HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20150812
AGENDA
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
August 12, 2015
5:00 PM City Council Meeting Room 130 S. Galena St.
130 S Galena Street, Aspen
I. SITE VISITS
A. Please visit 447 E. Cooper on your own.
II. INTRODUCTION (15 MIN.)
A. Roll call
B. Approval of minutes
July 22, 2015 minutes
C. Public Comments
D. Commissioner member comments
E. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent)
F. Project Monitoring
G. Staff comments
Proposed TDR code amendment
H. Certificate of No Negative Effect issued
I. Submit public notice for agenda items
J. Call-up resports
K. HPC typical proceedings
III. OLD BUSINESS
A. None
IV. NEW BUSINESS
A. 447 E. Cooper- Conceptual Major Development Review, Conceptual Commercial
Design Review, Viewplane Review, Demolition, PUBLIC HEARING (5:25)
B. 223 E. Hallam- Final, PUBLIC HEARING (6:35)
V. ADJOURN
A. (7:20)
Next Resolution Number: Resolution #24, 2015
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.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JULY 22, 2015
1
Chairperson, Willis Pember called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
Commissioners in attendance were Nora Berko, Bob Blaich, John Whipple,
Gretchen Greenwood, Patrick Sagal and Michael Brown. Jim DeFrancis and
Sallie Golden were absent.
Staff present:
Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney
Amy Simon, Preservation Planner
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
Willis welcomed our new member Michael Brown.
John thanked Willis for his four years on HPC and continued service.
MINUTES: Willis moved to approve the minutes of June 24th and July 8th as
amended; second by John. All in favor, motion carried. Michael Brown did
not vote.
Public Comments:
Marina Rainer said she wanted to emphasize how important view planes are
and to protect them particularly the Wheeler View Plane – Altering view
planes extinguish Aspen. People don’t come here to look at walls.
Disclosure
John was noticed on 305 – 307 S. Mill and will step down.
Michael Brown will step down on 110 E. Bleeker.
110 E. Bleeker Street – Final Major Development, Public Hearing –
cont’d from July 8th
Kim Raymond, architect
Amy said this is final for an addition to a Victorian house. There is a lot of
restoration happening on the Victorian. At the last meeting it was
recommended to possibly remove the dormers; restudy/reduce the fascia
dimensions; propose a window/window door spec with narrower frames;
locate windows in a more symmetrical arrangement, revise the large non-
orthogonal windows in the east and west gable ends and restudy/reduce the
sliding doors on the south façade.
P1
II.B.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JULY 22, 2015
2
Option B narrows the amount of glass on the upper façade of the master
bedroom. Option D has a lower plate height to bring down the mass of the
addition and staff supports D with the dormer eliminated.
Kim said we are doing a lot to bring back the Victorian to its historic
splendor. We made the window in the gable smaller. Option A has a small
door and no dormers but it is not favorable. Option B has a smaller door and
a dormer above. Option C had a big door and dormer. Option D is no
dormer in the back and glass that aligns up with the glass below. This has a
nice clear line. We would like Option E three windows on the west side.
On the south elevation no gable and a little more glass and we would like a
sun shade on the south exposure. The sun shade would blend with the
fascia. On the landscaping we put mulch along the building so that we don’t
have watering right up to the building.
Option E – Exhibit I
Chairperson, Willis Pember opened the public hearing. There were no
public comments. The public comment portion of the hearing was closed.
Willis said the options are B,D,E
E is a variation of D.
D is lowering the plate height of the upper floor and that is also the case with
Option E.
Willis said the design has improved and the restoration effort is needed.
Willis said he would support Option E with no dormer and the lower plate
heights. Willis also said he likes the taller window in the middle of the west
elevation.
Patrick said he can go either way Option A or E.
Gretchen said the design is a huge improvement and it allows the Victorian
to be the star. It is very simplistic. It is set back and I am in favor of Option
E and Option A for the side elevations. The cementicious material is
appropriate.
John echoed Willis’s recommendation.
P2
II.B.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JULY 22, 2015
3
Bob said he would approve Option A for the east and west and Option E for
the south.
Nora also agreed with Bob.
MOTION: Willis moved to approve resolution #23, 2015 for 110 E. Bleeker
approving Option E; motion second by Gretchen. E has the larger taller
window in the middle of the west elevation. The east side is the same as the
west. We also approve the cementicious material.
Roll call vote: Nora, yes; Gretchen, yes; John, yes; Bob, yes; Patrick, yes;
Willis, yes. Motion carried 6-0.
305-307 S. Mill Street – Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual
Commercial Design Review, Demolition and View plane Review, Public
Hearing
John recused himself.
Michael was seated.
Debbie said the affidavits of public notice are in order and the applicant can
proceed. Exhibit I
Amy said this is a 6,000 square foot lot located in the commercial core
historic district. Currently there are three different businesses on it, Jimmy’s
Bodega, Gray Lady and Ajax Donuts, (popcorn wagon). The proposal is to
remove everything on the site and replace it with a new commercial
building. HPC needs to address the criteria for demolition. The popcorn
wagon is considered a vehicle and it has been substantially rebuilt. The
applicant has offered the wagon to the city for a mobile food cart to use
elsewhere. The building where Bodega is has no historic significance. Gray
Lady has an iconic arch on the front of the building but we have never been
able to find any architect associated with it or any more specifics about its
history. Staff feels the criteria for demolition are met.
Commercial design review and conceptual design review
Amy said staff finds that architecturally the proposed new building meets the
guidelines. Some of our significant concerns relate to the view plane. The
proposed building extends lot line to lot line which meets the goals and has
retail store fronts right on the property line. Each store front has a slightly
P3
II.B.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JULY 22, 2015
4
different character with their store fronts right on the street. Public amenity
or required open space can be in different forms. They can also do cash-in-
lieu instead of leaving an open area on the site. The applicant has proposed
to mitigate their public amenity with an upper floor deck. Staff said there is
no restaurant type use immediately adjacent to the deck so we are proposing
cash-in-lieu. The cash-in-lieu could be used for mall improvements, bike
racks etc.
Utility delivery and trash
Amy said this property has no alley access and is surrounded by pedestrian
mall on two sides. Trash is accessed by Hyman Ave. and there are some
existing issues. In the proposal they are enclosing the trash area that has
been supported by the Environmental Health Dept.
Mountain View Plane
Amy said this view plane is more extensive and the building is right across
the street from the origination point. The view plane is to provide some
protection from the perspective of the front door area of the Wheeler toward
Aspen Mountain. It hits around the popcorn wagon at about 7’3” and
doesn’t increase much until it hits the back end of the property about 10’6”.
The existing development already intrudes into the view plane. If the board
approves the view plane you need to determine that the overall affect is
minimal. If you cannot do that it would have to possibly move onto a
Planned Development process which might or might not involve City
Council. We feel the project could come closer to the height of the view
plane. There is a tall parapet wall on this building and the roof deck requires
some kind of access. In this case we are seeing an enclosed elevator and
open air staircase. Staff is recommending continuation.
Michael asked about the cash-in-lieu payment.
Amy said it is around $75 to $100 a square foot.
Mark Hunt, owner said it would be around $120,000.
Willis said we are to review, demolition, commercial core design review
standards and the view plane.
Amy said the project does generate a new parking requirement by creating
new net leasable space and the code allows them to choose parking or cash-
P4
II.B.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JULY 22, 2015
5
in-lieu of $30,000. There really isn’t any space where we would want to see
a curb cut.
Amy said the design guidelines talk about some stepping up and down
between two properties and we recommend continuation because we don’t
have information about the height of this building related to the building to
the west.
Amy said the trash area has to be along Hyman Avenue and all tenants have
to be able to get to the trash area.
Mitch Haas, Hass Planning
Mark Hunt, owner
Mitch said they are basically OK with staff’s recommendation. Regarding
the public amenity we had proposed the roof top deck and we still plan on
providing a roof top deck for the restaurant but we are OK with paying the
cash-in-lieu. We feel the inset areas on the ground level should count as
public amenity. We can change things internally to get all tenants to the
trash area. We will provide addition graphics regarding the view plane. We
can easily reduce the height of the building 2 to 3 feet and reduce the mass
of the elevator stair enclosure.
Mitch said it is impossible to build in compliance with building codes,
zoning requirements and the commercial design standards regarding the
Wheeler View Plane. The height limit of the property would be 7.3 and a
typical door is 7 feet tall. The minimum first floor to second floor height is
13 feet in the guidelines. It is impossible to get 7.3 and comply with the
dimensional requirements of the zone district. When the view plane height
was adopted no structure that has been built or altered has complied with it.
Everything has been exempt or ignored. The popcorn wagon doesn’t
comply with the view plane nor does the t-shirt shop. The Wagner public
restrooms are taller than the view plane and the clock tower. There is no
way that it is going to be less than 7.3 or 10.6 at the back. We are hoping
that everyone will agree that an exemption from the view plan is warranted.
We feel a planned development review has no purpose here because we are
already in the HPC review. We would still require a variation from the view
plane height limit.
P5
II.B.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JULY 22, 2015
6
Mark Hunt, owner said there are a few things we can do to lower the height.
We feel there are benefits that go with the redevelopment of this property.
From the lobby of the second floor of the Wheeler you look out and see this
building on the roof which is a mess. When looking down on this building it
will be a much better experience. We are hiding the mechanicals. The roof
top could be appeasing. We moved the access to the middle. The area is a
place where people gather and there are festivities there. A bench has been
incorporated so people can sit there. We are proposing corten steel and
wood. It is important that the popcorn wagon stay in the community. If it
ends up that the roof is private we are open to the cash-in-lieu.
Mitch said the height of the Gray Lady is 13.9 and that is to the roof line and
all the mechanical sits up there exposed.
Amy said the view plane was adopted in the early 70’s. The public amenity
cannot be sunken or have a solid roof.
Michael pointed out that the popcorn wagon is a cultural part of our
community.
Bob said the wagon is movable and the intent is to keep it in town.
Chairperson, Willis Pember opened the public hearing.
Gideon Kaufman said there are a number of people that own property right
next to this building that have different perspectives than the applicant on
the view plane and the impact of the view plane and community open space.
We will do a presentation at the next meeting.
David Melton, 135 W. Main Street
To be able to stand in front of the Wheeler and see the unobstructed view of
Aspen Mountain is very important. You need to think about the variance
and if it will obstruct what is there now. I realize you can’t build a 7 foot tall
building but that view is phenomenal. Maybe city council needs to re-visit
the entire view plane and give all the citizens a chance to comment on what
it means to them.
Mike Otte said the Wheeler is an ionic building and that is why the view
planes were created. A lot of times the issue is increments and you change a
little here and a little there and pretty soon you don’t have a consistent plan
P6
II.B.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JULY 22, 2015
7
or harmony in your city scape. When you talk about the view plane you
need to make a decision whether the design is a minimal intrusion into the
view plane or not and that might take it to another process with the city
council. It is your fiduciary responsibility to the community to make sure
what ultimately happens here in the downtown is the best thing for Aspen
and its citizens in the long run. I would suggest you do a site visit to the
Wheeler.
Willis closed the public comment portion of the agenda item.
Mitch said we want to keep the views of Aspen Mountain as well.
Mark said we are really talking about adding 1 ½ feet on the north side of
the building and 4 ½ feet to what is there today on the south side. The
buildings are archaic with their mechanical systems etc. What we are adding
is really not that significant.
Willis identified the issues:
Demolition
Commercial Core Design standards
Public amenity
Trash and utility
Parking
Mass and scale
View plane
Patrick changes in the height at the north end would be beneficial. The other
issues is whether there should be a roof top deck for a restaurant at all which
would affect the second floor view from the Wheeler. Patrick said at the
next meeting we need a view from the Wheeler front door and second floor.
Gretchen said this is an important corner of the mall and is very vibrant. It is
an exciting gathering place for the community. For the future the public
notice should be more visible for the public to know what is going on.
Maybe have it on two sides. It is important to get input from the
community. From a view plane standpoint and the analysis of the corner
there is a huge disconnect from this building to the Wheeler. Possibly
stepping it down on the corner. The design is cold and has harsh lines and
feels very urban and we are not an urban downtown. I like the idea of a roof
deck but don’t feel it will work with our view planes. I do not consider roof
P7
II.B.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JULY 22, 2015
8
top decks as a public amenity and feel they are private spaces. I design
buildings that can only be relevant to the location that they are in.
Willis said the view plane considerations should trump the commercial core
design review standards in terms of the development of mass and scale. Lot
line to lot line is fine in an urban setting. What is there now is a soft corner
and you need something to soften that corner. I like the idea of a roof deck
instead of having mechanicals on the roof. Maybe the roof top rails could be
glass. We also need a restudy of where the roof top is located.
Bob suggested doing photographs and story poles for the community to see.
We need to resolve the sight lines. I like the idea of the roof top deck but
don’t feel it is an amenity.
Nora thanked the public for coming. This is an incredibly vital corner.
Having the north more open would soften the corner up. The concern is the
view plane and it needs to be looked at in a sacred way. Obviously it will
not be 7 feet tall. Nora said she has concerns about the roof top deck
because that makes the view plane even taller. I object less to the building
facing Wagner Park. I have a lot of trouble having public amenity space
upstairs. I would rather see cash-in-lieu. The buildings need softened up so
that they feel like they belong in Aspen.
Michael said he likes the idea of a roof deck and we would need to see what
it looks like once it is happening and its function with the view plane. I also
do not see roof top deck as a public amenity and they are willing to commit
to the cash-in-lieu. I would like to see some public amenity onsite and
maybe the north elevation is set back. The new building has to have a
minimal effect on the view plane. The clock tower and bathrooms are much
further away from the Wheeler. The impact on the north is as close as you
can get.
MOTION: Bob moved to continue the public hearing on 305-307 S. Mill,
conceptual development, commercial design review, demolition and view
plan review to September 30th, second by Nora. All in favor, motion carried.
MOTION: Willis moved to adjourn, second by Patrick. All in favor,
motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
P8
II.B.
C:\Program Files (x86)\Neevia.Com\Document Converter\temp\7239.doc
7/27/2015
HPC PROJECT MONITORS- projects in bold are under construction
Nora Berko 332 W. Main
1102 Waters
1006 E. Cooper
100 E. Main
417/421 W. Hallam
602 E. Hyman
61 Meadows Road
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Bob Blaich Lot 2, 202 Monarch Subdivision
232 E. Bleeker
609 W. Smuggler
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Jim DeFrancia 435 W. Main, AJCC
420 E. Cooper
420 E. Hyman
407 E. Hyman
Rubey Park
Sallie Golden 206 Lake
114 Neale
212 Lake
400 E. Hyman
517 E. Hyman (Little Annie’s)
Hotel Aspen
Gretchen Greenwood 28 Smuggler Grove
135 E. Cooper
1280 Ute
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Willis Pember 204 S. Galena
Aspen Core
120 Red Mountain
233 W. Hallam
101 E. Hallam
229 W. Smuggler
407 E. Hyman
Patrick Segal 204 S. Galena
701 N. Third
612 W. Main
206 Lake
212 Lake
Holden Marolt derrick
333 W. Bleeker
John Whipple Aspen Core
201 E. Hyman
549 Race
208 E. Main
420 E. Cooper
602 E. Hyman
Hotel Aspen
610 E. Hyman
301 Lake
P9
II.F.
C:\Program Files (x86)\Neevia.Com\Document Converter\temp\7239.doc
7/27/2015
Needed:
P10
II.F.
TDR Code Amendment
HPC referral meeting – 8/12/15
Page 1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Sara Adams, Senior Planner
Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner
RE: Potential changes to TDR program
DATE: August 12, 2015
______________________________________________________________________________
SUMMARY: The upcoming work program for Community Development was presented to HPC
on June 10th, which included a proposal to update the Historic TDR Review Criteria. As part of
the first step to processing a code amendment, staff is requesting feedback from HPC on the
potential changes.
TDRs are equal to 250 square feet of floor area and are only allowed to be created on historic
landmark lots. The Review Criteria for the City’s TDR program are based on a mathematical
formula – if there is additional available floor area on the lot that floor area is eligible to be
severed as a TDR. The Review Criteria do not address such things as if the creation of TDRs
will benefit the historic property or represent an important preservation effort. Staff proposes an
update to the Review Criteria to include some additional context-specific criteria.
