
0
"
59
'
-
9
"
15
'
-
0
"
1
0
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
0
'
-
0
"
27
'
-
7
"
M
O
N
A
R
C
H
S
T
R
E
E
T
MA
I
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
2'
-
9
"
3'
-
6
"
3'
-
6
"
3'
-
6
"
3'
-
6
"
3'
-
5
"
3'
-
5
"
3'
-
0
"
3'
-
0
"
6'
-
1
0
"
SK
I
S
T
O
R
A
G
E
10
6
RE
C
E
P
T
I
O
N
10
7
EL
E
V
A
T
O
R
10
3 ST
A
I
R
#
2
10
4
ST
A
I
R
#
1
10
9
EX
I
T
PA
S
S
A
G
E
W
A
Y
10
5
EL
E
V
A
T
O
R
11
0
NE
T
L
E
A
S
A
B
L
E
A
R
E
A
NE
T
L
E
A
S
A
B
L
E
A
R
E
A
PU
B
L
I
C
AM
E
N
I
T
Y
AR
E
A
TR
A
S
H
A
N
D
UT
I
L
I
T
Y
A
R
E
A
11
3
RE
T
A
I
L
10
1
HO
T
E
L
F
/
B
10
2
OF
F
I
C
E
10
8
PA
S
S
A
G
E
11
1
CO
U
R
T
Y
A
R
D
11
2
LO
B
B
Y
10
0
2
0
'
-
0
"
59
'
-
9
"
1
0
0
'
-
0
"
5'
-
3
"
BA
C
K
O
F
H
O
U
S
E
L1
1
0
LI
B
R
A
R
Y
L1
0
1
ST
A
I
R
#
1
L1
0
8
EL
E
V
A
T
O
R
L1
1
1
EL
E
V
A
T
O
R
L1
1
2
LO
U
N
G
E
L1
0
0
BA
R
L1
0
2
ME
C
H
A
N
I
C
A
L
L1
0
7
CO
R
R
I
D
O
R
L1
0
3
HA
M
A
M
L1
0
5
ME
N
'
S
L
O
C
K
E
R
L1
0
6
WO
M
E
N
'
S
LO
C
K
E
R
L1
0
4
ST
A
I
R
#
2
L1
0
9
DRAWING TITLE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:DATE:REVIEWED:PROJECT NO.:LOCATION NO.:ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL HEREIN CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUNLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT, AND THE SAME MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. COPYRIGHT: CAMBURAS & THEODORE, LTD.NU 11/11/14 TTRA11-11-14 1ISSUE FOR CITY SUBMISSION NL-1NET LIVABLE PLANS__232 EAST MAIN ST.ASPEN, CO
3
/
1
6
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
1
MA
I
N
F
L
O
O
R
-
N
E
T
L
E
A
S
A
B
L
E
3
/
1
6
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
2
LO
W
E
R
L
E
V
E
L
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
LOWER LEVEL ROOM SCHEDULE Number Name Area L100 LOUNGE 494 SF L101 LIBRARY 449 SF L102 BAR 885 SF L103 CORRIDOR 557 SF L104 WOMEN'S LOCKER295 SF L105 HAMAM 416 SF L106 MEN'S LOCKER 294 SF L107 MECHANICAL 499 SF L108 STAIR #1 127 SF L109 STAIR #2 127 SF L110 BACK OF HOUSE896 SF L111 ELEVATOR 49 SF L112 ELEVATOR 49 SF 5134 SF TOTAL AREA:NO NET LEASABLE OR NET LIVABLE ON THIS LEVEL MAIN LEVEL ROOM SCHEDULE Number Name Area 100 LOBBY 601 SF 101 RETAIL 1379 SF 102 HOTEL F/B 1726 SF 103 ELEVATOR 49 SF 104 STAIR #2 127 SF 105 EXIT PASSAGEWAY159 SF 106 SKI STORAGE 130 SF 107 RECEPTION 118 SF 108 OFFICE 96 SF 109 STAIR #1 127 SF 110 ELEVATOR 49 SF 111 PASSAGE 90 SF 112 COURTYARD 359 SF 113 TRASH AND UTILITY AREA297 SF 5307 SF TOTAL AREA:TOTAL NET LEASABLE: 3,105 S.F.NET LEASABLE NET LEASABLECOMMON SPACE COMMON SPACE COMMON SPACE COMMON SPACE COMMON SPACE COMMON SPACE COMMON SPACE COMMON SPACE COMMON SPACE COMMON SPACECOMMON SPACE COMMON SPACE COMMON SPACE COMMON SPACE COMMON SPACE COMMON SPACE COMMON SPACE COMMON SPACE COMMON SPACE COMMON SPACE COMMON SPACE COMMON SPACE COMMON SPACE PUBLIC AMENITY COMMON SPACE SUMMARY:
MA
I
N
L
E
V
E
L
:
5
,
3
0
7
S
F
TOTAL NET LEASABLE: 3,105 SF TOTAL NET LIVABLE: 0 SF TOTAL COMMON AREA: 1,843 SF PUBLIC AMENITY: 359 SF
2N
D
&
3
R
D
L
E
V
E
L
:
2
N
D
-
4
,
7
2
0
S
F
,
3
R
D
-
4
,
7
2
0
S
F
TOTAL NET LEASABLE: 2ND & 3RD-0 SF TOTAL NET LIVABLE: 2ND-3,727 SF, 3RD-3,727 SF TOTAL COMMON AREA: 2 ND-996 SF, 3RD-996 SF PUBLIC AMENITY: 2ND & 3RD-0 SF
RO
O
F
L
E
V
E
L
:
4
,
3
9
0
S
F
TOTAL NET LEASABLE: 0 SF TOTAL NET LIVABLE: 0 SF TOTAL COMMON AREA: 1,910 SF PUBLIC AMENITY: 2,483 SF
TO
T
A
L
C
O
M
M
O
N
A
R
E
A
:
1
0
,
8
7
9
S
F
LO
W
E
R
L
E
V
E
L
:
5
,
1
3
4
S
F
TOTAL NET LEASABLE: 0 SF TOTAL NET LIVABLE: 0 SF TOTAL COMMON AREA: 5,134 SF PUBLIC AMENITY: 0 SF
TO
T
A
L
N
E
T
L
E
A
S
A
B
L
E
:
3
,
1
0
5
S
F
TOTAL NET LIVABLE: 7,454 SFTOTAL PUBLIC AMENITY: 2,842 SFTOTAL BUILDING AREA: 24,271 SFREVISIONS NO.DATEBYDESCRIPTION
P140
III.B.
UP
DN
DN
6
"
9
'
-
8
"
6
"
1
4
'
-
6
"
6
"
1
4
'
-
6
"
6
"
9
'
-
8
"
6
"
2
3
'
-
7
"
4'
-
6
"
6"
9'
-
4
"
6"
9'
-
4
"
6"
9'
-
4
"
6"
9'
-
4
"
1'
-
0
"
6"
9'
-
4
"
6"
9'
-
4
"
6"
9'
-
4
"
6"
9'
-
4
"
1'
-
0
"
4
'
-
6
"
4'
-
6
"
4
'
-
6
"
4
'
-
6
"
1
6
'
-
5
"
7'
-
9
"
1
6
'
-
5
"
5
'
-
0
"
CO
U
R
T
Y
A
R
D
BE
L
O
W
Ro
o
m
1
4
21
8
4
'
-
6
"
4
'
-
2
"
4
'
-
6
"
Ro
o
m
4
20
8
Ro
o
m
5
20
9
EL
E
V
.
20
3
Ro
o
m
1
5
21
9
Ro
o
m
8
21
2
Ro
o
m
1
1
21
5
Ro
o
m
1
2
21
6
Ro
o
m
1
3
21
7
ST
A
I
R
#
1
20
1
Ro
o
m
6
21
0
Ro
o
m
7
21
1
Ro
o
m
1
6
22
0
AD
A
G
U
E
S
T
RO
O
M
AD
A
D
O
R
M
UN
I
T
BU
N
K
B
E
D
BU
N
K
B
E
D
BU
N
K
B
E
D
BU
N
K
B
E
D
B
U
N
K
B
E
D
B
U
N
K
B
E
D
B
U
N
K
B
E
D
B
U
N
K
B
E
D
B
U
N
K
B
E
D
B
U
N
K
B
E
D
B
U
N
K
B
E
D
B
U
N
K
B
E
D
Ro
o
m
3
20
7
Ro
o
m
2
20
6
Ro
o
m
1
8
22
2
CL
O
S
E
T
22
5
Ro
o
m
1
20
5
Ro
o
m
9
21
3
Ro
o
m
1
0
21
4
CO
R
R
I
D
O
R
20
0
Ro
o
m
1
7
22
1
EL
E
V
.
20
2
ST
A
I
R
#
2
20
4
Ro
o
m
1
9
22
3
Ro
o
m
2
0
22
4
TO
T
A
L
:
3
8
B
E
D
S
P
E
R
F
L
O
O
R
TO
T
A
L
:
2
0
U
N
I
T
S
P
E
R
F
L
O
O
R
BE
D
S
T
Y
P
E
S
:
TW
I
N
S
=
1
6
QU
E
E
N
S
=
1
4
KI
N
G
=
8
TO
T
A
L
P
I
L
L
O
W
S
A
L
L
L
E
V
E
L
S
:
1
2
0
OU
T
D
O
O
R
TE
R
R
A
C
E
BA
R
OU
T
D
O
O
R
TE
R
R
A
C
E
2'
-
7
"
5'
-
0
"
4'
-
4
"
ST
A
I
R
#
1
40
1
ST
A
I
R
#
2
40
4
PU
B
L
I
C
A
M
E
N
I
T
Y
ME
C
H
.
SC
R
E
E
N
I
N
G
40
6
DRAWING TITLE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:DATE:REVIEWED:PROJECT NO.:LOCATION NO.:ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL HEREIN CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUNLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT, AND THE SAME MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. COPYRIGHT: CAMBURAS & THEODORE, LTD.NU 11/11/14 TTRA11-11-14 1ISSUE FOR CITY SUBMISSION NL-2NET LIVABLE PLANS__232 EAST MAIN ST.ASPEN, CO
3
/
1
6
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
1
SE
C
O
N
D
A
N
D
T
H
I
R
D
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
SECOND LEVEL ROOM SCHEDULE Number Name Area 200 CORRIDOR 624 SF 201 STAIR #1 127 SF 202 ELEV. 49 SF 203 ELEV. 49 SF 204 STAIR #2 127 SF 205 Room 1 234 SF 206 Room 2 238 SF 207 Room 3 164 SF 208 Room 4 169 SF 209 Room 5 169 SF 210 Room 6 169 SF 211 Room 7 169 SF 212 Room 8 215 SF 213 Room 9 157 SF 214 Room 10 239 SF 215 Room 11 181 SF 216 Room 12 157 SF 217 Room 13 211 SF 218 Room 14 169 SF 219 Room 15 169 SF 220 Room 16 169 SF 221 Room 17 167 SF 222 Room 18 168 SF 223 Room 19 179 SF 224 Room 20 234 SF 225 CLOSET 20 SF 4720 SFNET LIVABLE NET LIVABLE NET LIVABLE NET LIVABLE NET LIVABLE NET LIVABLE NET LIVABLE NET LIVABLE NET LIVABLE NET LIVABLE NET LIVABLE NET LIVABLE NET LIVABLE NET LIVABLE NET LIVABLE NET LIVABLE NET LIVABLE TOTAL AREA:TOTAL NET LIVABLE: 3,727 S.F.ROOF LEVEL FOUR ROOM SCHEDULE Number Name Area 401 STAIR #1 127 SF 402 ELEV. 49 SF 403 ELEV. 49 SF 404 STAIR #2 127 SF 405 OUTDOOR TERRACE2483 SF 406 MECH. SCREENING 1254 SF 407 TOILET HC 52 SF 408 TOILET HC 50 SF 409 TOILET 1 50 SF 410 TOILET 2 50 SF 411 TOILET 3 50 SF 412 TOILET 4 52 SF 4390 SF TOTAL AREA:NO NET LIVABLE OR NET LEASABLE ON THIS LEVEL
3
/
1
6
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
2
RO
O
F
P
L
A
N
-
N
E
T
L
E
A
S
A
B
L
E
NET LIVABLENET LIVABLECOMMON SPACECOMMON SPACECOMMON SPACECOMMON SPACECOMMON SPACE COMMON SPACE COMMON SPACE COMMON SPACE COMMON SPACE PUBLIC AMENITY COMMON SPACE COMMON SPACE COMMON SPACE REVISIONS NO.DATEBYDESCRIPTIONNET LIVABLE COMMON SPACERoom 21300301302303304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325Room 22 Room 23 Room 24 Room 25 Room 26 Room 27 Room 28 Room 29 Room 30 Room 31 Room 32 Room 33 Room 34 Room 35 Room 36 Room 37 Room 38 Room 39 Room 40 CLOSET PER FLOOR COMMON SPACE COMMON SPACE COMMON SPACE COMMON SPACE SUMMARY:
MA
I
N
L
E
V
E
L
:
5
,
3
0
7
S
F
TOTAL NET LEASABLE: 3,105 SF TOTAL NET LIVABLE: 0 SF TOTAL COMMON AREA: 1,843 SF PUBLIC AMENITY: 359 SF
2N
D
&
3
R
D
L
E
V
E
L
:
2
N
D
-
4
,
7
2
0
S
F
,
3
R
D
-
4
,
7
2
0
S
F
TOTAL NET LEASABLE: 2ND & 3RD-0 SF TOTAL NET LIVABLE: 2ND-3,727 SF, 3RD-3,727 SF TOTAL COMMON AREA: 2 ND-996 SF, 3RD-996 SF PUBLIC AMENITY: 2ND & 3RD-0 SF
RO
O
F
L
E
V
E
L
:
4
,
3
9
0
S
F
TOTAL NET LEASABLE: 0 SF TOTAL NET LIVABLE: 0 SF TOTAL COMMON AREA: 1,910 SF PUBLIC AMENITY: 2,483 SF
TO
T
A
L
C
O
M
M
O
N
A
R
E
A
:
1
0
,
8
7
9
S
F
LO
W
E
R
L
E
V
E
L
:
5
,
1
3
4
S
F
TOTAL NET LEASABLE: 0 SF TOTAL NET LIVABLE: 0 SF TOTAL COMMON AREA: 5,134 SF PUBLIC AMENITY: 0 SF
TO
T
A
L
N
E
T
L
E
A
S
A
B
L
E
:
3
,
1
0
5
S
F
TOTAL NET LIVABLE: 7,454 SFTOTAL PUBLIC AMENITY: 2,842 SFTOTAL BUILDING AREA: 24,271 SF
P141
III.B.
MA
I
N
F
L
O
O
R
0'
-
0
"
SE
C
O
N
D
F
L
O
O
R
12
'
-
0
"
TH
I
R
D
F
L
O
O
R
21
'
-
0
"
RO
O
F
30
'
-
0
"
PA
R
A
P
E
T
33
'
-
0
"
UP
P
E
R
R
O
O
F
39
'
-
0
"
HA
N
D
-
M
O
L
D
E
D
BR
I
C
K
V
E
N
E
E
R
,
T
Y
P
.
BR
I
C
K
S
O
L
D
I
E
R
CO
U
R
S
I
N
G
,
T
Y
P
.
CL
E
A
R
I
N
S
U
L
A
T
E
D
GL
A
Z
I
N
G
,
T
Y
P
.
BO
A
R
D
F
O
R
M
E
D
CO
N
C
R
E
T
E
P
I
E
R
,
T
Y
P
.
EL
E
V
A
T
O
R
S
H
A
F
T
BE
Y
O
N
D
CL
E
A
R
A
N
O
D
Z
I
E
D
BU
T
T
-
G
L
A
Z
I
N
G
CA
S
T
S
T
O
N
E
PA
R
A
P
E
T
C
A
P
,
T
Y
P
.
WE
A
T
H
E
R
E
D
B
R
O
N
Z
E
ME
T
A
L
P
A
N
E
L
CL
A
D
D
I
N
G
,
T
Y
P
.
CA
N
O
P
Y
B
E
Y
O
N
D
WE
A
T
H
E
R
E
D
B
R
O
N
Z
E
ME
T
A
L
P
A
N
E
L
CL
A
D
D
I
N
G
,
T
Y
P
.
PA
N
E
L
R
E
V
E
A
L
JO
I
N
T
,
T
Y
P
.
GA
B
L
E
1
M
I
D
P
T
.
38
'
-
3
"
PI
C
K
-
U
P
W
I
N
D
O
W
PI
C
K
-
U
P
W
I
N
D
O
W
AW
N
I
N
G
MA
I
N
F
L
O
O
R
0' - 0"
SE
C
O
N
D
F
L
O
O
R
12' - 0"
TH
I
R
D
F
L
O
O
R
21' - 0"ROOF 30' - 0"PARAPET 33' - 0"
BA
C
K
L
I
T
'
B
A
S
E
'
LO
G
O
C
U
T
I
N
T
O
ME
T
A
L
P
A
N
E
L
S
CL
E
A
R
I
N
S
U
L
A
T
E
D
GL
A
Z
I
N
G
,
T
Y
P
.
BO
A
R
D
F
O
R
M
E
D
CO
N
C
R
E
T
E
P
I
E
R
,
T
Y
P
.
CL
E
A
R
A
N
O
D
I
Z
E
D
BU
T
T
-
G
L
A
Z
I
N
G
WE
A
T
H
E
R
E
D
B
R
O
N
Z
E
ME
T
A
L
P
A
N
E
L
CL
A
D
D
I
N
G
,
T
Y
P
.
ST
E
E
L
P
L
A
T
E
EN
T
R
A
N
C
E
C
A
N
O
P
Y
EL
E
V
A
T
O
R
S
H
A
F
T
BE
Y
O
N
D
FU
T
U
R
E
SI
G
N
A
G
E
,
T
Y
P
.
PA
N
E
L
R
E
V
E
A
L
JO
I
N
T
,
T
Y
P
.
ST
O
R
E
F
R
O
N
T
EN
T
R
A
N
C
E
,
T
Y
P
.