BACKGROUND: The TDR program was established in 2006 as the only historic preservation
incentive that permanently removes development pressure from a landmark property. It is a
valuable tool that needs to remain viable. Aspen’s TDR program is unique for a small town: this
type of benefit is usually only found in large cities.
Only 25 TDRs of the 72 TDRs approved by Council have landed, meaning the market is flooded
with unused TDRs which drives their value down. In order for the program to be successful
there need to be expanded opportunities to land TDRs. Council has made some improvements to
the situation by amendments allowing TDRs to be landed at the Maroon Creek Club PUD and
allowing more to be landed on large lots within residential zone districts. In addition, the
program must be more selective in establishing TDRs on historic properties.
While TDRs are sold on the free market without City regulation, it is important to maintain a
healthy TDR program that is viable and achieves historic preservation goals without
overburdening neighborhoods. The 2012 Aspen Area Community Plan states as a policy “ensure
that the historic preservation benefits package encourages owners of landmark properties to
preserve structures to the highest possible degree of historic integrity while minimizing adverse
impacts to the neighborhood.” It also states “encourage the use of the City’s Historic
Transferable Development Right program as a method of preserving the historic integrity of
designated structures.”
P11
II.G.
TDR Code Amendment
HPC referral meeting – 8/12/15
Page 2
OVERVIEW OF PROPOSAL: Staff proposes to tighten up the ability to establish TDRs in order to
preserve historic landmarks and to support a viable TDR program. Currently there is 11,750 sf
of floor area that could be landed in Aspen based on approved TDRs.1
Staff proposes the following changes to the TDR Program:
1. Limit the number of TDRs that can be created on a single historic property. Allowing an
unlimited amount of TDRs to be established on a landmark property, or creating them as
part of an AspenModern negotiation, may reduce or sterilize expansion, but it may also
flood the market in a way that undermines the incentive for the majority of the historic
properties.
2. Change the program so that the landmark property is required to actually contain a
historic resource (which will exclude newly created landmark lot split lots). This will
ensure that new TDRs are directly relieving development pressure from historic
landmarks.
3. Add a new review criteria that requires demonstration of exemplary historic preservation
or restoration through the creation of TDRs. This creates a link between preservation
efforts for the landmark and creating a TDR certificate. Right now, the review criteria are
mathematically based and do not specifically address preservation or restoration on the
property.
NEXT STEPS: Some additional outreach to planners and users of the TDR program will occur
later this summer. A policy resolution will be taken to City Council toward the end of the
summer with a conceptual proposal. If Council adopts the policy resolution and directs Staff to
pursue the code amendment, then Staff will present draft language to City Council for adoption
during a public hearing.
REQUEST OF HPC: Staff requests HPC input on the proposed changes listed above, as well as
any other general comments on how the program can be improved.
EXHIBITS:
Exhibit A: TDR spreadsheet showing established and landed TDRs to date.
Exhibit B: Total number of approved TDRs.
1 72 TDRs approved – 25 TDRs landed = 47 remaining TDRs
47 TDRs * 250 sq ft = 11,750 sq ft
P12
II.G.
1 of 16
City of Aspen Historic TDRs Last Updated:
Certificate
Number
Former
Cert. No.TDR Number Issuance
Date Certificate Owner Sending Site Sending Site
Parcel ID #
Landing Site or
New Cert. No.
Landing Site
Parcel ID #
1 N/A FC Lot 5 TDR 1 1/31/2006 Fox Crossing Partners, LLC Fox Crossing
Subdivision Lot 5 273707392005 Fox Crossing Lot 11,
Unit A 273707392015
2 N/A FC Lot 5 TDR 2 1/31/2006 Fox Crossing Partners, LLC Fox Crossing
Subdivision Lot 5 273707392005 Fox Crossing Lot 13 273707392013
3 N/A FC Meadow TDR 1 1/31/2006 Fox Crossing Partners, LLC Fox Crossing
Subdivision Meadow 273707392014 Fox Crossing Lot 9 273707392009
4 N/A FC Meadow TDR 2 1/31/2006 Fox Crossing Partners, LLC Fox Crossing
Subdivision Meadow 273707392014 Fox Crossing Lot 9 273707392009
5 N/A FC Meadow TDR 3 1/31/2006 Fox Crossing Partners, LLC Fox Crossing
Subdivision Meadow 273707392014 Fox Crossing Lot 10 273707392010
6 N/A FC Meadow TDR 4 1/31/2006 Fox Crossing Partners, LLC Fox Crossing
Subdivision Meadow 273707392014 Fox Crossing Lot 10 273707392010
7 N/A FC Meadow TDR 5 1/31/2006 Fox Crossing Partners, LLC Fox Crossing
Subdivision Meadow 273707392014 Fox Crossing Lot 13 273707392013
8 N/A FC Lot 6 TDR 1 1/31/2006 Fox Crossing Partners, LLC Fox Crossing
Subdivision Lot 6 273707392006 Fox Crossing Lot 1 273707392001
9 N/A FC Lot 6 TDR 2 1/31/2006 Fox Crossing Partners, LLC Fox Crossing
Subdivision Lot 6 273707392006 Fox Crossing Lot 1 273707392001
10 N/A FC Lot 6 TDR 3 1/31/2006 Fox Crossing Partners, LLC Fox Crossing
Subdivision Lot 6 273707392006 Fox Crossing Lot 2 273707392002
11 N/A FC Lot 6 TDR 4 1/31/2006 Fox Crossing Partners, LLC Fox Crossing
Subdivision Lot 6 273707392006 Fox Crossing Lot 2 273707392002
12 N/A TS-B65-LK-1 1/2/2007 Nancy Spears 100 East Bleeker
Street, Lot k Block 65 273512437005 850 Moore Drive 273514111109
13 N/A TS-B65-LK-2 1/2/2007 Nancy Spears 100 East Bleeker
Street, Lot k Block 65 273512437005 850 Moore Drive 273514111109
14 N/A TS-B36-LIH-1 9/13/2007 Mary Janss 1992 Revocable
Living Trust
403 West Hallam
Street, Lot I and East
1/2 of Lot H, Block 36
273512433005
15 N/A TS-B36-LIH-2 11/1/2007 Mary Janss 1992 Revocable
Living Trust
403 West Hallam
Street, Lot I and East
1/2 of Lot H, Block 36
273512433005
406 E. Hopkins
Avenue, Unit B of the
Isis Theatre Condos
273707330010
16 N/A TS-B71-LDE-1 12/20/2007 Frost Barn Property, LLC
208 East Hallam
Street, Lots D and E,
Block 71
273707314003 201 West Hallam 273512435002
17 N/A TS-B71-LDE-2 12/20/2007 Frost Barn Property, LLC
208 East Hallam
Street, Lots D and E,
Block 71
273707314003 200 West Hallam
Street 273512422006
18 N/A TS-B71-LDE-3 12/20/2007 Frost Barn Property, LLC
208 East Hallam
Street, Lots D and E,
Block 71
273707314003
May 20, 2015
P
1
3
I
I
.
G
.
2 of 16
Certificate
Number
Former
Cert. No.TDR Number Issuance
Date Certificate Owner Sending Site Sending Site
Parcel ID #
Landing Site or
New Cert. No.
Landing Site
Parcel ID #
19 N/A TS-B71-LDE-4 12/20/2007 Frost Barn Property, LLC
208 East Hallam
Street, Lots D and E,
Block 71
273707314003
20 N/A TS-B71-LDE-5 12/20/2007 Frost Barn Property, LLC
208 East Hallam
Street, Lots D and E,
Block 71
273707314003
21 N/A TS-B25-LB-1 4/18/2008 Douglas Kelso 627 West Main Street,
Lot B, Block 25 273512448010
22 N/A TS-B113-LPQ-1 5/30/2008 Nyla White 827 Dean Street, Lots
P and Q, Block 113 273718258004
23 N/A TS-B113-LPQ-2 3/12/2009 Nyla White 827 Dean Street, Lots
P and Q, Block 113 273718258004 855 Roaring Fork
Road 273512104017
24 N/A TS-B113-LPQ-3 10/27/2009 Nyla White 827 Dean Street, Lots
P and Q, Block 113 273718258004 864 Moore Drive 273514111108
25 N/A TS-B25-LB-2 8/13/2010 Douglas Kelso 627 West Main Street,
Lot B, Block 25 273512448010 864 Moore Drive 273514111108
26 N/A TS-B99-LRS-1 5/5/2011 630 E. Hyman LLC
630 E. Hyman
Avenue, Lots R and S,
Block 99
273718212007 630 E. Hyman Ave. 273718212007
27 N/A C-L14-1 5/5/2011
Susan Geary Griffin, Bonnie
Geary Grenney, and William
Scott Geary
1102 Waters Avenue,
Lot 14, Calderwood
Subdivision
273718266001
12/14/2012- $190,000
28 N/A TS-B113-LPQ-4 10/31/2011 Nyla White 827 Dean Street, Lots
P and Q, Block 113 273718258004
29 N/A TS-B24-OP-1 1/25/2012 612 West LLC 612 W. Main, Lots O
and P, Block 24 273512444006
1/27/2012-$185,000
30 N/A TS-B24-OP-2 1/25/2012 612 West LLC 612 W. Main, Lots O
and P, Block 24 273512444006
1/27/2012-$185,000
P
1
4
I
I
.
G
.
3 of 16
Certificate
Number
Former
Cert. No.TDR Number Issuance
Date Certificate Owner Sending Site Sending Site
Parcel ID #
Landing Site or
New Cert. No.
Landing Site
Parcel ID #
31 N/A BC21 7/25/2012 Jeffrey Shoaf
117 Neale Avenue, Lot
2, Benedict Cabin
Subdivision Exemption
273707353004
7/30/2012- $175,000
32 N/A BC22 7/25/2012 Jeffrey Shoaf
117 Neale Avenue, Lot
2, Benedict Cabin
Subdivision Exemption
273707353004
7/30/2012- $175,000
33 31 BC21 7/30/2012 Bell 26, LLC
34 32 BC22 7/30/2012 Bell 26, LLC
35 N/A TS-B24-OP-3 12/7/2012 612 West LLC 612 W. Main, Lots O
and P, Block 24 273512444006 600 N. Third Street 273512402002
12/7/2012-$180,000
36 N/A TS-B24-OP-4 12/7/2012 612 West LLC 612 W. Main, Lots O
and P, Block 24 273512444006
2/25/2013-$205,000
37 N/A TS-B24-OP-5 12/7/2012 612 West LLC 612 W. Main, Lots O
and P, Block 24 273512444006 675 S. Alps Rd., Lot 2
of the Moses Lot Split 2737-182-56-001
5/31/2013-$205,000
38 N/A TS-B24-OP-6 12/7/2012 612 West LLC 612 W. Main, Lots O
and P, Block 24 273512444006 201 S. Garmisch 273512459003
11/11/2013-$240,000
39 N/A FC Lot 6 TDR 5 Fox Crossing Properties, LLC Fox Crossing
Subdivision Lot 6 273707392006
40 N/A FC Lot 6 TDR 6 Fox Crossing Properties, LLC Fox Crossing
Subdivision Lot 6 273707392006
see Certificate 31
see Certificate 32
See certificate 53
P
1
5
I
I
.
G
.
4 of 16
Certificate
Number
Former
Cert. No.TDR Number Issuance
Date Certificate Owner Sending Site Sending Site
Parcel ID #
Landing Site or
New Cert. No.
Landing Site
Parcel ID #
41 N/A FC Lot 6 TDR 7 Fox Crossing Properties, LLC Fox Crossing
Subdivision Lot 6 273707392006 Fox Crossing Lot 11,
Unit B 273707392016 no price - it was wrapped
into the sale price of Lot 11,
Unit B (a vacant lot)
42 N/A SC-Unit B-1 624 West Francis LLC Starri Condominiums,
Unit B 273512409012
43 N/A 604-Lot 2-1 604 West LLC
604 West Main
Historic Landmark Lot
Split, Lot 2
TBD
10/23/2014- $220,000
44 N/A 604-Lot 2-2 604 West LLC
604 West Main
Historic Landmark Lot
Split, Lot 2
TBD
45 N?A Beck Historic - Lot B -1 John Rowland and Sarah
Broughton
Beck Historic Lot Split,
Lot B 273512111007 623 E. Hopkins 273718212001
12/9/2013-$240,000
46 N/A Beck Historic - Lot B -2 John Rowland and Sarah
Broughton
Beck Historic Lot Split,
Lot B 273512111007
47 N/A 430-Lot 1-1 Karbank 430 LLC
430 West Main
Historic Landmark Lot
Split, Lot 1
273512442009
48 N/A 430-Lot 1-2 Karbank 430 LLC
430 West Main
Historic Landmark Lot
Split, Lot 1
273512442009
49 N/A HA-B40-L567-1 301 Lake Avenue LLC
301 Lake Avenue, the
east 1/2 of Lot 5 and
all of Lots 6 and 7,
Block 40, Hallam's
Addition
2735-124-16-003
P
1
6
I
I
.
G
.
5 of 16
Certificate
Number
Former
Cert. No.TDR Number Issuance
Date Certificate Owner Sending Site Sending Site
Parcel ID #
Landing Site or
New Cert. No.
Landing Site
Parcel ID #
50 N/A 120RMR-1 1/5/2015 Red Mountain Riverfront LLC 120 Red Mountain
Road 2737-072-00-028 100 E. Main 2735-124-01-202 no sale price- owner landed
TDR on another parcel he
owns
51 N/A 120RMR-2 1/5/2015 Red Mountain Riverfront LLC 120 Red Mountain
Road 2737-072-00-028
52 28 TS-B113-LPQ-4
53 36 TS-B24-OP-4 4/27/2015 DH Hallam LLC
To extinguish, assign the certificate to "the City of Aspen for extinguishment"
The TDR number is determined as follows: original townsite/ subdivision name- block- lot- number of tdr for the property
For example: a property that is part of the original townsite, block 65, lot k with only 1 tdr being established would be:
TSB65LK1
another example: a property that is part of the fox crossing subdivision, lot 6, the second tdr being established on the lot would be:
FC62
See Certificate 28
See Certificate 36
P
1
7
I
I
.
G
.
APPROVED TDRs
Property
number of TDRs
approved Ordinance #Year
Fox Crossing Lot 5 2 50 2004
Fox Crossing Meadow 5 50 2004
Fox Crossing Lot 6 4 50 2004
100 East Bleeker 2 31 2006
403 West Hallam 2 32 2006
208 East Hallam 5 42 2007
627 Main Street 1 2 2008
827 Dean Street 4 6 2008
612 West Main Street 6 12 2008
541 Race Street (fox crossing lot 6)3 30 2008
627 Main Street 1 12 2009
630 E. Hyman Avenue 1 26 2009
1102 Waters Avenue 1 23 2010
117/119 Neale Avenue 2 2 2012
604 W. Main 12 24 2013
507 Gillespie 2 25 2013
430 W. Main 10 30 2013
624 W. Francis 1 40 2013
549 Race Alley (Fox Crossing Lot 5)3 46 2013
1006 E. Cooper Avenue 2 28 2014
120 Red Mountain 2 18 2014
301 Lake Avenue 1 21 2014
total number of approved TDRs 72
P
1
8
I
I
.
G
.
TYPICAL PROCEEDING
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 (5 minutes)
Chairperson identifies 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.
Procedure for amending motions:
A “friendly amendment” to a Motion is a request by a commissioner to the commissioner
who made the Motion and to the commissioner who seconded it, to amend their Motion.
If either of these two do not accept the “friendly” amendment request, the requesting
commissioner may make a formal motion to amend the Motion along the lines he/she
previously requested. If there is no second to the motion to amend the Motion, there is
no further discussion on the motion to amend, it dies for a lack of a second; discussion
and voting on the Motion may then proceed.
If there is a second to the motion to amend the Motion, it can be discussed and must be
voted upon before any further discussion and voting on the Motion for which the
amendment was requested. If the vote is in favor of amending the Motion, discussion and
voting then proceeds on the Amended Motion. If the vote on the motion to amend fails,
discussion and voting on the Motion as originally proposed may then proceed.
P19
II.K.
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Sara Adams, Senior Planner
RE: 447 E. Cooper Avenue – Demolition, Conceptual Major Development,
Conceptual Commercial Design Review, Mountain View Plane,
Public Hearing
DATE: August 12, 2015
______________________________________________________________________________
SUMMARY: The subject property is located at 447 E. Cooper Street. It is a 9,026 square foot
lot which is currently occupied by retail tenants on the ground floor and 3 - 4 free market
residential units on the upper floor. A shared common circulation corridor is located between this
property and the adjacent building that houses Casa Tua (formerly Guido’s). The Historic
Preservation Commission is asked to review demolition and replacement of the existing building.
The structure on the site is not historically designated, but the property is in the Commercial Core
Historic District. The reviews include conceptual design, encroachment into the Wheeler View
Plane and the Wagner Park View Plane, Public Amenity, Utility/Delivery/Trash, and Parking.
Affordable housing mitigation and Transportation Impacts will be assessed and reviewed
concurrent with Final design reviews. HPC is expected to be the only decision making board for
this proposal. City Council will receive notice of call up after conceptual review approval.
P20
IV.A.
2
APPLICANT: 403 S. Galena LLC, represented by Camburas and Theodore, Ltd. and Haas Land
Planning.
ADDRESS: 447 E. Cooper St., Lots E, F, and G, Block 90, City and Townsite of Aspen,
Colorado.
PARCEL ID: 2737-182-21-009.
ZONING: CC, Commercial Core.
DEMOLITION
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
Staff response: The structure on the property is sound and is not an imminent hazard. The
building cannot practically be moved to another location. It was built in 1950 and is a two story
stucco frame structure. Staff finds that Criterion D is met. There is no documentation that
supports a finding that any development on this property has historic, architectural,
archaeological, engineering or cultural significance.
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 response: As stated, the existing development is not considered historically significant.
The property is not directly adjacent to any historic resources and in fact is generally surrounded
by non-historic structures, except for the Red Onion and Independence Square buildings across
P21
IV.A.
3
the street. Demolition of this structure will not affect the historic preservation needs of the area.
Staff finds these criteria are met.
CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW & COMMERCIAL DESIGN
The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual level, 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.
Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual
Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual Development
Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the envelope of the
structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application including its height,
scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of the proposed
development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan unless agreed to
by the applicant.
Staff Response: Conceptual review focuses on the height, scale, massing and proportions of a
proposal.
The design guidelines for conceptual review of a new building in the Commercial Core Historic
District are all stated within the “Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives.”
The applicable guidelines are listed in “Exhibit A.”
The subject property is located on a block that contains no historic resources. Within the vicinity
are the Red Onion and Independence Square buildings.
P22
IV.A.
4
Street & Alley Systems:
The proposed project maintains the established town grid (6.1) and develops the alley façade
facing Rubey Park to provide visual interest (6.3) All parking will be mitigated through cash in
lieu payment which allows the rear of the building to be expressed as a street facing façade. It
also avoids vehicular conflicts with RFTA buses; however on the other hand, there are concerns
about trash/utility locations onsite that are discussed later in the memo. Cash in lieu is a by-right
option for commercial parking mitigation in this location.
Public Amenity:
Redevelopment of this site requires the provision of an on-site public amenity space, or a cash in
lieu payment. 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. The project is required to provide or
mitigate 10% of the lot or about 900 sf. for public amenity space.
The design guidelines in Exhibit A describe desirable characteristics of on-site amenity space, as
meeting the following requirements:
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.
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.
3. The public amenity and the design and operating characteristics of adjacent structures,
rights-of-way and uses contribute to an inviting pedestrian environment.
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.
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.
There is currently no public amenity onsite. The proposed building has some minor setbacks on
the ground level that meet the basic definition of public amenity but do not amount to usable
public amenity space in line with the design guidelines. The two upper level decks are proposed
as an alternative option for public amenity mitigation. Staff does not support allowing the upper
level decks, which do not have exterior access, to serve as public amenity space. Staff finds that
the Design Guidelines for second level amenity space are not met, specifically 6.13:
P23
IV.A.
5
6.13 A second floor amenity space should meet all of the following criteria:
• Ensure consistent public access
• Be dedicated for public use
• Provide a public overlook and/or an interpretive marker
• Be identified by a marker at street level.
The property is adjacent to the pedestrian malls and Council has included the restoration of the
pedestrian malls as a top ten goal. Staff recommends that the HPC approve off-site
improvements to the pedestrian malls as the mitigation technique for public amenity.
Building Placement:
The building is proposed parallel to lot lines similar to traditional building orientations (6.20).
The primary entrances face the Cooper mall (6.21). The building is broken up into three modules
with the larger module being about 53 ft. located in the middle of the building. Guidelines 6.18
(listed below) states that a minimum of 70% of the front façade shall be at the property line in
order to maintain the alignment of facades at the sidewalk’s edge. About 52% of the building’s
façade at ground level along Cooper Street is setback from the property line by about 3 ft. The
purpose of this guideline is to create a consistent street wall. Staff recommends that the applicant
push the building up to the property line and consolidate the 2 decks into 1 deck either facing
north or south rather than propose two small decks that create non-traditional, visible second
floor setbacks.
6.18 Maintain the alignment of facades at the sidewalk’s edge.
• Place as much of the façade of the building at the property line as possible.
• Locating an entire building front behind the established storefront line is inappropriate.
• A minimum of 70% of the front façade shall be at the property line.
Building Form/ Height/Mass/Scale:
The overall mass and scale of the building is appropriate for the downtown, with the
consolidation of the decks as noted above. The maximum height in the Commercial Core Zone
District is 28 ft., which is proposed. A flat roof is proposed (6.22 and 6.23) as noted in the
Design Guidelines. The project is two stories and a floor to floor height of 15 ft. is proposed for
the two modules on the sides. The middle module has a floor to parapet height of 19 ft. Staff
recommends that the plate height of the middle module be reduced and the side modules be
increased to better meet the Guidelines (6.45). Staff also requested some building sections to
better understand the floor to ceiling relationships proposed. Staff understands that there are
challenges associated with a 28 ft. building and the required floor to ceiling heights in the Design
Guidelines. Floor to ceiling dimensions are reviewed as part of Final Review, however it seems
appropriate to bring up these concerns during Conceptual as a it relates to the overall feeling of
mass and scale for the building.
The Guidelines (6.26 - 6.30) recommend height variation when the site is larger than 6,000 sf.
These guidelines were created primarily to address three story downtown buildings before the
Code was changed to limit height to two stories. The applicant proposes height variations at the
middle of the site with decks on the front and rear of the building. As noted, Staff suggests that
P24
IV.A.
6
the decks be consolidated either on the north or south façade to be more consistent with Historic
District development patterns. Staff recommends a restudy to consolidate the decks.
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
of the district. Poor logistics of one building can detract from the quality of surrounding
properties. Efficient delivery and trash areas are important to the function of alleyways.
The success of the project related to these topics is assessed by Environmental Health,
Engineering and Utilities, using the following criteria:
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.
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.
3. All utility, trash and recycle service areas shall be co-located and combined to the greatest
extent practical.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
P25
IV.A.
7
9. 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.
10. 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.
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.
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.
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 response: The proposed trash area is inadequate for the development. The Environmental
Health Department’s comments are attached as an Exhibit. Staff recommends a restudy to meet
size, accessibility and location requirements.
MOUNTAIN VIEW PLANE
No mountain view plane is infringed upon, except as provided below [emphasis added].
When any mountain view plane projects at such an angle so as to reduce the maximum allowable
building height otherwise provided for in this Title, development shall proceed according to the
provisions of Chapter 26.445 as a Planned Development so as to provide for maximum flexibility
in building design with special consideration to bulk and height, open space and pedestrian space
and similarly to permit variations in lot area, lot width, yard and building height requirements
and view plane height limitations.
HPC, after considering a recommendation from the Community Development Department, may
exempt a development from being processed as a Planned Development when the board
determines that the proposed development has a minimal effect on the view plane.
P26
IV.A.
8
When any proposed development infringes upon a designated view plane, but is located in
front of another development which already blocks the same view plane, the Planning and
Zoning Commission shall consider whether or not the proposed development will further
infringe upon the view plane and the likelihood that redevelopment of the adjacent
structure will occur to re-open the view plane. In the event the proposed development does
not further infringe upon the view plane and redevelopment to reopen the view plane
cannot be anticipated, HPC shall exempt the development from the requirements of this
Section.
Staff response: The project site falls within 2 viewplanes – the Wheeler Opera House viewplane
which originates from the original theatre entrance and is directed toward Aspen Mountain, and
the Wagner Park viewplane which originates from one of the goal posts and is directed toward
Independence Pass.
Image 2: Viewplane image highlighting the subject property.
The application includes a viewplane analysis highlighting where the proposed building infringes
on the viewplane. The Wheeler viewplane intersects the front of the building at between 20 and
21 feet. The Wagner Park viewplane intersects the southwest rear of the building at almost 22
feet and steps up to almost 32 feet at the southeast rear of the building. The applicant represents
that the current development is 28.5 ft tall. The proposed development, with the exception of the
elevator shaft, is 28 ft to the top of the parapet and 30 ft to the top of the elevator overrun. The
review criteria above state: “In the event the proposed development does not further infringe
upon the view plane and redevelopment to reopen the view plane cannot be anticipated, HPC
shall exempt the development from the requirements of this Section.” Staff finds that the
proposed building is lower in height than the existing building and that the new elevator shaft
P27
IV.A.
9
and mechanical equipment have a minimal impact on the viewplanes. The size and height of
these features are minimal, and as noted in the application, the proposed building is already
blocked by existing buildings as shown in image 2 above. Staff is supportive of the viewplane
exemption.
______________________________________________________________________________
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 HPC continue the hearing for restudy in order to:
• Commit to off-site public amenity.
• Consolidate the decks to meet the Guidelines.
• Bring the entire ground level storefront up to the property line.
• Redesign the trash area to meet Municipal Code requirements.
• Meet the Utility Department’s requirements regarding transformer location.
EXHIBITS:
A. Relevant Design Guidelines
B. Development Review Committee comments
C. Application
P28
IV.A.
10
Exhibit A, Relevant Design Guidelines
6.1 Maintain the established town grid in all projects.
The network of streets and alleys should be retained as public circulation space and for
maximum public access.
Streets and alleys should not be enclosed or closed to public access, and should remain open to
the sky.
6.3 Develop an alley façade to create visual interest.
Use varied building setbacks and changes in materials to create interest and reduce
perceived scale.
Balconies, court yards and decks are also appropriate.
Providing secondary public entrances is strongly encouraged along alleys. These should
be clearly intended for public use, but subordinate in detail to the primary street-side
entrance.
6.6 A street facing amenity space shall meet all of the following requirements:
Abut the public sidewalk
Be level with the sidewalk
Be open to the sky
Be directly accessible to the public
Be paved or otherwise landscaped
6.7 A street-facing public amenity space shall remain subordinate to the line of building
fronts in the Commercial Core.
Any public amenity space positioned at the street edge shall respect the character of the
streetscape and ensure that street corners are well defined, with buildings placed at the
sidewalk edge.
Sunken spaces, which are associated with some past developments, adversely affect the
street character. Where feasible, these should be replaced with sidewalk level
improvements.
6.8 Street facing amenity space shall contain features to promote and enhance its use.
These may include one or more of the following:
Street furniture
Public art
Historical/interpretive marker
6.12 Second level amenity space should be compatible with the character of the historic
district.
It shall remain visually subordinate to any historic resource on the property.
If located on a historic property, it may not alter the appearance of the resource as seen from
the street.
6.13 A second floor amenity space should meet all of the following criteria:
Ensure consistent public access
P29
IV.A.
11
Be dedicated for public use
Provide a public overlook and /or an interpretive marker
Be identified by a marker at street level
6.14 Second level space should be oriented to maximize solar access and mountain views,
or views of historic landmarks.
6.15 Second level space should provide public access by way of a visible and attractive
public stair or elevator from a public street, alley, or street level amenity space.
6.16 Second level dining may be considered.
If the use changes, the space must remain accessible to the public, so long as it is to be
considered meeting the public amenity space requirement.
6.18 Maintain the alignment of façades at the sidewalk’s edge.
Place as much of the façade of the building at the property line as possible.
Locating an entire building front behind the established storefront line is inappropriate.
A minimum of 70% of the front façade shall be at the property line.
6.20 Orient a new building to be parallel to its lot lines, similar to that of traditional
building orientations.
The front of a primary structure shall be oriented to the street.
6.21 Orient a primary entrance toward the street.
Buildings should have a clearly defined primary entrance. For most commercial
buildings, this should be a recessed entry way.
Do not orient a primary entrance to an interior court.
Providingsecondary public entrances to commercial spaces is also encouraged on larger
buildings.
6.22 Rectangular forms should be dominant on Commercial Core façades.
Rectangular forms should be vertically oriented.
The façade should appear as predominantly flat, with any decorative elements and projecting
or setback “articulations” appearing to be subordinate to the dominant roof form.
6.23 Use flat roof lines as the dominant roof form.
A flat roof, or one that gently slopes to the rear of a site, should be the dominant roof form.
Parapets on side façades should step down towards the rear of the building.
False fronts and parapets with horizontal emphasis also may be considered.
6.24 Along a rear façade, using building forms that step down in scale toward the alley is
encouraged.
Consider using additive forms, such as sheds, stairs and decks to reduce the perceived scale.
These forms should however, remain subordinate to the primary structure.
Use projecting roofs at the ground floor over entrances, decks and for separate utility structures
in order to establish a human scale that invites pedestrian activity.
P30
IV.A.
12
6.25 Maintain the average perceived scale of two-story buildings at the sidewalk.
Establish a two-story height at the sidewalk edge, or provide a horizontal design element
at this level. A change in materials, or a molding at this level are examples.
6.26 Building façade height shall be varied from the façade height of adjacent buildings
of the same number of stories.
If an adjacent structure is three stories and 38 ft. tall, new infill may be three stories, but
must vary in façade height by a minimum of 2 ft.
6.27 A new building or addition should reflect the range and variation in building height of
the Commercial Core.
Refer to the zone district regulations to determine the maximum height limit on the subject
property.
A minimum 9 ft. floor to ceiling height is to be maintained on second stories and higher.
Additional height, as permitted in the zone district, may be added for one or more of the
following reasons:
- In order to achieve at least a two-foot variation in height with an adjacent building.
- The primary function of the building is civic. (i.e. the building is a Museum, Civic Building,
Performance Hall, Fire Station, etc.)
- 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.
- To benefit the livability of Affordable Housing units.
- To make a demonstrable (to be verified by the Building Department) contribution to the
building's overall energy efficiency, for instance by providing improved day- lighting.
6.28 Height variation should be achieved using one or more of the following:
Vary the building height for the full depth of the site in accordance with traditional lot width.
Set back the upper floor to vary the building façade profile(s) and the roof forms across the
width and the depth of the building.
Vary the façade (or parapet) heights at the front.
Step down the rear of the building towards the alley, in conjunction with other design
standards and guidelines.
14.14 Minimize the visual impacts of service areas as seen from the street.
When it is feasible, screen service areas from view, especially those associated with
commercial and multifamily developments.
This includes locations for trash containers and loading docks.
Service areas should be accessed off of the alley, if one exists.
P31
IV.A.
Exhibit B – DRC comments
Building Department:
Denis Murray – Plans Examination Manager
This project will be reviewed under the 2015 edition of the I codes.
1) Lower level
a. You may consider providing an accessible route to this level. That is not from
within a unit. It may provide more flexibility in your lease options in the future.
b. Same for the two exits from this level. The exits should be independent of a
particular unit.
2) Main level
a. The stairs in unit B may not interconnect three levels.
b. All units require an accessible route to the trash/recycling area located on the
property from within the property .
c. No openings are permitted on the east front façade due to the allowed percentage
of openings in proximity to property line.
d. Airlocks or vestibules are required at each unit entry where the unit is 1500 sq. ft.
or greater.
e. All units are required to have access to accessible toilet facilities and a drinking
fountain. A common shared facility may save tap fees.
3) Upper level /roof
a. Permanent access is required to the equipment and appliances placed on the roof.
Environmental Health:
Liz O’Connell – Environmental Health and Sustainability
Space Allotment for Trash and Recycling comments
1. This building is subject to the space requirements of 20’w x15’d x10’h found in
Municipal Code 12.10.030 (A)b, since the applicant proposes to share trash and recycling
space with a commercial building with food service (Application text pg. 1, 2, 5, 7, 13,
14, 19). The text cite the dimensions as 18’8”w x 13’6”d x open to sky (pg. 6), but the
drawings show a space with dimensions of 9’6”w x 10’d x open to sky (pg. A-010). The
minimum required space is 300 sq. ft. and the drawings show the trash and recycling
space (excluding the transformer) as 95 sq. ft. This far below the minimum required.