SL
O
P
E
D
G
L
A
Z
I
N
G
SY
S
T
E
M
GA
B
L
E
2
M
I
D
P
T
.
36' - 0"
GA
B
L
E
1
M
I
D
P
T
.
38
'
-
3
"
GR
O
U
N
D
L
E
V
E
L
OP
E
R
A
B
L
E
W
I
N
D
O
W
S
(
T
Y
P
)
DRAWING TITLE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:DATE:REVIEWED:PROJECT NO.:LOCATION NO.:ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL HEREIN CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUNLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT, AND THE SAME MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. COPYRIGHT: CAMBURAS & THEODORE, LTD.NU 11/11/14 TTRA11-11-14 1ISSUE FOR CITY SUBMISSION A-210EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS__232 EAST MAIN ST.ASPEN, CO
3
/
1
6
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
1
SO
U
T
H
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
3
/
1
6
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
2
EA
S
T
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
REVISIONS NO.DATEBYDESCRIPTION
P142
III.B.
MA
I
N
F
L
O
O
R
0'
-
0
"
SE
C
O
N
D
F
L
O
O
R
12
'
-
0
"
TH
I
R
D
F
L
O
O
R
21
'
-
0
"
RO
O
F
30
'
-
0
"
PA
R
A
P
E
T
33
'
-
0
"
UP
P
E
R
R
O
O
F
39
'
-
0
"
HA
N
D
-
M
O
L
D
E
D
BR
I
C
K
V
E
N
E
E
R
,
T
Y
P
.
BR
I
C
K
S
O
L
D
I
E
R
CO
U
R
S
I
N
G
,
T
Y
P
.
CL
E
A
R
I
N
S
U
L
A
T
E
D
GL
A
Z
I
N
G
,
T
Y
P
.
BO
A
R
D
F
O
R
M
E
D
CO
N
C
R
E
T
E
CL
E
A
R
A
N
O
D
I
Z
E
D
BU
T
T
-
G
L
A
Z
I
N
G
WE
A
T
H
E
R
E
D
B
R
O
N
Z
E
ME
T
A
L
P
A
N
E
L
CL
A
D
D
I
N
G
,
T
Y
P
.
WE
A
T
H
E
R
E
D
B
R
O
N
Z
E
ME
T
A
L
P
A
N
E
L
CL
A
D
D
I
N
G
,
T
Y
P
.
CA
N
O
P
Y
B
E
Y
O
N
D
EL
E
V
A
T
O
R
S
H
A
F
T
BE
Y
O
N
D
CA
S
T
S
T
O
N
E
PA
R
A
P
E
T
C
A
P
,
T
Y
P
.
ST
E
E
L
I
N
S
U
L
T
E
D
DO
O
R
,
T
Y
P
.
PA
N
E
L
R
E
V
E
A
L
JO
I
N
T
,
T
Y
P
.
GA
B
L
E
2
M
I
D
P
T
.
36
'
-
0
"
GA
B
L
E
1
M
I
D
P
T
.
38
'
-
3
"
MAIN FLOOR 0' - 0"
SE
C
O
N
D
F
L
O
O
R
12' - 0"
TH
I
R
D
F
L
O
O
R
21' - 0"ROOF 30' - 0"PARAPET 33' - 0"
UP
P
E
R
R
O
O
F
39' - 0"
BO
A
R
D
F
O
R
M
E
D
CO
N
C
R
E
T
E
WE
A
T
H
E
R
E
D
B
R
O
N
Z
E
ME
T
A
L
P
A
N
E
L
CL
A
D
D
I
N
G
,
T
Y
P
.
EL
E
V
A
T
O
R
S
H
A
F
T
BE
Y
O
N
D
PA
N
E
L
R
E
V
E
A
L
JO
I
N
T
,
T
Y
P
.
HA
N
D
-
M
O
L
D
E
D
BR
I
C
K
V
E
N
E
E
R
,
T
Y
P
.
CO
V
E
R
E
D
O
U
T
D
O
O
R
TE
R
R
A
C
E
CO
V
E
R
E
D
O
U
T
D
O
O
R
TE
R
R
A
C
E
BO
A
R
D
F
O
R
M
E
D
CO
N
C
R
E
T
E
P
I
E
R
,
T
Y
P
.
DRAWING TITLE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:DATE:REVIEWED:PROJECT NO.:LOCATION NO.:ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL HEREIN CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUNLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT, AND THE SAME MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. COPYRIGHT: CAMBURAS & THEODORE, LTD.NU 11/11/14 TTRA11-11-14 1ISSUE FOR CITY SUBMISSION A-211EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS__232 EAST MAIN ST.ASPEN, CO
3
/
1
6
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
1
NO
R
T
H
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
3
/
1
6
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
2
WE
S
T
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
REVISIONS NO.DATEBYDESCRIPTION
P143
III.B.
RO
O
F
P
E
A
K
+1
7
'
-
0
"
RO
O
F
P
E
A
K
+2
0
'
-
6
"
RO
O
F
P
E
A
K
+2
1
'
-
0
"
PA
R
A
P
E
T
+3
9
'
-
3
"
RO
O
F
P
E
A
K
+2
7
'
-
5
"
T.
O
.
C
O
R
N
I
C
E
+2
0
'
-
5
"
PARAPET +49'-4"HOTEL JEROME
AS
P
E
N
T
I
M
E
S
CA
R
L
'
S
P
H
A
R
M
A
C
Y
23
2
E
.
M
A
I
N
:
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
S
I
T
E
AS
P
E
N
L
O
D
G
E
RE
S
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L
H
O
U
S
E
S
RO
O
F
P
E
A
K
+2
0
'
-
1
0
"
RO
O
F
P
E
A
K
+1
7
'
-
0
"
RO
O
F
P
E
A
K
+2
0
'
-
6
"
RO
O
F
P
E
A
K
+2
1
'
-
0
"
PA
R
A
P
E
T
+4
9
'
-
4
"
RO
O
F
P
E
A
K
+2
7
'
-
5
"
HOTEL JEROME
AS
P
E
N
T
I
M
E
S
CA
R
L
'
S
P
H
A
R
M
A
C
Y
23
2
E
.
M
A
I
N
:
B
A
S
E
2
AS
P
E
N
L
O
D
G
E
RE
S
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L
H
O
U
S
E
S
PA
R
A
P
E
T
+3
9
'
-
3
"
CE
N
T
U
R
Y
R
O
O
M
-
H
O
T
E
L
J
E
R
O
M
E
M
O
N
A
R
C
H
S
T
R
E
E
T
DRAWING TITLE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:DATE:REVIEWED:PROJECT NO.:LOCATION NO.:ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL HEREIN CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUNLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT, AND THE SAME MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. COPYRIGHT: CAMBURAS & THEODORE, LTD.NU 11/11/14 TTRA11-11-14 1ISSUE FOR CITY SUBMISSION HC-1HEIGHT COMPARISON__232 EAST MAIN ST.ASPEN, CO
1
/
8
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
1
MA
I
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
I
M
A
G
E
3
/
1
6
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
3
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
S
O
U
T
H
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
1
/
8
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
2
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
B
U
I
L
D
I
NG
P
E
R
S
P
E
C
T
I
V
E
REVISIONS NO.DATEBYDESCRIPTION
1
/
8
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
4
SI
N
G
L
E
L
I
N
E
S
T
R
E
E
T
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
P144
III.B.
' EXHIBIT
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE ��-
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY:
232 4�• Aspen, CO
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE:
Wca P5,00pyn 20J
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
County of Pitkin )
1 (name, please print)
beingoror erpresenting an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally
certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060
(E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner:
y Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official
paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15)
days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto.
Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the
Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof
materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six
(26) inches high, .and which .was composed of letters not less than one inch in
height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing
on the._ day of , 20 , to and including the date and.time
of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto.
Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community
Development Department, which contains the information described in Section
26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to
the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage
v = , a , prepaid U,.S..mail to all owners of property within three hundred (3 00) feet of the
.';_'rL I -;;;property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of
pr, 6rty owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they
1 appeared,noimore than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A
copy of 1he`dwlners and gonermnental agencies so noticed is attached hereto.
Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach,
summarized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as
required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the
neighborhood outreach summary, including the method of public notification and
a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto.
(continued on next page)
Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt
requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the
date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development.
The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current _
tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions, SPAS or PUDs that
create more than one lot, new Planned Unit Developments, and new Specially
Planned Areas, are subject to this notice requirement.
Rezoning or text mnendinent. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any
way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this
Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be
made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or
otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal
description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of
real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the
proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning
agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing
on such amendments.
,$4 � ---�
Signature
The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this 30 day
of (OC-Ir 20 tom, by,4nmac,—ate,
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE:232 EAST MAIN STREET-PLANNED GE- .