2. The submitted drawings show the space to be open to the sky. This exceeds the height
clearance required.
3. The area where the transformer is proposed is in direct line with the egress of the trash
and recycling receptacles. This creates a hazard for both people and equipment and is not
acceptable.
4. The application text acknowledges the need for Special Review to grant a reduction and
sharing arrangement (Municipal Code 12.10.080).
5. The application text refers to the historical sharing of the trash and recycling space (pg. 7,
14) but provides no documentation of the sharing agreement. This agreement needs to
meet the requirements of code Municipal Code 12.10.070. Regardless of the historical
arrangement, the new development needs to meet the current trash and recycling space
requirements.
P32
IV.A.
Sanitation District:
Service I s 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 establishment.
Locations of food processing shall be identified prior to building permit. Even though the
commercial space is tenet finish, interceptors will be required at this time if food processing
establishments are anticipated for this project. ACSD will not approve service to food
processing establishments retrofitted for this use by small under counter TRAPS at a later
date.
Oil and Sand separators are required for parking garages and vehicle maintenance
establishments.
Driveway entrance drains must drain to drywells.
Elevator shaft 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.
Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system.
A new sanitary sewer service will be required to serve this application. One tap is allowed for
each building.
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.
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.
Soil Nails are not allowed in the public ROW above ASCD main sewer lines and within 3 feet
vertically below an ACSD main sewer line.
P33
IV.A.
Water/Utilities
The existing Transformer location may not have sufficient capacity, as such it appears a new
transformer is considered, on Sheet A-010. This location appears problematic as the trash doors
open behind the transformer and may not allow for trash/recycling access. The Transformer as
proposed needs to be meet all clearance requirements including open to the alley and free to Sky.
The application seems to preliminary to address Water service concerns. The exiting condition of
the water service is unknown and will be addressed based upon alignment, ECU, and fire flow
requirements at building permit Submittal. Please plan on a meeting to discuss transformer
setbacks and trash area requirements.
I am not sure what there electric load requirement is going to be for this building but right now
that building and the old Guido’s building are both being served with 2 runs off 500 copper. The
max load we have had on that service is 250 amps per leg. If the 2 runs off copper is enough to
feed them and the old Guido’s building then they have no problem for electric but if they need
more amperage then they will have to look at finding a space for another 3 phase transformer as
the existing transformer has no more capacity left.
P34
IV.A.
447 East Cooper Redevelopment Application 1
Section I: Introduction
This application seeks Conceptual Major Development approval, as well as approvals for
Conceptual Commercial Design Review and Mountain View Plane Review for the property
located at 447 East Cooper Avenue. The property is adjacent and physically connected to
the building that currently houses Casa Tua (formerly known as Guido’s Swiss Inn). The
proposal is to remove the existing building located at 447 East Cooper Avenue (the Salmon
building) and redevelop it. The Casa Tua building will remain as it is today although the
common core (link) between the two buildings will be modified somewhat. In addition,
the existing, shared Utility/Trash/Recycling area along the alley will also have to be
altered but the revised facility will still be shared. Together, these two properties contain
15,000 square feet, and neither of the buildings or properties is on the City of Aspen
Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures (the Inventory), but both are located
within the Commercial Core Historic Overlay District. The Casa Tua property is a 6,000
square foot lot and is legally described as Lots H & I, Block 90, City and Townsite of Aspen.
The Salmon building property at 447 East Cooper Avenue is a 9,026 square feet lot, and it is
legally described as Lots E, F, and G, Block 90, City and Townsite of Aspen.
This application is submitted pursuant to the following sections of the Aspen Land Use
Code (the Code) by 403 South Galena LLC, an entity currently under contract to purchase
the properties: 26.304, Common Development Review Procedures, including
26.304.060(B)(1), Combined Reviews; 26.412, Commercial Design Review; 26.415.070,
Historic Preservation; 26.415.080, Demolition of Properties within a Historic District;
26.435.050, Mountain Viewplane Review; 26.515, Parking; 26.575.030, Public Amenity;
26.610, Impact Fees; 26.630, Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines; and 26.710.140,
Commercial Core (CC) Zone District. Municipal Code Section 12.10, Space Allotment for
Trash and Recycling Storage, is also addressed.
The application is divided into four sections, with this Section providing a brief
introduction while Section II describes the existing conditions of the project site and
environs. Section III outlines the applicant’s proposed development and Section IV
addresses the proposed development’s compliance with the applicable review criteria of
the Code. For the reviewer’s convenience, all pertinent supporting documents relating to
the project are provided in the various exhibits to the application, as follows:
• Exhibit 1: Land Use Application, Dimensional Requirements Form, and Homeowners
Association Compliance Form;
• Exhibit 2: Pre-Application Conference Summary prepared by Sara Adams;
• Exhibit 3: Proof of Ownership and Authority;
• Exhibit 4: Current property owner’s authorization for the applicant;
• Exhibit 5: Applicant’s authorization for representatives;
• Exhibit 6: Vicinity Map;
• Exhibit 7: Prior Approvals and HPC Minutes
• Exhibit 8: Transportation Impact Analysis;
P35
IV.A.
447 East Cooper Redevelopment Application 2
• Exhibit 9: Mountain Viewplane Exhibits;
• Exhibit 10: An executed application fee agreement; and
• Exhibit 11: Mailing addresses of record for all property owners located within 300 feet
of the subject property.
In addition, existing conditions are depicted on the survey and various plans that
accompany this application. Similarly, all proposed development is depicted on the
accompanying architectural plans prepared by Charles Cunniffe Architects (CCA).
While the applicant has attempted to address all relevant provisions of the Code, and to
provide sufficient information to enable a thorough evaluation of the application, questions
may arise which require further information and/or clarification. Upon request, Haas
Land Planning, LLC and CCA will gladly provide such additional information as may be
required in the course of the review.
Section II: Existing Conditions
The 9,026 square foot (90.26’ x 100’) 447 East Cooper Avenue property is located on the
Cooper Avenue Mall and is connected to the west side of the building that currently houses
Casa Tua. The Casa Tua building is on the corner of Cooper and Galena. The backside of
the two properties abuts the alley adjoining the Rubey Park Bus Station.
The existing development on the 447 Property is a mixed-use building that was built
around 1950 and currently houses a mix of commercial and residential uses. There are
three (3) so-called dormitory rental units on the garden level adjoining the alley; these three
units are subject to a 1990 deed-restriction (recorded at Reception Number 323266) limiting
them to “qualified low-income residents.” The actual layout and sizes of the units are
completely inconsistent with the deed restriction. The units also fail to satisfy the
“dormitory requirements” stipulated in the Housing Guidelines. For example, there are
absolutely no shared or individual kitchen facilities in the units or anywhere on the
property, nor is there any living space; there is not 150 or greater square feet of net livable
area per person; none of the bathrooms satisfy the required minimum of 60 net livable
square feet; and there is not any enclosed storage area, much less 20 square feet per person,
within or adjacent to the units. The deed restriction itself describes 24-square foot storage
spaces (located in the basement) per dorm room, but such spaces do not exist. Without
kitchens, a shared kitchen facility, or access to a common kitchen or common eating facility,
none of these units even qualifies as a residential dwelling unit under the Land Use Code
or Building Codes.
The existing “dorm” units are laid out in such an odd way that it is difficult to explain their
sizes or even just how many actual “units” exist. Moving from east to west, there is a 121
square foot room that adjoins another 110 square foot room by way of a shared 53 square
foot bathroom; the signs on the doors show these as two separate units, but in an attempt
to loosely correlate with the deed restriction, are considered a single 284 square foot
P36
IV.A.
447 East Cooper Redevelopment Application 3
dormitory room for purposes of this application. Next over to the west is a 151 square foot
dormitory unit with its own bathroom. Finally, on the other side of the stairs up to the
ground level at the alley, there is a 91 square foot room that adjoins another 87 square foot
room by way of a shared 53 square foot bathroom; like the first “unit” described in this
paragraph, the signs on the doors show these as two separate units, but in an attempt to
loosely correlate with the deed restriction, are considered a single 231 square foot
dormitory room for purposes of this application. Again, there are no kitchen facilities
whatsoever for these “units”, nor is there any storage, and not one of them qualifies as a
dwelling unit. (All numbers provided in this paragraph are “net livable areas.”)
The remainder of the main level is dedicated to three retail commercial spaces as well as
common areas (hallways, restrooms and circulation). The main level includes 4,360 square
feet of commercial net leasable area split between three tenants. The basement level
includes 3,794 additional net leasable square feet of commercial spaces (including five
spaces rented to the same three tenants from the main level, and four separate commercial
storage rooms) as well as common areas (hallways, circulation, restrooms, and mechanical
spaces). The upper/second level of the building houses four free-market residences as well
as common circulation areas. These four free-market residences include a 1,422 square foot
two-bedroom unit, a 294 square foot studio unit, a 1,182 square foot two-bedroom unit, and
a 2,072 square foot four-bedroom unit. There are no known City records (building permits
or land use approvals) for the studio unit on the second floor; this 294 square foot studio is
believed to be a “bandit” unit that does not figure into replacement housing mitigation
requirements.
The existing building at 447 East Cooper is connected to the Casa Tua building via a core
elevator and stairway link that straddles the common lot line. There are nine (9) on-site
parking spaces on the 447 Property, many (if not most) of which appear to be rented to
people who are not tenants of the existing structure. The property includes no qualifying
public amenity space (on this 9,026 square foot lot), although it fronts on the Cooper
Avenue pedestrian mall. There is public amenity space on the adjoining Casa Tua property
but no parking.
The Casa Tua building was formerly known as Guido’s Swiss Inn, and is currently a
commercial building with one commercial business on a 6,000 square foot lot. In 1990,
Guido Meyer (the owner of both properties via two separate LLCs) applied for a GMQS
Exemption for a Change in Use, and Special Review to Reduce the Trash Service Area. At
the time these approvals were granted, both buildings seemed to be considered one
property for the purposes of that land use application/review. The proposal involved a
major renovation of both structures, and included linking the structures with a two-story
vestibule, a stairway and elevator. The ground and upper floors of Guido’s Swiss Inn
changed from residential to commercial use.
Continuing with the 1990 approvals, there were apparently five lodge rooms in the 447
East Cooper basement that were removed and redeveloped as a commercial storage area.
P37
IV.A.
447 East Cooper Redevelopment Application 4
As part of the approval, the owner was required to provide three, deed-restricted dorm
rooms on the ground level of the 447 building (the existing, so-called dorm rooms are
below ground level). The proposed changes to the restaurant were contingent upon the
approval of the elevator and stairway connection. During the approval process, it was
determined that the amount of open space on the entire parcel (both properties) was
actually increasing by 100 square feet, so no cash-in-lieu was required for open space
(referred to as “Public Amenity” in today’s Code). At that time, the City Engineering
Department agreed that the proposed roof extension (to 28’-6”) would have no impact on
the Wagner Park View Plane, but felt that it might impact the Wheeler Opera House View
Plane. The renovations were approved with an exemption for the Viewplanes. Finally, the
total FAR and Net Leasable calculations were combined for the two buildings.
Subsequent to the 1990 approval, all land use applications for each property have been
submitted separately. For example, in 2000, the owner applied for a minor development
approval to replace doors and windows of the 447 building (see Resolution No. 51, Series
of 2000, attached as part of Exhibit 7). Later, Resolution No. 40, Series of 2002 (also
attached as part of Exhibit 7) was approved by the HPC, allowing for some minor
renovations to be made to the Casa Tua building at 403 S. Galena Street. The HPC minutes
from the review of that proposal clearly state that the original building had long since been
significantly altered and that it no longer maintains any historical significance.
Code Section 26.515.030 provides that the existing commercial use on the subject 447 East
Cooper Avenue property generates an off-street parking requirement of one (1) space for
every 1,000 square feet of net leasable area and that no parking is required for the
residential uses. With 8,153 square feet of existing net leasable area on the property, the
current parking requirement is 8.2 off-street spaces. The existing parking area was also
approved to satisfy the off-street parking requirements associated with the approximately
4,500 square feet of net leasable area on the adjacent Casa Tua property, which under
current Codes, requires an additional 4.5 off-street parking spaces. The nine (9) existing
off-street parking spaces, therefore, represent a deficit of 3.7 spaces ([8.2 + 4.5] – 9). As
mentioned above, while nine (9) off-street spaces currently exist on the property, many (if
not most) of these nine spaces appear to be rented to people who are not tenants of the
existing structure.
The existing Casa Tua building has a ridge height of 28 feet above grade while the two-
story, flat-roofed Salmon building at 447 East Cooper is not as tall. The adjacent structure
to the west (where Gorsuch is located) is taller than is the Salmon building. The subject
property is not at all visible from the Wheeler Opera House Viewplane vantage points due
to all of the existing buildings in between. Similarly, due to the construction of the Wagner
Park public restrooms, the subject property and the existing Casa Tua structure are not at
all visible from the Wagner Park Viewplane vantage point either.
P38
IV.A.
447 East Cooper Redevelopment Application 5
Section III: Project Description/The Proposal
The applicant is requesting that the HPC grant Conceptual approval of a Major
Development as well as Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval and Mountain
View Plane Exemptions/approvals. All applications for Conceptual approval of a Major
Development project must receive a determination of consistency with the City of Aspen
Historic Preservation Design Guidelines (hereinafter “the Guidelines”). Since the subject
property is located in the Commercial Core Historical District, conceptual approval of the
proposed design requires a finding of consistency with Chapter 13 of Guidelines in terms
of height, scale, mass, bulk, and site plan. Additionally, the applicant must show
consistency with the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and
Guidelines (the “Commercial Guidelines”).
The current proposal envisions the demolition of the existing building at 447 East Cooper
Avenue and redeveloping the property with a two-story commercial building. The Casa
Tua building will remain unchanged, except for minor interior revisions to the circulation
core that connects to the 447 building. The shared trash service area will be modified as
well. The proposal is fully depicted on the accompanying plans set prepared by Camburas
& Theodore (C+T).
No residential units are included in this redevelopment, and the proposal fully complies
with the Commercial Core zoning (residential use is not permitted in the CC Zone District).
When growth management reviews are applied for and conducted, concurrent the Final
Major Development and Final Design Review application, mitigation for the additional
commercial net leasable area and for replacement housing will be addressed; the applicant
envisions meeting all such requirements through the provision of affordable housing credit
certificates.
The proposed development will contain approximately 22,000 square feet of net leasable
commercial area, of which some 7,692 square feet are on the ground floor, roughly 5,855
square feet are on the second level, and approximately 8,450 square feet are in the
basement level. This results in off-street parking requirement of 18.3 spaces (22 minus the
existing 3.7 space deficit), which will be completely satisfied through the payment of cash-
in-lieu as allowed by right pursuant to Code Section 26.515.030. The payment-in-lieu of
parking will be due and payable at the time of building permit issuance for the
redevelopment. At the currently codified rate of $30,000, which may be amended, the
payment due would be $549,000 ($30,000 x 18.3). Payment of the in-lieu fee does not
require any review or approval, nor does it represent any kind of variance or variation
whatsoever from the requirements of the Code.
While the Commercial Core Zone District height limit for the building is twenty-eight (28)
feet, the property is located within the Wheeler Opera House Viewplane and the Wagner
Park Viewplane. If the Viewplane limits were to be strictly imposed on this property, the
Wheeler Viewplane would limit building height to between 20 feet and 21 feet, while the
P39
IV.A.
447 East Cooper Redevelopment Application 6
Wagner Viewplane would limit height only at the rear of the property to just under 22 feet
for the most part (with a small area that would be allowed up to 31.9 feet, which would
default back down to the CC Zone District limit of 28 feet). The existing Casa Tua structure
has a ridge height of 28 feet, thus exceeding these limits. The proposed building has a
measured height of 28 feet (a centered elevator enclosure will extend another 2 feet in
height as allowed pursuant to codified City height measurement exemptions). Moreover,
due to intervening structures, any building with a height of 28 feet (or even 30 feet) on the
subject property will not be at all visible from either of the Wheeler Opera House or
Wagner Park Viewplane vantage points. Likewise, the elevator overrun will not be visible
from either vantage point. As such, the subject property is irrelevant with regard to
Viewplane impacts. In other words, the Viewplane impacts associated with the proposed
redevelopment will be marginal to minimal, to the extent that any impacts at all will result.
The Dimensional Requirements of the underlying CC Zone District in comparison with the
proposed redevelopment is detailed below to demonstrate the project’s conformity with all
applicable requirements.
Dimensional Requirements Comparison Table,
CC Zoning and Proposed Redevelopment
DIMENSIONAL
REQUIREMENT
COMMERCIAL CORE
ZONE DISTRICT
PROPOSED
REDEVELOPMENT
Minimum Gross Lot Area No requirement 9,026 square feet
Minimum Net Lot Area
per Dwelling Unit
No requirement
N/A
Minimum Lot Width No Requirement 90 feet
Minimum Front Yard
Setback
No requirement No requirement (None)
Minimum Side Yard
Setback
No requirement
No requirement (None)
Minimum Rear Yard
Setback
No requirement
No requirement (None)
Minimum Trash/Recycle
Storage Area1
20’W x 15’D x 10’H 1
10’W x 9’6”D x ∞’H 1
Maximum Height2 For properties on the south
side of a street, twenty-eight
(28) feet for two-story
elements2
28 feet 2
Minimum floor to floor
heights
Minimum first floor to Second
floor floor-to-floor: thirteen
(13) feet. Minimum upper
floor-ceiling height:
Nine (9) feet
15’ first floor to second floor
10’ upper floor to ceiling
P40
IV.A.
447 East Cooper Redevelopment Application 7
Minimum Distance
between Buildings on the
Lot
No requirement
N/A
Public Amenity Space3 10% (900 square feet) 3 25.7% (2,327sf) per Code
Sections 26.575.030.C.4. 3
Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
2:1 (18,052sf)
for Commercial Uses
1.6:1 (14,824sf)
DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS NOTES:
1 : Pursuant to Code Section 12.10.030(A)b., for Commercial Buildings that will contain or
that will have the capacity to contain an establishment with a Retail Food Service
License and the reserved trash and recycling storage space must be adjacent to the
alleyway. Consistent with practice on the subject property for the past 25 years, the
reconfigured trash and recycling storage space will be shared with the adjacent Casa
Tua property. The shared space is allowed pursuant to Code Section 12.10.070 and,
accordingly, the applicant will provide, as an attachment to the building permit
application, a recorded agreement burdening both properties. The agreement will
show that both parties will have adequate storage space for trash and recycling and
these designated storage areas will comply with the standards set forth in Chapter 12.10
of the Code, as already demonstrated on the provided Sheet A1.2 Site Plan.
2 : Pursuant to Code Section 26.575.020.F.4., specific exceptions to height limitations are
allowed, as may be applicable.
3 : Pursuant to Code Section 26.575.030.B., 25% of the area of the 9,026 square foot parcel
shall be provided as public amenity; however, for redevelopment of parcels on which
less than 25% currently exists (the current public amenity space on the parcel is 0%), the
existing (prior to redevelopment) percentage shall be the effective requirement
provided not less then 10% is the end requirement. As such, the effective requirement
is 10%, or 903 square feet of public amenity. The applicant is proposing to include two,
second-floor decks of approximately 880 and 924 square feet, respectively (front and
rear) as well as approximately 525 square feet of building setback along the alley side,
all of which combines to provide some 2,327 square feet of public amenity space. The
property fronts directly on the south side of the Cooper Avenue pedestrian mall.
Provision of actual public amenity space on the ground floor of the subject site is
neither practical nor desirable.
The proposed redevelopment of the 447 East Cooper Avenue property is consistent and
compatible with surrounding development patterns in terms of uses, densities, building
heights and intensities. The design is also consistent with applicable HPC and commercial
core design guidelines. Predominantly commercial and lodging uses and the Rubey Park
bus station surround the property, which is located on the Cooper Avenue pedestrian mall.
Public amenity space does not exist on the 447 property and provision of such would not
only be shaded by the structure but it would also abut the ample, perpetual public amenity
space that is the Cooper Avenue mall. The existing nonconforming residential uses will be
P41
IV.A.
447 East Cooper Redevelopment Application 8
removed and the redevelopment will conform in both use and dimensions to the
requirements of the Commercial Core Zone District.
Section IV: Review Requirements
This application is submitted pursuant to the following sections of the Code: 26.304,
Common Development Review Procedures, including 26.304.060(B)(1), Combined
Reviews; 26.412, Commercial Design Review; 26.415.070, Historic Preservation; 26.415.080,
Demolition of Properties within a Historic District; 26.435.050, Mountain View Plane
Review; 26.515, Parking; 26.575.030, Public Amenity; 26.610, Impact Fees; 26.630,
Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines; and 26.710.140, Commercial Core (CC) Zone
District. The applicable review standards are addressed below.
A. Common Development Review Procedures and Combined Reviews
Section 26.304.060.B(1) of the Code discusses combined reviews and states that,
The procedures for reviewing development plans and applications where more
than one (1) development approval is being sought simultaneously may be
combined or modified whenever the Community Development Director
determines, in consultation with the applicant, that such combination or
modification would eliminate or reduce duplication and ensure economy of time,
expense and clarity; provided, however, that all public noticing normally
associated with the subject development application(s) is maintained and that a
thorough and full review of the application and proposed development as
otherwise required by this Title is achieved.”
It is proposed that the associated Conceptual Commercial Design Review, Viewplane
reviews, and alternative methods of satisfying public amenity space requirements be
combined and made part of the Conceptual Major Development Review and approval by
the HPC. Accordingly, rather than have a Historic Preservation Commission (HPC)
Resolution granting portions of the applicable approvals and a P&Z Resolution addressing
the remaining parts, it is suggested that, pursuant to Code Section 26.304.060(B)(1),
Combined Reviews, all final decisions be documented in a single ordinance adopted by the
HPC. Combining the reviews in this manner will eliminate or at least reduce duplication
and ensure economy of time, expense and clarity. All public noticing normally associated
with an application such as this will be maintained via publication, sign posting and
mailing. If public outreach and/or enhanced public notice are deemed necessary, the
applicant will cooperate. Moreover, a thorough and full review of the application and
proposed development will still be achieved.
P42
IV.A.
447 East Cooper Redevelopment Application 9
B. Conceptual Approval of a Major Development
Code Section 26.415.070 addresses development involving property within a historic
district, such as the subject site that currently houses a non-historic building. Said Code
section provides that,
No building, structure or landscape shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired,
relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or a property located within a
Historic District until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the
Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures
established for their review. An application for a building permit cannot be submitted
without a development order.
The proposed redevelopment of 447 East Cooper Avenue is considered a major
development because it involves the construction of a new structure in a historic district.
The procedures for the review of major development projects include a two-step process
requiring approval by the HPC of, first, a conceptual development plan and then a final
development plan. As mentioned above, it is requested that the HPC Conceptual Review
be combined with the Commercial Design Review, Mountain View Plane Review and, as
addressed throughout, all other approvals required for this application.
All applications for Conceptual and Final approval of a Major Development project must
receive a determination of consistency with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design
Guidelines (the “HP Guidelines”) to be approved by the HPC. Chapter 1 of the Guidelines
is not applicable as it concerns streetscapes and lot features on residential buildings.
Chapters 2 through 10 are likewise inapplicable as they address the rehabilitation of
historic structures. Chapter 11 provides guidelines for new buildings and additions on
residential Landmark Properties. Chapter 12 is concerned with design in the Main Street
Historic District.
Since the proposed development is located on a non-historic lot in the Commercial Core, its
design must comply with Chapter 13 of the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Guidelines.
The Chapter 13 guidelines have been replaced by the Commercial, Lodging and Historic
District Design Objectives and Guidelines for the Commercial Core Historic District, which
are discussed below in the Commercial Design Review section of this application. The
project has been designed to be generally consistent with the guidelines of Chapter 14 but,
as is standard, specific consistency with these requirements will be demonstrated as part of
the HPC Final Review.
C. Demolition of Properties within a Historic District
Code Section 26.415.080 states that no properties located within a Historic District can be
demolished without HPC approval. Subsection A(4) provides the criteria that HPC must
use in determining whether or not to approve the demolition and states the following:
P43
IV.A.
447 East Cooper Redevelopment Application 10
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.
The existing building was originally built around 1950. It cannot practically be moved to
another appropriate location in Aspen, and it has no historic, architectural, archaeological,
engineering or cultural significance, thus meeting the first criteria (c) and (d), above.
Furthermore, the structure does not contribute to the historic significance of the
Commercial Core, and its loss would not adversely affect the integrity of the District. From
the approvals process for HPC Resolution No. 40, Series of 2002 (attached as part of Exhibit
7), the HPC minutes clearly state, with regard to the adjacent property, that the original
Casa Tua (Guido’s) building had long since been significantly altered and that it no longer
maintains any historical significance. The adjacent building to the west is not considered to
be historically significant. Finally, demolition of the 447 East Cooper building will be
inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the area. Therefore, the second set of
criteria (a) through (c) is met.
D. Conceptual Commercial Design Review
Section 26.412.050 of the Code provides the review criteria for Commercial Design Review
and states, in relevant part, that the proposed development must comply with the
requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial Design Standards, as well as the
Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines. The
proposed development is located in the Commercial Core Historic District. The design
standards of Section 26.412.060, as well as the Commercial Core Historic District Design
Review Guidelines are all enumerated below in italicized print, and each is followed by a
description of the proposal’s compliance and/or consistency therewith, as applicable.
P44
IV.A.
447 East Cooper Redevelopment Application 11
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.
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.
3. The public amenity and the design and operating characteristics of adjacent structures,
rights-of-way and uses contribute to an inviting pedestrian environment.
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.
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.
According to Code Section 26.575.030(A), public amenity can take the form of physical or
operational improvements to public rights-of–way or private property. Subsection B states
that the public amenity requirement is 25%. However, for redevelopment of parcels where
less than 25% currently exists, the existing percentage is the effective requirement provided
that in no case shall the requirement be less than 10%. In its existing condition, there is 0%,
public amenity space on the 447 East Cooper parcel. As such, the effective public amenity
space requirement upon redevelopment is 10%, or 903 square feet on the subject 9,026
square foot lot.
Code Section 26.575.030.C provides the four methods that may be used to satisfy the
provision of public amenity, including the following: on-site provision of public amenity;
off-site provision of public amenity; cash-in-lieu provision; and alternative method. The
provision of on-site public amenity meeting the codified design and operation standards is
unbefitting of the property location on the south side of the Cooper Avenue pedestrian
mall; on-site space would be inefficient and redundant. The subject property is located on
the Cooper Avenue pedestrian mall where the majority of surrounding development on
non-corner lots is built out to its lot lines or close to them and maintains a strong
street/mall presence. Furthermore, the 9,026 square foot parcel is on the south side of the
P45
IV.A.
447 East Cooper Redevelopment Application 12
street, meaning on-site public amenity space consistent with the design standards would be
sited to the north of the structure and be shaded. As such, the applicant believes that the
approximately 1,805 square foot of second-level decks qualify, as does the roughly 525
square feet of ground-level open area at the building rear, and these combined areas
should be approved as public amenity space consistent with many previous City of Aspen
approvals as well as Code Sections 26.575.030.C.4, F.5 and F.10. These combined areas
equate to a public amenity space of 25.7% (2,327sf divided by 9,026sf of lot area), or more
than twice the requirement.
Consistent with the codified design and operational standards for public amenity, the
proposed decks will be: 1) open to view from the street at pedestrian level; 2) open to the
sky; 3) unenclosed other than by the visually permeable handrails required by Building
Code; 4) free of storage areas, utility/trash service areas, or delivery areas (as an aside, all
such areas must also be accommodated on ground level and leave little remaining room for
redundant street-level public amenity space); 5) within stipulated grade limitations given
that the Commission is specifically authorized to approve second level public amenity
space; 6) easily maintained; 7) will be used for commercial use with adequate pedestrian
and emergency vehicle access; and 8) meets the parameters of the Commercial, Lodging
and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines. As such, the proposed decks
satisfy all applicable Section 26.575.030.F design and operational standards for public
amenity. For this reason, similar deck areas, such as but not limited to the space on the
redeveloped “Gap Building” site, the space on the approved but not yet built Sky Hotel,
the upper floor courtyard at 409 East Hopkins, and the rooftop of the Base 1 Lodge, to
name just a few, have all been accepted and approved by the City in satisfaction of the
public amenity requirements.
Additional discussion of the proposed amenity space is provided on pages 18-19, below, in
response to the standards specific to second level public amenity from the Commercial
Design Standards and Objectives for the Commercial Core. Please also refer to and
consider these on-point guidelines and responsive narratives.
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 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.
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.
P46
IV.A.
447 East Cooper Redevelopment Application 13
3. All utility, trash and recycle service areas shall be co-located and combined to the greatest
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
P47
IV.A.
447 East Cooper Redevelopment Application 14
Pursuant to Code Section 12.10.030(A)b., a 20’W x 15’D x 10’H area for trash and recycling
storage must be provided for Commercial Buildings that will contain or that will have the
capacity to contain an establishment with a Retail Food Service License. Also, the reserved
trash and recycling storage space must be adjacent to the alleyway. The proposed building
is not being designed to accommodate a retail food service establishment but the adjacent
Casa Tua property includes such a business and a new shared trash and recycling storage
space will be formalized for location at the rear of that property (which will also be owned
by the applicant). This shared trash and recycling storage arrangement is consistent with
practice on the subject properties for the past 25 years. Shared trash and recycling space is
allowed pursuant to Code Section 12.10.070 and, accordingly, the applicant will provide, as
an attachment to the building permit application, a recorded agreement burdening both
properties. The agreement will show that both parties will have adequate storage space for
trash and recycling and these designated storage areas will comply with the standards set
forth in Chapter 12.10 of the Code, as already demonstrated on the provided Sheet A1.2
Site Plan.
The proposed shared trash/recycling storage area for the operations it will service is
adequate at approximately 18’-6” wide (including the roll-out width) by 13’-6” deep
(including the roll-out depth) and no limit on vertical clearance (i.e., open to the sky). The
actual enclosed, but open to the sky, area is 13’-6” wide by 8’-6” deep, and will
accommodate a 10-yard dumpster as well as two 50-gallon recycling containers. While
dimensions of the trash and recycling storage area are subject to variation through special
review under Code Section 12.10.080, it is not clear that such special review approval is
required in cases where the trash and recycling area will be shared on an adjacent property.
If it is determined that such special review approval from the Environmental Health
Department is required, then such approval is hereby requested.
Utility connections and meters can be accommodated on the easterly side of the proposed
structure (between the common elevator/stair core and the alley) as well as within the
mechanical spaces included within the structure. If located along the east side of the
structure, appropriate easements from the adjoining property will be provided to
guarantee accessibility. In addition, a 10’ by 10’ electric transformer pad area is provided
(see Site Plan Sheet A1.2). The proposed utility, trash and recycling areas are sited at
grade, along and accessed by vehicle via the adjoining public alleyway at the rear of the
properties. These will not be visible from Cooper Avenue.
Receiving doors allowing deliveries to each tenant space are provided along the alley side
and said doors also provide compliant access to the trash/recycling area given their
varying 4’ to 6’-6” setbacks from the vehicular right-of-way. The proposed commercial
spaces have inset doors that can easily accommodate an airlock or air curtain during winter
months so as to enable compliance with the International Energy Conservation Code, as
adopted and amended by the City of Aspen.
P48
IV.A.
447 East Cooper Redevelopment Application 15
The Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines (the
“Commercial Guidelines”) set forth design review criteria, standards and guidelines that
are to be used in making determinations of appropriateness. The Commercial Guidelines
are organized to address the different design contexts that exist in the City. These distinct
settings, or contexts, are defined as "Character Areas," within which variations exist among
the physical features that define each area. The proposed development is located in the
“Commercial Core” character area. These Guidelines replaced Chapter 13 of the Historic
Preservation Design Guidelines.
Per the Commercial Guidelines, all development projects should achieve the following
design objectives:
• Promote an interconnected circulation system that invites pedestrian use,
including a continuous street and alley system and a respect for the natural
topography;
• Promote a system of public places that support activities, including public
amenity spaces, compatible landscaping and paving, and unobtrusive off-street
parking; and
• Assure that buildings fit together to create a vibrant street edge that reinforces a
sense of appropriate scale.
The proposed development will achieve the above-cited design objectives in a manner that
exceeds the existing, nondescript stucco building’s consistency with said objectives. The
proposed design will create a more vibrant and visually interesting street edge, reinforcing
a sense of appropriate, retail scale that has long been largely absent on this property.