VELOPMENT.PROJECT REVIEW,
COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW CONCEPTU. T CCC A,T iT T,•1� !� T SEAL C T
AL,GROYRH MANAGEMENT,MAJOq DEVEL- WITNESS 1vtY HAND AND Ol'1'11.1AL, J'1:A L,
OPMENT IN A HISTORIC OISTgICT CONCEP-
TUAL REVIEW,WAIVERS and VAR? NCES t
t NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN(het a public baerinp T A
I will be heltl on Wetlneadey,November 19,2014,e1 My COlmlml$$lon aXplre$. 11
a meeting to bagln at 500 P.In -1.1.the Aspen
Historic Preservation Commission;Council Chem- E
hers,airy Hell,130 5.Galena St,Aspen,to com /� - n 11
side,an application submixed by 232 East Meln, TVr�V Ir Q /� qV I /�J•l1~
LLC,for Ida property located et 232 E.Main St.,
`epresenletl by Mitch Haas of Haas land Plenninn
LLC.Tne apPrcam reyuasta acpnn,il to redevelop Notary Public
the property with a new three story above grade -' ---�•`-
gropo g Will eslodge and commerciaand l
Theeanned - KARLN REED PATTERSON
evelopa lodge and commercial uses. Planned
marcral evelopmenggt Project Review,Conceptual Corm NOTARY PUBLIC
treat In aaHlstatic District ardeConc phial Reor view,
Growth Management,Waivers and Venences are STATE OF COLORADO
requested. The requested development approvals NOTARY ID#1998400."167
me oto ithas y —Y�rifle��.', ATTACHAZENTS AS APPLICABLE: pay Commission Expires Febman' 15,2016
its f Aspen,Parcel SDribed as Late R e2377&,C7oeDnS a;'HEPUBLICATIOIV
of Aae int Cohernn. tylnteq Sera Atlerrty at Me Cly .
130 sp Ga e g si°IAape�'Ptn gt O azo"nI.APH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN)
land:d sDtlyWAspen,ppp_
778.
FIE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED
Aspen Historic Preser hic';Commission
Published in the Aspen Thnas on Octabar 30,2014 1
_"G�') IT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE
AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3
RECEIVED
NOV 1 ,8 2014
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE O�CeTY OfiggpEN
1MUNiTYDEMOpMENT
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE
ADDRESS OF PROPERT
Z32 m(r In fi eef Aspen, CO
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE:
l Mre.edcru Noy-ember 1q 20
it
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
County of Pitkin pp)
1, WW JQeobso)� Ot GIS 11A rt� �I G r)rlt rlf{(name, please print)
being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Color do, hereby personally
certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060
(E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner:
Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official
paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15)
days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto.
X Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the
Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof
materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six
(26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in
height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen 15) days prior to the public hearing
on the L day of 00,'-h 6CP—' 20 to and including the date and time
of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice-(sign)-is attached hereto_
Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained'IIfrom,,the Community
.•
Development Department, which contains the informationsdesclGnbR.ed,,•,9g9i_n•Sr•N_ectioni
26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (I 5) da ;prior to
the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage
prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the
property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of
property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they
appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A
copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto.
Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach,
summarized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as
required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the
neighborhood outreach summary, including the method of public notification and
a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto.
(continued on next page)
Q Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, retum�receipt
Z2 pr requested,to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the
date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development.
The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current
tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions, SPAS or PUDs that
create more than one lot, new Planned Unit Developments, and new Specially
Planned Areas, are subject to this notice requirement.
Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any
way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this
Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be
made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or
otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal
description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of
real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the
proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning
agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing
on such amendments.
ig ture
The�foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this)V,day
of I G 7C.XV�� ! 201 , by�C'r, <1 C-w Cl�
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
BARBARA J. D'AUTRECHY
NOTARY PUBLIC II�
STATE OF COLORADO M commission expires.
NOTARY ID 0 20074042687 y 1�
FMY COMMISSION EXPIRES JUNE 11..20`17
Notary Public
ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE:
• COPY OF THEPUBLICATION
• PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE(SIGN)
• LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED
BY MAIL
• APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE
AS REQUIRED BYC.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: 232 EAST MAIN STREET—PLANNED DEVELOPMENT- PROJECT REVIEW,
COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW CONCEPTUAL,GROWTH MANAGEMENT,
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT CONCEPTUAL REVIEW,
WAIVERS and VARIANCES
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday, November 19,
2014, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission,
Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St.,Aspen, to consider an application submitted by 232
East Main, LLC, for the property located at 232 E. Main St., represented by Mitch Haas of Haas
Land Planning, LLC. The applicant requests approval to redevelop the property with a new three
story above grade building with roof deck and.basement. The project proposes lodge and
commercial uses. Planned Development Project Review, Conceptual Commercial Design Standard
Review, Major Development in a Historic District Conceptual Review, Growth Management,
Waivers and Variances are requested. The requested development approvals associated with this
application may be modified by the approving body. The property is legally described as Lots R
and S, Block 73, City and Townsite of Aspen, Parcel ID 2737-073-20-008. For further information,
contact Sara Adams at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St.,
Aspen, CO, (970)429.2778, sara.adams@cityofaspen.com.
s/Willis Pember,Vice-Chair
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on October 30, 2014
City of Aspen Account
201 E MAIN LLC 232 BLEEKER LLC 303 EAST MAIN LLLP
PO BOX 345 2385 NW EXECUTIVE CENTER DR#370 PO BOX 8016
ASPEN, CO 81612 BOCA RATON, FL 33431 ASPEN, CO 81612
304 EAST HOPKINS HOLDINGS LLC 310 EAST MAIN STREET VENTURES 4 TOOLBOX LLC
2001 N HOLSTED#304 LLC 208 E MAIN ST
CHICAGO, IL 60614 540 W MADISON ST#2500 ASPEN, CO 81611
CHICAGO, IL 60661
AJAX JMG INVESTMENTS LLC ASPEN BRANCH HOLDINGS LLC ASPEN COMMUNITY UNITED
9401 WILSHIRE BLVD 9TH FL 3033 E FIRST AVE METHODIST CHURCH
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 902122974 DENVER, CO 80206 200 E BLEEKER ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
ASPEN CORNER OFFICE LLC BLEEKER MILL DEVELOPMENT LLC CARLS REAL ESTATE LLC
604 W MAIN ST 345 PARK AVE 33RD FL PO BOX 1365
ASPEN, CO 81611 NEW YORK, NY 10154 ASPEN, CO 81612
CARVER RUTH A& MARTIN G CHALAL JOSEPH B CJB REALTY INVESTORS LLC
116 S ASPEN ST 1005 BROOKS LN 6544 WENONGA CIR
ASPEN, CO 81611 DELRAY BEACH, FL 334836507 MISSION HILLS, KS 66208
EXPLORE BOOKSELLERS& BISTRO R E GARRETT GULCH EQUITY VENTURE GETTMAN ROSA H TRUST
LLC LLC 325 S FOREST
300 CRESCENT CT STE 850 2950 E BROAD ST DENVER,CO 80246
DALLAS,TX 75201 COLUMBUS, OH 43209
HAYES MARY E&JAMES L FAM LP HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP INC HODES ALAN & DEBORAH
LLLP 2710 E CAMELBACK RD STE 200 114 N ASPEN ST.
209 E BLEEKER ST PHOENIX,AZ 85016 ASPEN, CO 81611
ASPEN, CO 81611
HOFFMAN JOHN & SHARON JEROME PROPERTY LLC JW VENTURES LLC
210 W 5TH ST APT 211 540 W MADISON ST PO BOX 8769
KANSAS CITY, MO 64105-1166 CHICAGO, IL 60661 ASPEN, CO 81612
KRIBS KAREN REV LIV TRUST MINERS REAL ESTATE LLC MONARCH & HOPKINS LLC 50%
PO BOX 9994 PO BOX 1365 PO BOX 1247
ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612
MONARCH BUILDING LLC MONARCH HOLDINGS LLC MONARCH HOUSE LLC
PO BOX 126 458 WALLS WY 701 BRICKELL AVE#860
WOODY CREEK, CO 81656 OSPREY, FL 34229 MIAMI, FL 33131
NUNN RONALD FAMILY LP PEARCE FAMILY TRUST PEGOLOTTI DELLA
10500 BRENTWOOD BLVD 216 E MAIN ST ASPEN HOME CONSIGNMENT
BRENTWOOD, CA 94513 ASPEN, CO 81611 202 E MAIN
ASPEN, CO 81611
ROCKING LAZY J PROPERTIES LLC SARDY HOUSE NEW LLC SEDOY MICHAEL
202 E MAIN ST 240 CRANDON BLVD#167 35 SUTTON PL#19B
ASPEN, CO 81611 KEY BISCAYNE, FL 33149 NEW YORK, NY 10022
SEMRAU FAMILY LLC SHVACHKO NATALIA SSM LAND AQUISITION CO LLC
300 S SPRING ST#203 35 SUTTON PL#19B 2121 KIRBY DR#99
ASPEN, CO 816112806 NEW YORK, NY 10022 HOUSTON, TX 77019
WHITMAN RANDALL A
4845 HAMMOCK LAKE DR
CORAL GABLES, FL 33156
-% I �
;.