The existing character of the Commercial Core is explained as follows:
The heart of Aspen centers around the Commercial Core Historic District.
It is the first area that developed in the early mining days of the town and
its character reflects this rich mining heritage, which is the image that
many carry with them of this historic Colorado mountain town. Each
historic building contributes to the integrity of the district and
preservation of all of these resources is, therefore, crucial. This is
especially important as new development continues.
The purpose of the Commercial Core (CC) zone district is stated in Section 26.710.140(A) of
the Code as follows: “to allow the use of land for retail, service commercial, recreation, and
institutional purposes within mixed-use buildings to support and enhance the business and service
character in the historical central business core of the City...The district permits a mix of…uses
oriented to both local and tourist populations to encourage a high level of vitality. Retail and
restaurant uses are appropriate for ground floors of buildings…” (This Purpose statement is
clearly outdated, as the District no longer allows free-market residential uses, largely
precluding mixed-use buildings.) The proposed development will retain the existing
commercial use but within an updated and well laid-out building while enhancing and
improving this central property in the Commercial Core.
P49
IV.A.
447 East Cooper Redevelopment Application 16
The key design objectives in the Commercial Core are as follows:
1. Maintain a retail orientation.
2. Promote creative, contemporary design that respects the historic context.
3. Maintain the traditional scale of building.
4. Reflect the variety in building heights seen traditionally.
5. Accommodate outdoor public spaces where they respect the historic context.
6. Promote variety in the street level experience.
7. Preserve the integrity of historic resources within the district.
The proposed redevelopment of 447 East Cooper Avenue meets all of the key design
objectives listed above as follows:
• The design enhances the retail-oriented function of the street and reinforces the
pedestrian character;
• The design is creative and contemporary, but respects the historic Commercial Core;
• The design acknowledges, is consistent with, complements and enhances the
existing scale and character of the area;
• The building is only 28 feet in height while the adjacent Casa Tua structure has a
ridge height that also measures 28 feet. All historic buildings in the area and the
intent of the Wheeler Opera House and Wagner Park viewplanes have been taken
into consideration;
• The design of the building, with its large, storefront windows, serves to promote
variety in the street level experience; and,
• The integrity of all historic resources within the district is preserved by the proposed
compatible and complimentary design.
Outlined below is each of the Commercial Core’s Conceptual Review Design Guidelines in
italicized print, followed by a description of the proposal’s compliance and/or consistency
therewith, as applicable.
Street Grid
6.1 Maintain the established town grid in all projects.
• The network of streets and alleys should be retained as public circulation space and for
maximum public access.
• Streets and alleys should not be enclosed or closed to public access, and should remain open to
the sky.
The proposed development maintains the established town grid while improving upon the
existing building. The property is on the pedestrian mall and backs up to the alley facing
the Rubey Park bus station. There is surface parking between the rear of the existing
building and the alley, and this area is plainly visible from around the surrounding area
due to the bus station layout. The existing parking spaces at the back of the building will
be removed and the new building will be oriented to the lot line. No streets or alleys will
be enclosed or otherwise closed to public access and all will remain open to the sky.
P50
IV.A.
447 East Cooper Redevelopment Application 17
Internal Walkways
6.2 Public walkways and through courts, when appropriate, should be designed to create access
to additional commercial space and frontage, within the walkway and/or to the rear of the
site.
• See also: Public Amenity Space design guidelines.
No internal public walkways or through courts are proposed.
Alleys
6.3 Develop an alley façade to create visual interest.
• Use varied building setbacks and changes in materials to create interest and reduce perceived
scale.
• Balconies, courtyards and decks are also appropriate.
• Providing secondary public entrances is strongly encouraged along alleys. These should be
clearly intended for public use, but subordinate in detail to the primary street-side entrance.
The redeveloped building will greatly improve the alley façade as it is proposed to have a
second “front” on the alley side of the building, which faces the Rubey Park Bus Station.
Parking
6.4 Structured parking should be placed within a 'wrap' of commercial and/or residential uses.
• The exposure of auto entry areas should be minimized.
6.5 Structured parking access should not have a negative impact on the character of the street.
The access shall be:
• Located on an alley or secondary street if necessary.
• Designed with the same attention to detail and materials as the primary building façade.
• Integrated into the building design.
There is no structured or other type of parking proposed.
Public Amenity Space
6.6 A street facing amenity space shall meet all of the following requirements:
• Abut the public sidewalk
• Be level with the sidewalk
• Be open to the sky
• Be directly accessible to the public
• Be paved or otherwise landscaped
6.7 A street-facing public amenity space shall remain subordinate to the line of building fronts
in the Commercial Core.
• Any public amenity space positioned at the street edge shall respect the character of the
streetscape and ensure that street corners are well defined, with buildings placed at the sidewalk
edge.
• Sunken spaces, which are associated with some past developments, adversely affect the street
character. Where feasible, these should be replaced with sidewalk level improvements.
P51
IV.A.
447 East Cooper Redevelopment Application 18
6.8 Street facing amenity space shall contain features to promote and enhance its use. These
may include one or more of the following:
• Street furniture
• Public art
• Historical/interpretive marker
The detailed design of Public Amenity Space, with regard to guidelines 6.8, will be a matter for
approval at the Final Review Stage, although it may be discussed at the Conceptual Stage.
Please refer to the Public Amenity Space discussion on pages 10-12, above. Additional
narrative with regard to Public Amenity is provided below, in reference to Guidelines 6.12
through 6.15.
Guidelines 6.9 through 6.11 address mid-block walkway and alley-side public amenity
spaces and are not applicable to the proposed development. Guidelines 6.16 and 6.17
address front yard amenity spaces and are, likewise, not applicable.
Guidelines 6.12 through 6.15 are applicable to the current proposal as said Guidelines
address second level amenity spaces. Per the Commercial Design Standards,
An outdoor patio space on the second floor, which is directly accessible to the
general public, will be considered as a form of public amenity space when it is
compatible with the historic context and is clearly inviting for public use. This will
be most successful in association with outdoor dining space. In this respect it may
be favorably considered within sites affected by mountain view planes.
As discussed above, and for the various reasons explained in the foregoing, the applicant is
proposing a pair of outdoor patio spaces on the second floor in satisfaction of the
Commercial Core Zone District public amenity requirement. Having addressed all
relevant HPC Design Guidelines, the proposed amenity space has been demonstrated to
provide compatibility with the historic context and will be clearly inviting for public use.
The proposed amenity spaces on top of the ground floor will reside on a site that falls
within the Wagner Park and Wheeler Opera House Mountain Viewplanes.
6.12 Second level amenity space should be compatible with the character of the historic district.
• It shall remain visually subordinate to any historic resource on the property.
• If located on a historic property, it may not alter the appearance of the resource s seen from the
street.
Compatibility of the proposed amenity space on the second level with the character of the
commercial core historic district has been demonstrated at length throughout the foregoing
narratives. There are no historic resources on the subject property itself.
6.13 A second floor amenity space should meet all of the following criteria:
• Ensure consistent public access
• Be dedicated for public use
P52
IV.A.
447 East Cooper Redevelopment Application 19
• Provide a public overlook and/or an interpretive marker
• Be identified by a marker at street level.
As was required with other public amenity spaces on the second level that have been
approved by the City, consistent public access will be ensured. As is customary and
consistent with prior City approvals, and public safety and liability concerns and practices,
and given that the space will be associated with commercial uses, public access will be
extended only during hours of business operation. The proposed amenity provides a
public overlook, with incredible, open views to the pedestrian malls, Wagner Park, and
Aspen Mountain. A sign identifying the rooftop amenity and its accesses off the Rubey
Park-facing frontage can, if desired, be provided on the building and at street level.
6.14 Second level space should be oriented to maximize solar access and mountain views, or
views of historic landmarks.
The proposed second level public amenity space maximizes solar access, has incredible
mountain views, and views of the most of the downtown area.
6.15 Second level space should provide public access by way of a visible and attractive public stair
or elevator from the public street, alley, or street level amenity space.
The proposed amenity space on top of the second level provides public access by way of a
two visible stairways that are easily reached from the Rubey Park side of the building,
which is designed as a second “front” facade.
Building Setbacks
6.18 Maintain the alignment of façades at the sidewalk’s edge.
• Place as much of the façade of the building at the property line as possible.
• Locating an entire building front behind the established storefront line is inappropriate.
• A minimum of 70% of the front façade shall be at the property line.
6.19 A building may be set back from its side lot lines in accordance with design guidelines
identified in Street & Circulation Pattern and Public Amenity Space guidelines.
The proposed building is sited lot line to lot line with the exception of the ground floor on
the Rubey Park side of the building. The ground floor on the alley side is set 5’ to 6’-6”
back so as to provide relief along the vehicular right-of-way and to allow on-site passage to
the shared trash and recycling facilities. The alignment of facades at the sidewalk’s (mall’s)
edge is maintained in a manner consistent not only with surrounding structures but also
with the structure that has been on the subject property since around 1950.
Building Orientation
6.20 Orient a new building to be parallel to its lot lines, similar to that of traditional building
orientations.
• The front of a primary structure shall be oriented to the street.
6.21 Orient a primary entrance toward the street.
P53
IV.A.
447 East Cooper Redevelopment Application 20
• Buildings should have a clearly defined primary entrance. For most commercial buildings, this
should be a recessed entry way.
• Do not orient a primary entrance to an interior court.
• Providing secondary public entrances to commercial spaces is also encouraged on larger
buildings.
The redeveloped building will be parallel to the lot lines and the primary entrances to the
commercial spaces are oriented toward the mall and the alley, with clearly defined
storefront windows and recessed entryways on both sides.
Building Form
6.22 Rectangular forms should be dominant on Commercial Core façades.
• Rectangular forms should be vertically oriented.
• The façade should appear as predominantly flat, with any decorative elements and projecting or
setback “articulations” appearing to be subordinate to the dominant form.
Dominant rectangular forms that are vertically oriented, yet appropriately scaled,
characterize the proposed development.
6.23 Use flat roof lines as the dominant roof form.
• A flat roof, or one that gently slopes to the rear of a site, should be the dominant roof form.
• Parapets on side façades should step down towards the rear of the building.
• False fronts and parapets with horizontal emphasis also may be considered.
The roofline is flat.
6.24 Along a rear façade, using building forms that step down in scale toward the alley is
encouraged.
• Consider using additive forms, such as sheds, stairs and decks to reduce the perceived scale.
These forms should however, remain subordinate to the primary structure.
• Use projecting roofs at the ground floor over entrances, decks and for separate utility structures
in order to establish a human scale that invites pedestrian activity.
The subject property has the unusual characteristic of an alley frontage with open space on
the other side (i.e., no buildings across the alley) due to the presence of the Rubey Park bus
station. Given this unique character and the open visibility of the subject property’s alley
façade from Galena Street and Durant Avenue, it is felt that the so-called “rear” façade is
most appropriately given the same attention to detail and design interest as the “front”
façade. Accordingly, the alley façade has been provided with storefront windows and
recessed entryways to establish a human scale that invites pedestrian activity.
Building Height, Mass & Scale
6.25 Maintain the average perceived scale of two-story buildings at the sidewalk.
• Establish a two-story height at the sidewalk edge, or provide a horizontal design element at this
level. A change in materials, or a molding at this level are examples.
P54
IV.A.
447 East Cooper Redevelopment Application 21
The proposed redevelopment is two stories at the sidewalk/mall.
6.26 Building façade height shall be varied from the façade height of adjacent buildings of the
same number of stories.
• If an adjacent structure is three stories and 38 ft. tall, new infill may be three stories, but must
vary in façade height by a minimum of 2 ft.
The adjacent buildings on both sides are also two stories in height. The two-story building
to the west is lower than the 28-foot parapet line of the proposed structure. The two-story
Casa Tua building to the east has a pitched roof with a 28-foot tall, north-south ridgeline
that provides open area between the two structures. The result is varied but compatible
building façade heights along the entire block face.
Please refer to the accompanying plan set (proposed elevations and Viewplane exhibits) for
graphic illustrations of the proposed building height in the context of surrounding
development.
6.27 A new building or addition should reflect the range and variation in building height of the
Commercial Core.
• Refer to the zone district regulations to determine the maximum height limit on the subject
property.
• A minimum 9 ft. floor to ceiling height is to be maintained on second stories and higher.
• Additional height, as permitted in the zone district, may be added for one or more of the
following reasons:
- In order to achieve at least a two-foot variation in height with an adjacent building.
- The primary function of the building is civic. (i.e. the building is a Museum, Civic Building,
Performance Hall, Fire Station, etc.)
- 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.
- To benefit the livability of Affordable Housing units.
- To make a demonstrable (to be verified by the Building Department) contribution to the
building's overall energy efficiency, for instance by providing improved daylighting.
Please refer to the responses provided above relative to similar standards (i.e., 6.25 and
6.26). The proposed building complies with the maximum height and minimum floor-to-
floor/floor-to-ceiling limitations of the Commercial Core Zone District. “Additional”
height is not requested. While the subject property is located within designated Wheeler
and Wagner Park Viewplanes, the proposed structure will not be visible from either of
these view plane origination/vantage points.
6.28 Height variation should be achieved using one or more of the following:
• Vary the building height for the full depth of the site in accordance with traditional lot width.
P55
IV.A.
447 East Cooper Redevelopment Application 22
• Set back the upper floor to vary the building façade profile(s) and the roof forms across the
width and the depth of the building.
• Vary the façade (or parapet) heights at the front.
• Step down the rear of the building towards the alley, in conjunction with other design standards
and guidelines.
6.29 On sites comprising more than two traditional lot widths, the façade height shall be varied to
reflect traditional lot width.
6.30 On sites comprising two or more traditional lots, a building shall be designed to reflect the
individual parcels. These methods shall be used:
• Variation in height of building modules across the site.
• Variation in massing achieved through upper floor setbacks, the roofscape form and variation in
upper floor heights.
• Variation in building façade heights or cornice line.
The goal of true building height variations was largely sacrificed when the Commercial
Core Zone District height limitation was reduced to just 28 feet and minimum ground
floor-to-second floor and second floor-to-ceiling heights were adopted. Nevertheless, the
adjacent buildings on both sides are also two stories in height, but the two-story building to
the west is a lower than the 28-foot parapet line of the proposed structure. In addition, the
two-story Casa Tua building to the east has a pitched roof with a 28-foot tall, north-south
ridgeline that provides open area between the two structures. The result is varied but
compatible building façade heights along the entire block face.
The building façades along the Cooper Avenue mall and the Rubey Park facing side have
been designed with three modules that closely approximate and reflect the traditional 30-
foot lot widths without being so precise as to mimic historic structures. Shadow lines and
variations in fenestration patterns and cornice lines accentuate this modulation.
6.31 A new building should step down in scale to respect the height, form and scale of a historic
building within its immediate setting.
There is now a 28 foot, two-story height limit for properties on the south side of the street
in the Commercial Core, and this building will have a maximum height of 28 feet. The
only historic buildings in the immediate vicinity are the Red Onion, which is across the
street/mall and has a height of approximately 36 feet, and the Independence Square
Building, which is on the other side of the Galena Street mall and has a height of
approximately 42 feet.
Guidelines 6.32 and 6.33 address new buildings that are located adjacent to one- or two-
story historic, residential buildings. Since there are no residential buildings adjacent to this
property, these guidelines do not apply.
6.34 The setting of iconic historic structures should be preserved and enhanced when feasible.
• On sites comprising more than two traditional lot widths, the third floor of the adjacent lot width
should be set back a minimum of 15 ft from the front facade.
P56
IV.A.
447 East Cooper Redevelopment Application 23
• Step a building down in height adjacent to an iconic structure.
• Locate amenity space adjacent to an iconic structure.
The only iconic structures in the immediate vicinity of the subject property are the Red
Onion, which is across the Cooper Avenue mall, and the Independence Square Building,
which is all the way on the other side of the Galena Street mall. The building proposed on
the subject lot will in no way negatively affect these iconic structures as the proposed
design, coupled with distances, ensures subservient compatibility.
E. Mountain View Plane Review
Section 26.435.010(C) of the Code provides that development within designated mountain
view planes is subject to heightened review so as to protect certain mountain views from
obstruction, strengthen the environmental and aesthetic character of the City, maintain
property values, and enhance the City’s tourist industry by maintaining the City’s heritage
as a mountain community. In relevant part, there is an established and regulated view
plane originating from approximately 5’-6” above the sidewalk along the north side of East
Hyman Avenue in front of the Wheeler Opera House. There is also an established and
regulated view plane originating in the north central part of Wagner Park (approximately
at the north goalpost). No buildings or land uses are supposed to project above the
established view plane unless the Historic Preservation Commission grants an exemption.
The accompanying Improvement Survey (and Sheet A1.2 Site Plan) illustrates the breadth
of the regulated view planes as they cross the subject property; the breadth of the Wheeler
Opera House Viewplane overlays the entire property while the Wagner Park Viewplane
diagonally overlays only the rear portion of the property. The Improvement Survey and
Site Plan also show the affects of the view planes ascending height limitations as they
projects over the subject site. The Wheeler Viewplane intersects the subject property at a
height of approximately 20.6 feet above grade. The Wagner Park View Plane intersects the
subject property at a height of approximately 21.9 feet above grade. The height limit of the
Commercial Core Zone District is 28 feet.
The existing Casa Tua building has a ridge height of 28 feet above grade while the two-
story, flat-roofed Salmon building at 447 East Cooper is 22 feet tall. The adjacent structure
to the west (where Gorsuch is located) is taller than is the Salmon building. The subject
property is not at all visible from the Wheeler Opera House Viewplane vantage points due
to all of the existing buildings in between, including but not limited to the tee-shirt shop,
NY Pizza, the Roaring Fork Building (Morris & Fyrwald), the Aspen Sports/Red Onion
Office building, and the Red Onion building. Only a small portion at the rear of the subject
property actually falls within the breadth of the Wagner Park Viewplane. Notwithstanding
the mapped breadth of the Viewplane, when standing at the origination point in Wagner
Park, neither the existing building nor the Casa Tua building can be seen, and the proposed
28-foot tall redevelopment will not be visible either. That is, due to the construction of the
Wagner Park public restrooms, the subject property and the existing Casa Tua structure are
P57
IV.A.
447 East Cooper Redevelopment Application 24
not at all visible from the Wagner Park Viewplane vantage point. The Wagner Park
restrooms span the entire breadth of the Wagner Park Viewplane and stand 17 feet tall
where the Viewplane angle hits them at only 10.75-feet above grade. In affect, the Wagner
Park Viewplane has been completely obliterated by the restrooms structure. In short, there
is no way to see the proposed building from either of the Viewplane origination areas. (See
attached Viewplane Studies.)
Responses to the standards of Section 26.435.050(C) are provided below, as applicable to
the proposed development. Said section of the Code states that, “No development shall be
permitted within a mountain view plane unless the Planning and Zoning Commission [or Historic
Preservation Commission] makes a determination that the proposed development complies with
all of the requirements set forth below.”
1. No mountain view plane is infringed upon, except as provided below.
When any mountain view plane projects at such an angle so as to reduce the
maximum allowable building height otherwise provided for in this title, development
shall proceed according to the provisions of Chapter 26.445 as a Planned
Development, so as to provide for maximum flexibility in building design with special
consideration to bulk and height, open space and pedestrian space, and similarly to
permit variations in lot area, lot width, yard and building height requirements and
view plane height limitations.
The Planning and Zoning Commission [or Historic Preservation Commission],
after considering a recommendation from the Community Development Department,
may exempt a development from being processed as a Planned Development when the
Planning and Zoning Commission [or HPC] determines that the proposed
development has a minimal effect on the view plane
When any proposed development infringes upon a designated view plane, but is
located in front of another development which already blocks the same view plane, the
Planning and Zoning Commission [or Historic Preservation Commission] shall
consider whether or not the proposed development will further infringe upon the view
plane, and the likelihood that redevelopment of the adjacent structure will occur to re-
open the view plane. In the event the proposed development does not further infringe
upon the view plane, and redevelopment to re-open the view plane cannot be
anticipated, the Planning and Zoning Commission [or Historic Preservation
Commission] shall exempt the development from the requirements of this Section.
With Community Development Director approval to combine reviews pursuant to Section
26.304.060(B)(1), all references to “the Planning and Zoning Commission” can be replaced
with “the Historic Preservation Commission.” Thus, based on the foregoing Code
language, the view plane only has the effect of reducing the height limit of the underlying
zone district if the HPC will not approve an exemption from the view plane height limit (in
P58
IV.A.
447 East Cooper Redevelopment Application 25
such cases and when the proposed height would exceed the limitation of the underlying
zone district, a height limit variance becomes necessary and is only attainable through the
PD review process).
The Code language provides that HPC approval of an exemption from the view plane
height limitation shall be granted when another development already blocks the same view
plane; in making such a determination, the HPC is to consider two things: 1) whether or
not the proposed development will further infringe upon the view plane than does an
existing development; and, 2) the likelihood of the already infringing structure(s) being,
first, redeveloped and, second, redeveloped in a manner that would re-open the designated
view plane. If the proposed development does not further infringe on the view plane, and
redevelopment of the existing structure(s) infringing on the view plane cannot be
anticipated, the proposed development is to be exempted from the view plane’s height
limitation. Additionally, if it is determined that the proposed development will have a
minimal impact on the view plane, the HPC can exempt the development from being
processed as a PD.
When the HPC approves an exemption from a designated view plane, the effective height
limit, by default, is that of the underlying zone district. Further, when a proposed
development warrants an exemption from the view plane but complies with the height
limit of the underlying zone district, there remains no need for PD review. This is
especially true of a development involving a property within a historic district, for such
development is already subject to HPC review and approval, which entails a heightened
level of scrutiny (i.e., “special consideration”) with regard to mass, scale, bulk, site
planning and design, affects on streetscape and pedestrian experiences, and neighborhood
compatibility.
The proposed development will not require a variance from any applicable dimensional
requirement should the HPC grant a view plane exemption. The proposed structure has a
maximum measured building height of 28 feet, which falls within the codified limit of the
CC zone district for two-story structures on the south side of a street.
Given the “Purpose” of the City’s Planned Development (PD) regulations, as stated in
Section 26.445.010 of the Code, there would be nothing to gain by requiring the proposed
development to proceed as a PD according to the provisions of Chapter 26.445. That is, the
HPC review process is designed to encourage flexibility and innovation in the
development of land while also requiring compatibility with historic resources. Moreover,
imposition of a PD review seems very inappropriate for a property with a total area of
merely 9,026 square feet, especially since the replacement structure will not be at all visible
from any regulated Viewplane vantage point. The subject property is irrelevant with
regard to Viewplane impacts. In other words, as demonstrated above (before the review
standard language) the Viewplane impacts associated with the proposed redevelopment
will be marginal to minimal, to the extent that any impacts at all will result.
P59
IV.A.
447 East Cooper Redevelopment Application 26
In fact, when the subject property went through the Change in Use review in 1990, the
records demonstrate that the City of Aspen Engineering Department agreed that the
Wagner Park Viewplane (which Viewplane has not been at all amended since then) would
not be impacted by a 28’-6” tall roof and an exemption was granted. The proposed roof has
a height of just 28 feet. Since the proposed development does not further infringe upon the
view planes and redevelopment of existing structures that already infringe upon the
Viewplanes (which includes each and every structure existing between the
vantage/origination points and the subject site) cannot reasonably be expected to re-open
the view plane, the HPC should approve the proposed exemption.
The Code explains that the purpose of Mountain View Plane Review is to protect certain
mountain views from obstruction, strengthen the environmental and aesthetic character of
the City, maintain property values, and enhance the City’s tourist industry by maintaining
the City’s heritage as a mountain community. The foregoing has amply demonstrated that
the proposed development will not compromise the purpose of the mountain view planes
but will, instead, further these purposes by strengthening the aesthetic character of the
City, enhancing surrounding property values, promoting economic vitality and
sustainability, and maintaining the City’s heritage as a mountain community.
F. Parking
Code Section 26.515.030 provides that the existing commercial use on the subject 447 East
Cooper Avenue property generates an off-street parking requirement of one (1) space for
every 1,000 square feet of net leasable area and that no parking is required for the
residential uses. With 8,153 square feet of existing net leasable area on the property, the
current parking requirement is 8.2 off-street spaces. The existing parking area was also
approved to satisfy the off-street parking requirements associated with the approximately
4,500 square feet of net leasable area on the adjacent Casa Tua property, which under
current Codes, requires an additional 4.5 off-street parking spaces. The nine (9) existing
off-street parking spaces, therefore, represent a deficit of 3.7 spaces ([8.2 + 4.5] – 9). As
mentioned above, while nine (9) off-street spaces currently exist on the property, many (if
not most) of these nine spaces appear to be rented to people who are not tenants of the
existing structure.
The proposed development will contain approximately 22,000 square feet of net leasable
commercial area, of which some 7,692 square feet are on the ground floor, about 8,450
square feet are on the lower level (basement), and roughly 5,855 square feet are on the
second level. This results in off-street parking requirement of 18.3 spaces (22 minus the
existing 3.7 space deficit), which will be completely satisfied through the payment of cash-
in-lieu as allowed by right pursuant to Code Section 26.515.030. The payment-in-lieu of
parking will be due and payable at the time of building permit issuance for the
redevelopment. At the currently codified rate of $30,000, which may be amended, the
payment due would be $549,000 ($30,000 x 18.3). Payment of the in-lieu fee does not
P60
IV.A.
447 East Cooper Redevelopment Application 27
require any review or approval, nor does it represent any kind of variance or variation
whatsoever.
G. Impact fees
Section 26.610.090 of the Code provides the established impact fees for development within
the City of Aspen. The Parks Development fee is $4.10 per square foot of net leasable
commercial space. The Transportation Demand Management/Air Quality impact fee is
$0.46 per square foot of net leasable commercial space. Non-unit space does not count
towards these fees but the proposed development does not include any non-unit space.
The additional net leasable commercial space from that existing amounts to 13,844 square
feet (21,997 square feet minus 8,153 square feet). This would generate a Parks
Development fee of $56,760.40, and a TDM/Air Quality fee of $6,368.24. These fees will be
paid at the time of building permit issuance.
H. Transportation Impact Analysis
Please see the Transportation Impact Analysis (Transportation Demand
Management/Multi-Modal Level Of Service analysis) provided in Exhibit 8. While the
“Example Minor TIA” provided on the City of Aspen Community Development
Department webpage indicates the presence of an “Enforcement and Financing” section as
part of the Tool, after a multitude of attempts, no such section can be found or otherwise
exists when the Interactive Tool is opened on a Mac computer, which is the only type of
system available to Haas Land Planning, LLC. Consequently, that section cannot be
completed. Furthermore, the “Narratives” area on the Tool cannot be used on a Mac either
as every time its use is attempted, several error messages and script debuggers open but no
ability to input any of the required narratives is provided. Thus, the following provides the
“Narrative” that accompanies the analysis contained in Exhibit 8; the applicant reserves the
right to modify any of the following commitments prior to final project approvals.
The TDM-MMLOS Interactive Tool requires input of “Net New Units/Square Feet of the
Proposed Project” in an effort to appropriately require mitigation only for the net increases
in impacts associated with a development proposal. However, the Tool does not allow for
input of any decreases in or reductions to the Net New Units. As a result, the trips to be
mitigated are over estimated because the elimination of residential units will obviously
have the effect of reducing vehicle trips.
The completed Tool attached hereto as Exhibit 8 includes a net increase of 15,161 square
feet of net leasable commercial area but does not allow for accounting for the net decrease
of 6-9 residential units from the property (depending on how one counts the so-called
“dormitory” housing and the “bandit” residential unit). As such, for the subject project,
the Tool results in 55.41 net trips to be mitigated. However, the proposal effectively
eliminates as many as nine (9) residential units and as many as ninety (90) vehicle trips per
day that would be associated therewith. This reduction of residential vehicle trips should
P61
IV.A.
447 East Cooper Redevelopment Application 28
more than mitigate the estimated 45.41 remaining trips associated with the net increase in
commercial net leasable area, and should result in a net decrease of impacts. Therefore, no
mitigation should be required.
In addition, this is an application for conceptual design review and related issues only.
Completion of the TDM-MMLOS, while required, is very much premature. Should the
current application be approved, the subsequent application(s) will include final design
details and all growth management related reviews. During that application review
process is the appropriate time to fully consider the Transportation Demand Management
and Multi-Modal Levels of Service impacts. Along these lines, the applicant cannot
reasonably be expected at this time to fully understand what types of on- or off-site
improvements or trip mitigation measures will eventually make sense. Similarly, the
applicant cannot yet be expected to know what types of programs (i.e, amenities packages,
shuttle services, TOP Participation, transit fare subsidies, employee parking cash-outs,
workplace parking pricing, compressed work weeks, sponsored vanpools, etc.) each of the
eventual tenants might be willing to implement with regard to transportation demand
management, much less how such programs might be enforced or financed. As such, it is
requested that the TDM-MMLOS mitigation review be temporarily delayed and instead be
required as part of the subsequent application for all growth management related
approvals.
Given the foregoing, to the extent that explanation is needed for those items the applicant
has proposed credit for in the attached Exhibit 8 TDM-MMLOS Tool, the following
narratives are provided.
MMLOS Input Page, Item 2: The project adjoins the sidewalk of the Cooper Avenue
pedestrian mall, which has an effective sidewalk width of 25 feet, which is far greater than
the standard minimum. See TIA Site Plan in Exhibit 8.
MMLOS Input Page, Item 8: A pedestrian going to the Rubey Park bus station at the rear of
the property must, today, either walk around the Cooper Avenue and Galena Street malls
or exit through the rear of the existing building and pass through a vehicle parking area to
get there. The same is true in reverse (i.e., coming from Rubey Park to the subject
property). With the proposed development eliminating this parking area and providing
storefronts facing the alley and Rubey Park, pedestrian access will be enhanced. Similary,
retail entrances on the Cooper Avenue mall be be moved forward to front more directly on
the pedestrian walkway. See TIA Site Plan in Exhibit 8.
MMLOS Input Page, Item 9: The project’s six (6) pedestrian access points have directness
factors ranging from 1.06 to 1.35, with an average directness factor of 1.18. See TIA Site
Plan in Exhibit 8.
In addition, rather than being given trips mitigation credit for being located adjacent to the
Rubey Park bus station and all of the bicycle parking already available on the pedestrian
P62
IV.A.
447 East Cooper Redevelopment Application 29
mall, the applicant is effectively penalized for the lack of ability to improve these facilities
while a project located adjacent to subpar transit or bicycle facilities benefits by having the
ability to easily these. As such, based on the lack of availability, no other credit is proposed
at this time under the “Bicycles” or “Transit” sections of the MMLOS Input Page. It is
noted that the applicant has committed to replace and improve bicycle racks on the Cooper
Avenue mall, adjacent to the site, as part of the proposed redevelopment and TIA
mitigation for 434 East Cooper Avenue.
TDM Input Page, Participation in TOP: The applicant will participate in the City’s
Transportation Options Program and all employees will be eligible. All reporting
requirements will be met.
TDM Input Page, Transit Fare Subsidy: Given the project’s location immediately adjacent to
the Rubey Park bus station, implementation of a transit fare subsidy strategy makes great
sense, and tenants on the property will be required to provide a subsidy to all full-time
employees for not less than 75% of daily work-related bus ridership/transit usage costs.
No additional TDM Input page credits are proposed. The applicant likely would have
committed to additional TDM measures, but the TIA Tool does not allow credit for
anything more than has already been committed.
Enforcement and Financing: The MMLOS measures described above do not require any
financing or enforcement. If approved, the applicant will be held to the proposed
development, which guarantees the measures. The applicant will finance the development
privately and, once built, will require no enforcement. Participation in the TOP and
provision of the transit fare subsidy program will be provided and paid for the first five
years of ownership to each tenant and move in. The tenant is responsible for enrolling in
the programs and payment for usage outside of the membership fees. The TDM measures
will be included in lease agreements and reviewed by the tenants, who will accept the
terms by means of executing/agreeing to their lease.
Scheduling and Implementation Measures: All MMLOS items will be completed during the
construction phase of the project. They will be part of the plan set submitted to the City of
Aspen Building Department for Engineering review. The applicant understands the
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy is contingent upon satisfactory installation of the
MMLOS improvements, as reviewed and approved by the Engineering Department. These
items will be the responsibility of the applicant. TDM measures will be implemented when
tenants sign their lease agreements.