� ,
r �,
�„ �.�
f .
tJt
m A20 I Wednesday,November 12.2014 1 The Aspen Times
ca
HAAS LAND PLANNING, LLC WORLD &NATION
°0w is holding apttbliCOJUreaebOPENHOUSE
N o
on behalf of both dl►"T
w THURSDAY,NOVEMBER 13 4:00 TO 6:00 PM
r ,
a? F
Cr 1305.GALENA ST r a
a � Suter CinesAfeenng Room,baumenr level of aty,HAIL
z
2 O N 3 regardingtwopmposcd lodg.dcvclopment applications currently under review by the Clcy ,
QJ
of apen Th proposed lFdEg C P called
d Base lM LodS ge'I dBchase 2 Lodge,
a s2 S
jm asacLoD ) r�F.,F
S O Lt ECcop5r (risirA c a
O '@ y `o 115.0 igig I
'or itd I p cafe Our 5dM hS )lO)
cc Ap tj # e 2 t�-'I •;T \r
Z z O Bu Yh M_i prop<cy1I Ern Co
Ca 0
(p 'p L m Anyone interutedin btamingaboar eaherorboeh oftbeprepmah ordecussng them
with tbeappliunrl.invhmedanden aragedm snood. c
O N i. •
a m J
3 m INTERNATIONAL
NF' o
GIFT FESTIVAL r
Eerenm
Make a world of cliff
<el
OI a 'O J
M " m, p E 'p• Purchase handcrafted,and j traded homedeft +
Zy a 'a e d S�. personal accessoriesandjewelry,holiday gifts
and more at the 28th annual International Gift
N o d - Festival.Available through Ten Thousand Villages, AP Pat
U Q n I, a nonprofit retailer providing vital,fair income to Sen.Susan Collins,R-Mains celebrates her reelection victory In Portland,Maine,on
® artisans In over 30 developing countries. Nov.4.Collins was quite popular around Election Dart,fielding calls from President
Priday,,SDvember7 Saturday,Kovemberl5 BamckDbm
aa,Republican leaders and Deenocraticleaders.
Ex TEN THOUUN
VILLAGES Man NoIn Not wlodridNot14Mrose-Islas;Sat as cyNwoor�;m:u�:�F�LDAYIEm:pm --Moderates look to wield
cc m ' Nmrtdby60odSMpherdlutl nnMwdttge OWMelmanlle0wch
A M. HARMONY MADE 2I06Nabe/nnl;Mamored 6pdn9atU 111601
%N N .o BYHroarse` ywmal1l.NbatlbN,di,arvso clout In GOP led Senate
O Deg 3 = alaMM+Ye 920.915dH1I gaMshePhetdi91gwtl9eYsam
f`
m °o _I _ Donro wsau The GOP likely will hold 54 mats next
m TheAssarlaad Pma year,a solid majority but six short ofthe
$ 60 necessary to break Democratic fili-
N WASHINGTON—Soft-spoken Repair- busters end delaying tactics.Incoming
E as
E 9 1 he.Sen.Sus.Collins is quite popular Majority Leader Mitch McConnell,R-Ky,
z these days,fielding calls from President would need the support of Maine's King
N z m e 5NOWMA55I ASPEN MOUNTAIN I ASPEN HIGHLANDS I BUTTERMILK Barrack Obeme.members of the GOP and Democnrs such as North Dakota's
C m
E WE ' RE HIRING anlead Chuck and up mom HarryReid Heginia,Joe
Don ceMafchie,ofWcat
.d Chuck Schumer. Yrn=aIce Donnelly,ofIndiana,end
.� The outreach was more thanjust con- Montana' move legislation
Z y N O o _ gratulation for winning a fourth term. over any Democratic objections.
Q C co U STOP BY OUR JOB FAIR: . Rental Techs Both parties
have.israndive for court- 'Ihope that those ofuswho are com-
m FOGY TUESDAYS 2-4 PM AT Rental Cash, ivg Collies. witted to setually getting legislation
t°j X0111,111 ASC HR DEPARTMENT . Ski Conder8< Come January,the centrist from Maine passed ran work together.dbridge
c afgmb AT ASPEN HIGHLANDS Retail Solas will be a Crucial member ofa group of some ofthe partisan divide,Codins said
moderates wielding considerable clout in aai interview.
in the Republican-led Senate,along with McConnell has promised to get bills
atd STOP BY OUR JOB FAIR: independent Angus King.also of Main, passed and change bow the Senate oper-
as THURSDAYS 2-4 PM AT Ticket What. and a handful of Democrats from Repub- ares,returning to past practices in which
T n p$FEX`I)SNXWMASS. ASC HR DEPARTMENT Gat•Monitors lican stales.Depending on the issue,the Republicsand Demceratsoffer amevd-
O or JJJ AT ASPEN HIGHLANDS moderate ranks could increase slightly as mentatolegislationandgetavote.Cur-
`V c QS�Y4� Republics from Democratic Imte3 move rent Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid,
m BwORK to the middle ahead oEYm6re<lecdav
FwhlljobrNings.please vlsitwww.aspemm�wma3z.m ob6 to SENATE,A21
Questions,call(9)0)3 0 0.210 0 bids.
\ se
52 *gym C H t2Y5 LE (2
�A
SAr
S W Yc 200C AWo
i015
e�yF5
as
Cn FINISH
.4 atmt sbtt_ �a 2014
�
as
SIk N1601B01rsIp532015:MmI SNasN loreAleYae YrJ.d,g lease lv'W"Iaquea mot fears MN Ovyda fop DOs mlml Wide tat
_ OYe or server PniOeraY esllirliorti apaY All velitic abjetl to p'v e'ale�Pho�bs la ils0&ion piptaes aYyTSe defier la 0elak
w
'% ! a, . '''' I Q��O�Lt 27TH ST & GRAND AVE I GLENWOOD SPRINGS 1970.384.3141
aF Doem,, a�aa— Jeep www.berthodmotors.net
v A20 I Thursolay.November 13 2014 1 The Aspen Toure,
WORLD & NATION
ev
N a U.S. concerned on Israeli move in east Jerusalem
to `m the Jewish connection to the site.
Jasef Federman 1t ..e iN.'
' o The Assaf tee cress Y e t -Our correspondent reported
pr ktt��J`x--j d t'a.- that settlers invaded the mosque
? p m JERUSALEM Israeli author- .If r �" %t' t m small groups and toured the
Z N Ines gave prehmmaryapproval s J w.ri mal place wth leaders explacmng to
? C q ; Wednesday to build Zoo homes in a I� j �' a l >�'e a v P them mythmal accounts about
Z L n a.
a Jewish area of east Jernselem,a r > the alleged Temple Mount-the
a 0 e move that threatened to push Is- 1 ♦yr y (� state-run Wife news agency said
mills and Palestinians deeper into e . Wednesday.
its N conflict after weeks reformist over In the latest unrest,an attack
Q i° the city's holiest sites. �� j; '�-�"b' t. Wednesday on a mosque in a West
J 0 °;
The amouncemevt came hours t _ !;' ' Bankvillageignited aPre that
N V C m before US.Secretary ofState John j .1 'r+ y" destroyed its first Boor.Residents
'ts blamed local Jewish settlers.
Z G Ad -.'m Kerry was scheduled to arrive in I �; T[. Israeli police said someone
neighboring Jordan on a mission G
_ 0 v aimed in part at restoring calm.A t , threw a Molotov cocktail at an an-
State Department spokeswoman .. tient synagogue in the Israeli-Ar-
sotU
'deeply sib town m'Shfaram late Tuesday
G said Washingtonnascon- - (.
O cemed"by the decision. - +� night causing light damage.
N c Much of the recent violence has .%'N t - — - The US.condemned the West
bj 01 stemmed from tensions surround- tit^ ' _ _ Bank mosque attack,Psaki said,
N C " ing Jerusalem's hilltop complex _�-�,fw v - adding:
'We believe that such
Nd O_ E that is revered by Muslims and '�s rr- Pp hateful and provocative actions
Z co C d a Jews.The collapse ofU.S:bro- .'11y�z Vs I against aplace ofworshipare nev-
15 If O U kered peace talks,Israel's war last 'af#;` njustified.'
N > in N B
summer in the Gua Strip against Netanyahu is shoring up his
U Q 0 '$ the Islamic militant group Hamas, As hard-line credentials atatime
to and continued Israeli settlement Palestinians Inspect damage to a mosque following an attack in the West Bank village of Mughayea north when his coalition islooking in-
to construction incost Jerusalem of Ramallah,on Wed nesday.The attack early Wednesday Ignited a re that destroyed its first floor,the trustingly unstable and he faces
have added to the distrust. village's mayor said,blaming Jewish settlers for the attack. a primary in his Likud Party vert
n Brachie Sprung,aspokeswom- year.
c an in the mayor's office.said city by the international community. arrangement.Jordan holds eus- Meliorate. Economics Minister Naftali
o officials approved Zoo homes in About 200,000 Jewish Israelis todial rights over Muslim holy Abbas accused Netanyahu this Bennett,leader ofthe ulosmation-
uilr
*4 the Ramut area Sprang said it live in developments like Bamot sites in Jerusalem,including the week offending the region into alist Jewish Home Party and per-
v was just a preliminary stage of the that ring east Jerusalem to help compound known to Jews as the a•retigious war..Netaysahu re- baps Neumpts's most formidable
O t7 m
X -a c planningprocess-meaning con- cement Israeli mewl. Temple Mount and to Muslims spovded by calling Abbas aliar rival,has accused the government
p M direction would be years away. The Israeli announcement roma as the Noble Sanctuary.it is the and accusing him ofincitement ofbeing we soft in its response to
mShe also said city officials ap- before Berrys scheduled meet- third-holiest site in tat=and the The harsh rhetoric reflects more the unrest.
proved an additional 194 homes ing in Jordan with lfing Abdul- most deared place in Judaism. dun personal animosity between Housing Minister Uri Ariel,also
for construction in an Arab fah 11 and Palestinian President Jews are permitted to visit,but the two leaders.Both appear to be ofthe Jewish Home Parry;has
d neighborhood Mahmoud Abbas to discuss the prayer by non-Muslims is banned. pandering to their political bases called for Jews to be allowed to
To Israelis,the announcement situation in Jerusalem.There was on
Increased visits by Jewish w . of support a a sensitive time. preyinsidethecompoundAnad-
E rm was relatively harmless.Ramat is no immediate plan for Berry to sbipers to the site,which also in- Abbas,after nearly a decade in waste ofincreased Jewish access
nZ p- - asprawling developmentalready travel to Israel. eludes the Al-Agsa Mosque,have office and several failed rounds of to the site was shot and seriously
>• a home to about 90,000 people,and "We are deeply concerned by raised concerns among Muslims peace talks,has little to show for wounded by a Palestinian gunman
E ~ o most laterite assume the area will this decision,particularly given that Israel is secretly trying to take his eHots.He also is facing a chal- last month.
Z in Qj O c remain pact oflsrael under any the tense situation in Jerusalem it over.The tensions have boiled lenge from Hamas. The tactics by Abbas and
Q n (N kJ Om future peace agreement. as well m the unequivocal and over into violent demonstrations Fiery rhetoric is an easy way Netanyahu risk igniting further
`o In the current cause climate, unanimous position ofthe United and deadly Palestinian attacks to appeal to his public at a time violence and have drawn calls for
o however,any Israeli construction States and others in the interna- that have killed six people in re- when many Palestinians believe restraint.
mfor Jewish areas ofesist Jerusalem tional community opposing such cent weeks.The fatal shooting by Israel is not serious about nagoti- Science Minister yincom Peri,
is potentially explosive. construction in east Jerusalem,' police last weekend ofan Israeli citing a peace stand that would end ofthe centrist Yeah Add Party
Israel captured east Jerusalem State Department spokeswoman Arab protester in northern Israel ahalf-century of Israeli military and a former chief of the Shin
i in 1969 and annexed the comes Jen Psaki said in Washington, as he appeared to be walking away occupation and establish an Inde- Bet security agency urged-a6
`m ivamoce that is not recognized 'These decisions to expand from the officer has worsened the pendent Palestnian state. leaders to act responsibly by
T n internationally construction have the potential to atmosphere. The official Palestinian media showing restraint and ending the
The Pabommians claim east exacerbate this difficult situadov Israeli Prime Minister Settle- are filled with reports about Israeli incitement"
Nso
m Jerusalem as their capital.They on the ground,and they will not min Netanyahu has insisted Naz hard-liners caning for legalized -We most all work intensively
m consider all Israeli construction contribute to efforts in reduce the Israel has no plans to change the prayer on the Temple Mount and and genuinely to dm the con-
ere tobeillegalsettlementac- tension;a add ed. arrangements at Ne holyst4 visits to Ne compoundbylewish rent attention:be told foreign
P g twity-apomma that is backed Underalongstanding but his pledges base done little m worshipers as well az denials of reporters.
H
m
AAS LAND PLANNING, LLC
1—� v is holding apublic outreacb OPENHOUSE Seasonal Ski Rentals
_ • • on behalf&Fboth
as
A 0es THURSDAY,NOVEMBER 13 14:00 TO 6:00 PM Used GEOE-$135forthe sensors
V^ 130 S.GALENA ST. \ NEW Gear-$250 for the season
•�'' u Strrer Cities Meering Room,basement bevel al City Hal!
0_ a_
'o rcgudmg two prnpossd lodge devdapmrnnppli<uions currcndy under reHew by Ne City
++ n ofA,,n.The rwn proposed ledgedare caihd Base l Lodge and Base 2 Lodge. Rentals.Retail-Tunes
VBasel Lodge isImmda030E. Basel Lodge is 232
Cooper Are(northerncomtrofE.Coopa lsi Main Srmm(norrhnm comer of pony,Monthly and Weekly
j� and S.Original),for redevelopmem o(rhe Main Srna and Monarch Streets).for Sfamge afsaawiloble
i� co Buckhorn Arms Imperil. redevelopment of she current Conoco
d, aria.
araun SKI & BOARD SHOP CALL FORD6TAILS
m
LL r
Anyone im..oredf.learniagabout drbrr or ba+b ofrbrpropo+aL or discussing rbrm Distant555 r.
,virb abrappb.ram b iaa.nrdondc...ragrdro a+read. Cali or Stop by-Monday though rriday
HAAS LAND PLANNING , LLC
November 18, 2014
Ms. Sara Adams
City of Aspen Community Development Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: 232 E. Main Street-Research of Mineral Estate Owners
Dear Sara:
On behalf of our client, 232 East main Street, LLC, and in connection with the
application for Planned Development submitted to the City for the property located at
232 East Main Street, we have performed the public notice requirements as required by
Section 26.304.060(E) of the City of Aspen Municipal Code. Among the requirements
contained in said section is the duty to notify affected mineral estate owners by certified
mailing at least thirty (30) days prior to the date of the public hearing.
Haas Land Planning, LLC has researched the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's records
(the "Public Records") for the existence of mining claim or possession deeds connected
to the subject property dating to the late 19°i Century, using the exceptions listed in the
General Warranty Deed issued to 232 East Main Street, LLC. A review of the Public
Records did not generate any record of a current deed relating to mining claims or
possession deeds.
This letter is submitted to you to confirm our good-faith attempts to locate a list of
mineral estate owners. If I can be of further assistance in any way, or if you should have
any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. You can reach me at the phone
number provided, or by email at mitch@hlpaspen.com.
Yours truly,
Haas Land Planning, LLC
JJod1Ja bson
• 420 E. MAIN STREET, SUITE 10-B • ASPEN, COLORADO • 8161 1
• PHONE: (970) 925-7819 • FAX: (970) 925-7395
Sara Adams
From: Mitch Haas <mitch@hlpaspen.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 1:11 PM
To: Sara Adams
Subject: Neighborhood Outreach Summary
Our team held a public open house meeting from 4:00 to 6:00 PM on November 13, 2014. The open house was
held in the Sister Cities Meeting Room at City Hall. An advertisement for the open house were run in the
Aspen Times on November 12 and 13, inviting anyone and everyone in the public who has an interest in the
two Base Lodge proposals to attend, meet the applicant and planner, and ask questions/engage in a friendly
dialogue. At the open house, plans sheets, drawings and renderings showing the proposals in detail were posted
on the walls, and packets of plans and design inspiration materials were made available as well.
In addition, standard public notice requirements were met with posting of a sign at the property, publishing of
notice in the Aspen Times, and sending out a mailing to all property owners within a 300 foot radius of the
site.
Please consider this summary as an additional exhibit to the already provided Affidavit of Public Notice.
Best regards,
Mitch Haas
Mitch Haas
Haas Land Planning,LLC
420 East Main Street,Suite 10-B
Aspen,CO 81611
Phone: (970) 925-7819
Email: mitch@hlpaspen.com
`,3j Please consider the environment before printing this email
Confidentiality note rhe above e m+I and any attachments con min infonmahon hal rniv be nornidimbal andror privileged.The informonon is fort-lo u e of the,
individual or enlity originally intended if you are not fila into ndc.d recipient any d.sClnsr e . rpvinp,dislribulion or use of this information is prch bard.If this
trensmission is rocelved in arror,please immediately notify the condor and delete this message and its attachments,if any.
1
k�
EXHIBIT
Y /
September 12, 2014
HPC SEP 152014
Aspen City Hall
Aspen, Colorado +B "r '� rNT
Dear Sirs:
I saw the renderings for Mark Hunt's properties in the Aspen Daily
News this morning.
I live at 209 East Bleeker Street, in the same block as the proposed
housing project that would go in the Conoco space.
The building is much too large...it seems to be four stories high and
fills the space completely. It borders on a residential, Victorian
neighborhood and is out of keeping with the neighborhood.
Therefore I object to it.
Thank you.
Mary Eshbaugh Hayes
209 East Bleeker Street
Aspen, Colorado
I
Yf pulba---
,, Irk +
Sara Adams
From: Howie Mallory <ihmallory@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 10:18 AM
To: Sara Adams
Cc: Bert Myrin
Subject: Base 2 citizens comments
Sarah- good moming.Please include this letter in the public comments section for tonight's Nov 19 HPC
meeting on the Base 2 proposal.
Big Picture observation- Mark Hunt's primary objective is to produce an acceptable rate of return for his
investors in this real estate venture. His goals for all his recently acquired properties are to get approvals to
show positive results to his investors. Denying his requests for variances many of which are excessive and
simply fishing to set the state for future similar variance "demands" does not create a risk of a lost opportunity
for development of so called affordable lodge rooms. He is not going away. He will come back with a proposal
that meets the HPC guidelines because he has to in order to move the project forward to show success to his
investors.
Location and Mass and Scale observation- There are many but I will address only 2. The proposal is simply
out scale to the Main street street scape and is an insensitive visual and physical encroachment on its
residential West End neighbors. The block alley portion is out of scale to the residential properties in the R-6
and creates a urban big building shade effect similar to what the Jerome already does on Bleeker St. Keeping
the height within Mixed Use code with perhaps a second level step back from Main Street respects
the historically designated smaller scale buildings to the west on Main and across Main St along Monarch.
The request has all the classic components of a so called "block busting" upzoning which will further undermine
the historic overlay intentions along Main St. HPC should require that the buildings be consistent with MU
zoning and not a requested CC up zoning-Calling an area "transitional" is not an compelling justification for
up zoning. Such reductions to MU zoning guidelines will result in a more appropriate visual transition to
the Carls/ Hotel Jerome block. Getting a higher building with more rooms is nothing more than upzoning. I do
not believe that the HPC mission is to endorse upzoning when it visually undermines HPC's mass and scale
objectives and guidelines. Standing firm on the MU zoning guidelines is what HPC is all about and consistent
with its mission.
Second and unlike the Jerome which has its own underground parking, the impact of parking on the neighbor
hood will be significant. Guest cars will try to use the near by already full during day time WE streets for all
day parking. It simply won't work. If Base 2 were to commit to paid annual rental of 25+ or the like parking
spaces at the Rio Grande garage this might alleviate some of the future parking congestion. Thank you.
Howie Mallory i
1
Sara Adams
From: Junee Kirk <junee.kirk@comcast.net>
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 9:52 AM
To: Sara Adams
Subject: FW: Too massive and tall, 232 E. Main!
Dear Members of HPC and HPC staff:
Main Street is the last unadulterated historic area in Aspen that still retains some of Aspen's small town character with
Victorians, small lodges and two religious centers which are larger and acceptable( the Catholic church and Jewish
synagogue.) The Hotel Jerome as one of 7 iconic buildings stands alone as the tallest and most massive and it again is
acceptable.
Mark's Hunt's proposed height, essentially 4 stories on the proposed lodge at 232 E. Main is unacceptable. With all of
Main Street being one or two story buildings, except those mentioned, this proposed lodge is 38'feet tall when the
existing adjacent and surroundings buildings are only 15' to 25' ink height is wrong. The chalet building next door is
only 2 stories. Going up an additional two stories to dwarf our post WWII chalet, does not meet our land use code
provisions which state that any structure must fit in with surrounding structures. This does NOT! Across the street is
the Hotel Jerome which is four stories, but should stand alone as this since it is one of our 7 iconic 19"century
structures. How much do the citizens of Aspen have to endure over the loss of our character?
All developers ask for twice as much as they expect to receive in a development application, and while most of you on
the board are developers yourselves and architects, it behooves you to respect the present codes as they are without
eating away at them with special reviews and exceptions. This is especially the case when the proposed application at
232 E. Main, does NOT conform to the height and mass of the existing buildings in the neighborhood or along our
historic Main Street. Please look at the handsomely built lodges( i.e. Annabelle etc.) along Main Street that have been
rebuilt and remodeled and have gone below grade for parking, employee housing, and retained the existing setbacks
that meet code.
Why should Mark Hunts' application receive exceptions for parking, setbacks and exemption from employee housing,
when others have all followed our land use code? IT is the locals, who respectfully pay the taxes and support the burden
of these special review requests and exemptions, which are often given out without much thought or concern to the
overall impact to what it does to our town and its future appeal.
IT is time that HPC stands up and makes NO exceptions and exemptions to the existing codes and save the last remaining
character of Aspen( which is the first impression to visitors of this town's history). The citizens of Aspen deserve more
and I hope you will take the time thoroughly think through the ramifications of granting all these setbacks and height
variances to the detriment of the community before it is too late!
Sincerely,
Junee Kirk
1
November 9, 2014
To Whom It May Concern, including Members of the Historic
Preservation Commission:
I am the owner of 117 North Monarch Street, Unit 1, which
is adjacent to 232 East Main Street.
I will not be present for the Wednesday, November 19, 2014
public hearing to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen
Historic Preservation Commission. However, there will be
representation, on my behalf, at the meeting.
I remain supportive,of the'Commission's oversight on this
project, but obviously have concerns on the impact not only
to my unit, but on the other surrounding homes. Some of
my concerns that I hope the Commission will address are as
follows:
1) The elevations and drawings of the proposed work meet
the City Historic Preservation Design Guidelines.
2) The project will comply with the City's zoning regulations,
including,height and location. Any variance to the city's
height restrictions .could have a huge aesthetic and financial
impact on the surrounding homes.
3) Site lighting should be shielded to avoid glare onto
adjacent properties.
4) The project should comply with all applicable zoning
limitations.
5) The negative effect that the commercial roof deck would
have on the surrounding single family homes and condos
would be enormous, and could cause irreparable damage to
the value of the surrounding properties.
6) The potential noise level/disturbance adjacent to
residential homes and condos is very concerning.
7) I would respectfully request scaled drawings of the
proposed structure, depicting its form, including height,
massing, scale, proportions and roof plan; and the primary
features of all elevations.
I would anticipate that other owners affected by this project
may request the same.
8) Again, any waivers and variances requested may have a
huge aesthetic and economic impact on the surrounding
homes, and I am hopeful that the Aspen Historic
Preservation Commission takes this into consideration prior
to making any decision.
Thank you in advance for your consideration.
Joseph B. Chalal
Sara Adams
From: Jim Smith <c600jimsmith@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 10:54 PM
To: Sara Adams
Cc: Bert Myrin; Steve Skadron; Art Daily; Adam Frisch; Dwayne Romero; Ann Mullins
Subject: Comments on Basel Lodge
Sara,
I have been out of the country for a couple of weeks, returning on the 20th and, therefore, unable to attend the
planned Final Review meeting of the Basel Lodge application.
The proposal is completely contrary to the Aspen area plan, inconsistent with the neighborhood in which it will
be installed and contrary to the frequent and often expressed desires of the citizens of Aspen. Just look at what
happened to the Lodging Ordinance with the 4+ story buildings at the base of the mountain.
If the meeting were to occur any time after the 19th, I would be there to strongly oppose the proposal and hope
this note has the same impact as my direct input.
Jim Smith
t
Sara Adams
From: Phyllis Bronson <phyllisbronsonphd@me.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 7:41 AM
To: Sara Adams
Subject: HPC public comment letter for today, 11-19-2014
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear HPC,
Please think again before you give the city away to developers under the guise of the hot planning
proposal of the moment: Infill. Oh, no, Infill was so 2002, now it's under the guise of tiny lodge rooms.
Please recall some of Aspen's most regrettable buildings were created using the last hot planning
proposal. Infill brought us the Art Museum and the behemoth next to Little Annie's. The idea of tiny
lodge rooms was embraced by Mr. Hunt because he needed a clever approach to pull the wool over
the eyes of city voters. Although Mayor Skadron proposed this, Mr Hunt jumped on it to look good, as
he so wants to be calling Aspen home as he alters it irrevocably and wrongly in so many ways. The
mayor must not forget that somewhere not long ago his primary campaign promise was to maintain
small town character. Has anyone looked at who the partners are behind the corporations behind
each building project being proposed. I didn't think so.... Are they out for Aspen's best interest?
The applicant's proposal states: "For example, the lodge development proposed for this site has no
free-market residential component and no timeshare or fractional estate component. It is simply a
lodge with small, private bunkrooms (approximately 190 square feet each) that will dictate low nightly
rates, yet it includes highly desirable features and amenities that...". (we desperately need, of course)
So, here we go, we must get ready because along with all this new messy vitality will be no parking
proposed: are you kidding? How do you think all these messy families with young children diapers
and dogs, will get here? They will come to their affordable bunk rooms alas in their rented cars after
finding the cheapest flights known to mankind. to Eagle or GJ.
One more nail in the gridlock mid-winter and summer that is already having trouble parking-
anywhere nearby.
Some favorite breakfast places have said they are so terrified of losing their customers as developers
overwhelm small locally serving businesses in their pursuit of the hot planning proposal of the
moment: Tiny lodge rooms with endless unintended consequences.
And so on. This is not manna. This is one megalomaniac invasion of Aspen. Who needs 11
buildings? The joke around town is comparing Imelda Marcos to shoes. 6,000 square feet of Floor
Area is the zoning for the Conoco property. This may be expanded to 7,500 square feet through
Special Review. The "ask" from Mr. Hunt: 18,734 square feet of Floor Area.
My request is for HPC to hold the line at the code and approve 6,000 square feet of Floor Area or,
under the guise of Special Review for an outstanding project, and after much scrutiny consider up to
1
7,500 square feet of floor area. Stick to the code so those of us who call Aspen home know you
won't be giving our city away while we spend our time at work, with friends and family, and taking
care of our own lives.
Sincerely,
Phyllis
Phyllis J. Bronson, Ph.D.
2
Sara Adams
From: Steve Goldenberg <steve@goldenberg.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 4:58 PM
To: Sara Adams
Subject: Regarding the Hunt property application before HPC next week.
It is too big and it looks awful.
Please recommend only a smaller, more friendly building at this location
on Main Street. Just sticking to the code with very few exceptions should
do the trick.
Would you kindly forward my comments to HPC.
I feel like we're under a constant assault by the development community
and I don't think they care about anything but bigger, bigger, bigged.
Steve Goldenberg .... steve@goldenberg.com
430 W. Hopkins Avenue ... 970-925-1294
Aspen, CO 81611 .... cell 970-379-9778
Call sign... WOSRG
t
Sara Adams
v
From: Walt Madden <walterross@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 8:35 PM
To: Sara Adams
Cc: sack@aspendailynews.com; rcarroll@aspentimes.com
Subject: 232 East Main Street (Conoco) redevelopment
Dcar members of the HPC,
I am writing to request that you deny the application for 232 East Main Street redevelopment.
The application requests variances from a number of the already generous "infill" code regulations:
• • requesting 18,000+ square feet of cumulative floor area versus 6,000 allowed by infill (and also over
the 7,500 allowed by "Special Review")
• • requesting 0' setbacks on all four sides of the property
• • every roof height is over the 28' limit in the code (and they are also all above the "Special Review"
limit of 32 feet)
• waivers of affordable housing and impact fees
• waivers of parking requirements (there isn't even an accommodation made for an off-street pick-
up/drop-off for their proposed in lieu "airport shuttle")
The recent "Mayor's Meetings" regarding how to mitigate the impacts of continual construction in Aspen (or
just a look around town) make it clear there is no need to incentivize development.
The community benefit gained by this mid-priced lodging perhaps merits allowing the additional "Special
Review" limits but does notjustify the excessive variances being requested.
Walt Madden
Aspen
walterrossn�mail.com
970-925-7232
t
Sara Adams
From: Paul Auvil <p-auvil@northwestern.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 8:51 AM
To: Sara Adams
Subject: Basel Lodge
Sara Adams:
Wow...yet another opportunity for Aspen's leaders to disgrace the town's image. We are Aspen residents who first
came to Aspen in the 60's when Independence pass was a gravel road. Every time we see the City approves another
travesty we hope it will be the last, but the mistakes seem endless. Are developers the only "real" citizens of Aspen?
Best,
Paul and Carole Auvil
1
MONARCH HOLDINGS, LLC
458 Walls Wy
Osprey, FL 34229
November 13, 2014
City of Aspen
Attn: Sara Adams
130 S. Galena Street, 3`d Floor
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Proposed Re-Development of 232 Main Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Ms. Adams:
Through our entity, Monarch Holdings, LLC, we are the owners of the
condominium unit known as Unit 2, Le Votaux II Condominiums, located as 117 N.
Monarch Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611.
Our home is situated across Alley Block 73 directly north of 232 Main Street and
the proposed building site for the project known as 'Base 2". Because of the proximity
to the proposed development, our building will likely be more affected by the proposed
development than any other buildings in the neighborhood.
Unfortunately, we will not be able to attend the community outreach meeting on
November 13, 2014 or the public hearing scheduled for November 19, 2014 related to the
proposed Base 2 development. However, Ben Genshaft and/or his partner, Daryl Cramer,
will be at the meetings on behalf of us and the owner of the other unit within the
condominium, Dr. Joseph Chalal.
Specifically, we wanted to voice our concerns as the owner of the top floor unit.
Dr. Chalal may voice his concerns separately, but we share many of the same concerns.
First and foremost, we want to preserve the character, cohesiveness and small town feel
of our historic west end neighborhood.
We understand that the proposed development is a Planned Unit Development or
"PUD" pursuant to the City of Aspen Land Use Code (the "Code"). In reading relevant
sections of the Code, including the Panned Development Review standards under Chapter
26.445, it is clear that PUDs are meant to encourage innovative, creative, efficient and
community oriented projects. However, the Code is also clear that a PUD shall achieve
"a greater compatibility with existing and future surrounding land uses that would be
possible through the strict application of the zone district provisions" and shall
incorporate "an appropriate level. of public input to the planning process to ensure
sensitivity to neighborhood and community goals and objectives."
To us; this means that innovative and creative approaches to development and
potential community benefits must be balanced with development appropriate for a given
neighborhood. To be clear, our opposition to this project is not to stifle innovative and
creative approaches to development, but rather to ensure that the character and feel of our
historic neighborhood is preserved.
Looking at the proposed plans, what stands out to us is the mass, scale and height
of the proposed Base 2 lodge. The building would dwarf not only our two story structure,
but also the other buildings in the neighborhood. We recognize that our building may be
in a different zone district than the proposed Base 2 lodge and that the neighborhood may
even be considered "transitional" in terms of zoning, but transitions between zone
districts are important and regardless of zone districts, this Main Street historic area and
the nearby residences establish a neighborhood with a distinct feel. This neighborhood
serves also as a welcome corridor into the core of Aspen, with two story Victorians,
Carl's Pharmacy and other historic structures used for commercial and/or residential
purposes. The Base 2 lodge is simply too big, too tall and too out of character with the
neighborhood.
According to the development application submitted, the maximum height of the
proposed lodge is 39 feet to the top of the fourth floor. This is a variance of over 10 feet
from height limits permitted under the underlying zone district. Even the third floor of
the proposed structure is several feet over height limits of the underlying zone district.
The applicant requests additional variances from Code standards, including waivers of lot
width, front yard setbacks, side yard setbacks, rear setbacks, minimum
utility/trash/recycle areas, minimum distances between buildings, floor area ratios,
maximum residential unit size and minimum off-street parking requirements. The
applicant's requested waivers and variances alone should be a clear signal to the City that
the proposed building is not appropriate for the neighborhood.
Perhaps at times, variations from, and waivers of, underlying' zone district
requirements are appropriate. Perhaps even the proposed Base 2 development would
provide a significant community benefit. But are there not ways to achieve community
goals without destroying the character of a neighborhood?
In this case, the proposed development includes several commercial units. The
entire lower level and ground level appears to be geared toward retail and commercial
uses. We understand that the development must make financial sense for the developer,
but we also don't like the idea that aspects of the proposed development that make it
work financially for the developer mean additional floors, height and mass of the building.
The proposed Base 2 lodge, we understand, is part of a larger development plan
for various properties within the City of Aspen. We applaud the developer for including
low priced lodging options within the plan, but perhaps the Base 2 lodge should be just
that — a stand-alone affordable lodge. Without so many commercial areas, the proposed
building could be scaled down to two stories so it actually enhances, and fits
appropriately with, the existing neighborhood.
Our property is our "home away from home." This proposed development would
completely eradicate our views, block most or all of the sunlight coming into our building
and force us to stare at the backside of a commercial building. We purchased our
property because it is located in a historic and timeless neighborhood of Aspen's West
End. This commercial project, with its many impacts (including impact and traffic those
from the roof top deck, retail, restaurant and bar uses) is simply not appropriate for this
neighborhood.
For the above reasons, we respectively request that the City deny the development
application for the Base 2 lodge. We also request that you circulate a copy of this letter
to the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission, the developer of the proposed Base 2
project and any interested community members.
Sincerely,
Dr. John Fezza and Heidi Fezza
On behalf of
Monarch Holdings, LLC
r
EXHIBIT/\
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060(E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY:
11 ,5 f, I6?K 1yt S , Aspen, CO
SCHEDULED 6> IC G DATE:
,201
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
County of Pitkin )
I,61y✓1 'i�A-1 I'm Y10 (tee,please per)
being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally
certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060
(E)of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner:
Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official
paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15)
days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto.
Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the
Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof
materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six
(26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in
height. Said notice was posted at Ieast fill (15)days prior to the public hearing
on the day of �O�Qm 12tr 207, to and including the date and time
of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto.
Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community
Development Department, which contains the information described in Section
26.304.060(E)(2)of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen(15)days prior to
the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by fust class postage
prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the
property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of
property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they
appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A
copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto.
Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach,
summarized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as
required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the
neighborhood outreach summary, including the method of public notification and
a copy of arty documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto.
(continued on next page)
RECEIVED
NOV 2 0 2014
CITY OF ASPEN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
r
Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt
requested,to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty(30)days prior to the
date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development.
The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current
tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions, SPAS or PUDs that
create more than one lot, new Planned Unit Developments, and new Specially
Planned Areas, are subject to this notice requirement.
Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any
way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this
Title,or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended,whether such revision be
made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or
otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal
description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of
real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the
proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning
agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing
on such amendments.
signdture
i1b-
The foregoing"Affidavit of Notice"was mowledged beme this day
of/�l dLJn{?Cts , 20 )q. by foam
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
KRISTIN PRIDE -713d 30
NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires:
STATE OF COLORADO
NOTARY ID#20064029379
t My Commission Expires July 30,2018
-&oW-Fk1lic
ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE:
• COPYOFTHEPUBLICATION
• PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE(SIGN)
• LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED
BYMAIL
• APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE
AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S.§24-65.5-103.3 RECEIVED
NOV 2 0 2014
CITY OF ASPEN
;(MM wry DMLWNT
w * , ,
Ao
�•� ` iii,.�_ iYX. ` PL
it
7 14 y!'
oil --
Yfl
IF
�T
a