Monitoring and Reporting: The property manager or other representative of the owner will
issue a survey to the commercial tenants on an annual basis. This simple survey will
determine what level of use the tenants engage in for the TDM measures and if they have
effectively reduced trips. The survey results will be issued as an annual report to the City
of Aspen Transportation Department.
P63
IV.A.
P
6
4
I
V
.
A
.
P
6
5
I
V
.
A
.
P
6
6
I
V
.
A
.
P
6
7
I
V
.
A
.
P
6
8
I
V
.
A
.
P
6
9
I
V
.
A
.
P
7
0
I
V
.
A
.
P
7
1
I
V
.
A
.
P
7
2
I
V
.
A
.
P
7
3
I
V
.
A
.
P
7
4
I
V
.
A
.
P
7
5
I
V
.
A
.
P
7
6
I
V
.
A
.
P
7
7
I
V
.
A
.
P
7
8
I
V
.
A
.
P
7
9
I
V
.
A
.
P
8
0
I
V
.
A
.
P
8
1
I
V
.
A
.
P
8
2
I
V
.
A
.
P
8
3
I
V
.
A
.
P
8
4
I
V
.
A
.
P
8
5
I
V
.
A
.
P
8
6
I
V
.
A
.
P
8
7
I
V
.
A
.
P
8
8
I
V
.
A
.
P
8
9
I
V
.
A
.
P
9
0
I
V
.
A
.
P
9
1
I
V
.
A
.
P
9
2
I
V
.
A
.
P
9
3
I
V
.
A
.
P
9
4
I
V
.
A
.
P
9
5
I
V
.
A
.
P
9
6
I
V
.
A
.
P
9
7
I
V
.
A
.
P
9
8
I
V
.
A
.
P
9
9
I
V
.
A
.
P
1
0
0
I
V
.
A
.
P
1
0
1
I
V
.
A
.
P
1
0
2
I
V
.
A
.
P
1
0
3
I
V
.
A
.
P
1
0
4
I
V
.
A
.
P
1
0
5
I
V
.
A
.
P
1
0
6
I
V
.
A
.
P
1
0
7
I
V
.
A
.
P
1
0
8
I
V
.
A
.
P109
I
V
.
A
.
P
1
1
0
I
V
.
A
.
P
1
1
1
I
V
.
A
.
P
1
1
2
I
V
.
A
.
P
1
1
3
I
V
.
A
.
P
1
1
4
I
V
.
A
.
P
1
1
5
I
V
.
A
.
P
1
1
6
I
V
.
A
.
P
1
1
7
I
V
.
A
.
P118
I
V
.
A
.
P119
I
V
.
A
.
P120
IV.A.
223 E. Hallam
Page 1 of 8
FINAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 223 E. Hallam- Final Major Development, PUBLIC HEARING
DATE: August 12, 2015
________________________________________________________________________
SUMMARY: 223 E. Hallam is a 6,000
square foot lot that contains a Victorian
era home. The property was recently the
subject of a subdivision, which separated
the 19th century resource from the Berko
photography studio to the west.
HPC is asked to conduct Final design
review of a project that involves
demolishing non-historic construction on
the site, moving the Victorian to the front
of the property and expanding it.
APPLICANT: 223 LLC, represented
by Forum Phi Architects.
PARCEL ID: #2737-073-16-008.
ADDRESS: 223 E. Hallam, Lot 2, 223 E. Hallam Street Lot Split, City and Townsite of
Aspen, Colorado.
ZONING: R-6.
Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a
Conceptual Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a
Conceptual Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location
and form of the envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the
Conceptual Plan application including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No
changes will be made to this aspect of the proposed development by the HPC as part
of their review of the Final Development Plan unless agreed to by the applicant.
P121
IV.B.
223 E. Hallam
Page 2 of 8
Staff Response: Final review focuses on landscape plan, lighting, fenestration, and
selection of new materials. A list of the relevant design guidelines is attached as “Exhibit
A.”
The house at 223 E. Hallam appears to have been built in the early 1890s. It changed
hands many times before it was purchased by Ferenc and Mirte Berko in 1957.
Sometime in the 1900s, prior to the Berko ownership, a few significant changes were
made; a one story cross gable addition was built on the front of the house, displacing the
original open porch, and an addition was built at the southeast corner of the house,
enclosing an original rear porch. A garage structure was erected along the alley.
The new owner of the property would like to remove the additions and restore the home
back to its original form. There are no photos that have been found showing the building
prior to these substantial alterations. Restoration work will be guided by Sanborne maps
and physical evidence that can help to explain the history of this house.
After demolition of the additions, the applicant asks to move the house to the front
setback line and re-construct the front porch. To the rear of the house, a one-story
connector will provide a link to a proposed new addition. HPC granted Conceptual
approval, setback variances and a floor area bonus on May 13th.
For Final Review, the applicant was required to restudy an interior staircase proposed to
be adjacent to the front bay window and consider moving it. This has been
accomplished.
Conceptual Final
P122
IV.B.
223 E. Hallam
Page 3 of 8
Regarding Final review, staff finds the project is in compliance with the design
guidelines, with a few minor issues that are recommended to be resolved as conditions of
approval.
The landscape plan indicates that there will be a planter at the front of the site, adjacent to
the historic fence. A raised planter, if that is the intention, would not be in character with
the Victorian landscape.
More details are needed regarding the plant selections. Any plants in the foreground of
the house need to be relatively low in height at their mature size. The application text
refers to the possibility of site lighting, but none is shown on the landscape plan.
Typically HPC prefers that the only light at the front of the house is provided via a porch
fixture and not path lighting flanking the front walkway, for example. The proposed
front walk appears to be more than 6’ wide, to match the width of the front porch. This
dimension should be narrowed to less than 4’. A wider landing at the base of the steps
could be approved.
During construction, the applicant is required to review any new physical evidence of the
original front and rear porches with staff before finalizing the design. This includes
review of the original door openings. The house may have had two doors accessing the
front porch, a typical characteristic of many other local Victorian homes. Only one front
door is shown on the floor plans. All existing exterior and interior doors in the house will
need to be reviewed to determine if any of them are original porch doors that have since
been hung in a new location. If so, they must be put back in place.
The final design for any decorative detailing for the porches will be reviewed and
approved by staff and monitor after the field investigation is completed.
As part of the construction preparation, staff requests the applicant provide a paint sample
that will help to document an accurate reflection of “Bayer blue,” a shade selected by
Herbert Bayer and used on several structures in town. The Berko house is perhaps the
only remaining building in Aspen that features this color. Staff will work with the
architect to identify an appropriate location, preferably one that has been shielded from
the elements, to take the sample.
There are a few notes on the drawings that are erroneous and have been clarified by the
architect. Sheet Z-203 has a note indicating a clad window to be installed on the
Victorian. This will not occur. The applicant intends to preserve the existing windows.
That same sheet also notes that the foundation under the Victorian will be painted brick.
The existing foundation is painted stone. The applicant intends to strip the paint from the
stone and re-use it as a veneer on the new foundation, which is appropriate.
Staff finds that the materials and detailing of the new addition are compatible with the
Victorian but distinguish the work as new. We recommend the half round window
proposed along the alley be redesigned as an orthogonally shaped window like all others
on the site.
P123
IV.B.
223 E. Hallam
Page 4 of 8
===============================================================
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC grant Final Major
Development with the following conditions:
1. Provide a more detailed landscape plan for review and approval by staff and
monitor. Do not include a raised planter at the front of the site. Identify proposed
plants. Narrow the front walkway to no more than 4’, which a landing at the base
of the porch steps. Do not install site lighting in front of the Victorian and specify
any other landscape lighting that is proposed.
2. Per HPC Resolution #16, Series of 2015, the final design for the restored porches
on the northeast and southeast of the Victorian will be reviewed and approved by
staff and monitor after these areas are exposed to view during the construction
process. Framing will need to be reviewed to determine the location of the
original porch doors. All existing exterior and interior doors in the house will
need to be reviewed to determine if any of them are original porch doors that have
since been hung in a new location. If so, they must be put back in place. The final
design for any decorative detailing for the porches will be reviewed and approved
by staff and monitor after the field investigation is completed.
3. Staff will work with the architect to identify an appropriate location, preferably
one that has been shielded from the elements, to take a paint sample to document
“Bayer blue.”
4. The existing stone foundation on the house is to be salvaged and used as a veneer
for the new foundation. The paint is to be removed from the stone.
5. Redesign the arched window on the south façade of the addition to be an
orthogonally shaped window.
6. Per HPC Resolution #16, Series of 2015, granted a 10’ combined sideyard and a
5’ rear yard setback. HPC also granted a 500 square foot floor area bonus.
7. Per HPC Resolution #16, Series of 2015, a report from a licensed engineer,
architect or housemover demonstrating that the house can be moved must be
submitted with the building permit application in addition to a bond, letter of
credit or cashier’s check in the amount of $30,000 to ensure the safe relocation.
8. 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
P124
IV.B.
223 E. Hallam
Page 5 of 8
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: 530 W. Hallam, Lots K, L, and M, Block 28, 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.
EXHIBITS:
Exhibit A: Design Guidelines
Exhibit B: Application
Exhibit A: Relevant HPC Design Guidelines
1.1 Preserve original fences.
Replace only those portions that are deteriorated beyond repair. Replacement
elements should match the existing fence.
1.2 A new replacement fence should use materials that appear similar to that of
the original.
Any fence which is visible from a public right-of-way must be built of wood or
wrought iron. Wire fences also may be considered.
P125
IV.B.
223 E. Hallam
Page 6 of 8
A wood picket fence is an appropriate replacement in most locations. A simple wire
or metal fence, similar to traditional "wrought iron," also may be considered.
Chain link is prohibited and solid "stockade" fences are only allowed in side and
rear yards.
1.6 Replacement or new fencing between side yards and along the alley should be
compatible with the historic context.
A side yard fence is usually taller than its front yard counterpart. It also is less
transparent. A side yard fence may reach heights taller than front yard fences (up to
six feet), but should incorporate transparent elements to minimize the possible visual
impacts.
Consider staggering the fence boards on either side of the fence rail. This will give
the appearance of a solid plank fence when seen head on.
Also consider using lattice, or other transparent detailing, on the upper portions of
the fence.
1.9 Maintain the established progression of public-to-private spaces when
considering a rehabilitation project.
This includes a sequence of experiences, beginning with the "public" sidewalk,
proceeding along a "semi-public" walkway, to a "semi-private" porch or entry feature
and ending in the "private" spaces beyond.
Provide a walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry.
Meandering walkways are discouraged, except where it is needed to avoid a tree.
Use paving materials that are similar to those used historically for the building
style. Concrete, wood or sandstone may be appropriate for certain building styles.
1.10 Preserve historic elements of the yard to provide an appropriate context for
historic structures.
The front yard should be maintained in a traditional manner, with planting material
and sod, and not covered with paving, for example.
1.13 Revisions or additions to the landscape should be consistent with the historic
context of the site.
Select plant and tree material according to its mature size, to allow for the long-term
impact of mature growth.
Reserve the use of exotic plants to small areas for accent.
Do not cover grassy areas with gravel, rock or paving materials.
1.14 Additions to the landscape that could interfere with historic structures are
inappropriate.
Do not plant climbing ivy or trees too close to a building. New trees should be no
closer than the mature canopy size.
Do not locate plants or trees in locations that will obscure significant architectural
features or block views to the building.
1.15 Minimize the visual impacts of site lighting.
P126
IV.B.
223 E. Hallam
Page 7 of 8
Site lighting should be shielded to avoid glare onto adjacent properties. Focus
lighting on walks and entries, rather than up into trees and onto facade planes.
2.4 Brick or stone that was not painted historically should not be painted.
Masonry naturally has a water-protective layer, or patina, to protect it from the
elements.
4.1 Preserve historically significant doors.
Maintain features important to the character of a historic doorway. These may
include the door, door frame, screen door, threshold, glass panes, paneling, hardware,
detailing, transoms and flanking sidelights.
Do not change the position and function of original front doors and primary
entrances.
If a secondary entrance must be sealed shut, any work that is done must be
reversible so that the door can be used at a later time, if necessary. Also, keep the
door in place, in its historic position.
If the secondary entrance is sealed shut, the original entrance on the primary facade
must remain operable.
4.5 When replacing a door, use a design that has an appearance similar to the
original door or a door associated with the style of the house.
A replica of the original, if evidence exists, is the preferred replacement.
A historic door from a similar building also may be considered.
Simple paneled doors were typical.
Very ornate doors, including stained or leaded glass, are discouraged, unless
photographic evidence can support their use.
5.5 If porch replacement is necessary, reconstruct it to match the original in form
and detail.
Use materials that appear similar to the original.
While matching original materials is preferred, when detailed correctly and painted
appropriately, alternative materials may be considered.
Where no evidence of the appearance of the historic porch exists, a new porch may
be considered that is similar in character to those found on comparable buildings.
Keep the style and form simple. Also, avoid applying decorative elements that are not
known to have been used on the house or others like it.
When constructing a new porch, its depth should be in scale with the building.
The scale of porch columns also should be similar to that of the trimwork.
The height of the railing and the spacing of balusters should appear similar to those
used historically as well.
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.
P127
IV.B.
223 E. Hallam
Page 8 of 8
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.
10.11 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.
14.6 Exterior lights should be simple in character and similar in color and intensity
to that used traditionally.
The design of a fixture should be simple in form and detail. Exterior lighting must
be approved by the HPC.
All exterior light sources should have a low level of luminescence.
14.7 Minimize the visual impacts of site and architectural lighting.
Unshielded, high intensity light sources and those which direct light upward will
not be permitted.
Shield lighting associated with service areas, parking lots and parking structures.
Timers or activity switches may be required to prevent unnecessary sources of light
by controlling the length of time that exterior lights are in use late at night.
Do not wash an entire building facade in light.
Avoid placing exposed light fixtures in highly visible locations, such as on the
upper walls of buildings.
Avoid duplicating fixtures. For example, do not use two fixtures that light the same
area.
14.13 Leave natural masonry colors unpainted where feasible.
Where the natural colors of building materials exist, such as with stone or brick,
they should be left unpainted.
For other parts of the building that require painting, select colors that will
complement those of the natural materials.
If an existing building is already painted, consider applying new colors that
simulate the original brick color.
It is also appropriate to strip the paint from a masonry building to expose the natural
color of the stone or brick.
P128
IV.B.
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
APPROVING FINAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT
223 E. HALLAM, LOT 2, 223 E. HALLAM STREET LOT SPLIT, CITY AND
TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO
RESOLUTION #__, SERIES OF 2015
PARCEL ID: 2737-073-16-008
WHEREAS, the applicant, 223 LLC, represented by Forum Phi Architects, has requested
approval for Final Major Development; and
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that “no building or structure
shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a
designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted
to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures
established for their review;” and
WHEREAS, for Final Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff
analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project’s conformance
with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.4 of
the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove,
approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to
make a decision to approve or deny; and
WHEREAS, Amy Simon, in her staff report to HPC dated August 12, 2015, performed an
analysis of the application based on the standards. Staff recommended in favor of Final Major
Development, with conditions; and
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on August 12, 2015, the Historic Preservation Commission
considered the application during a duly noticed public hearing, including the staff
recommendation and public comments, and found the project to be consistent with the review
criteria, with conditions, by a vote of __ to __.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
HPC grants Final Major Development with the following conditions:
1. Provide a more detailed landscape plan for review and approval by staff and monitor. Do
not include a raised planter at the front of the site. Identify proposed plants. Narrow the
front walkway to no more than 4’, which a landing at the base of the porch steps. Do not
install site lighting in front of the Victorian and specify any other landscape lighting that
is proposed.
2. Per HPC Resolution #16, Series of 2015, the final design for the restored porches on the
northeast and southeast of the Victorian will be reviewed and approved by staff and
P129
IV.B.
monitor after these areas are exposed to view during the construction process. Framing
will need to be reviewed to determine the location of the original porch doors. All
existing exterior and interior doors in the house will need to be reviewed to determine if
any of them are original porch doors that have since been hung in a new location. If so,
they must be put back in place. The final design for any decorative detailing for the
porches will be reviewed and approved by staff and monitor after the field investigation is
completed.
3. Staff will work with the architect to identify an appropriate location, preferably one that
has been shielded from the elements, to take a paint sample to document “Bayer blue.”
4. The existing stone foundation on the house is to be salvaged and used as a veneer for the
new foundation. The paint is to be removed from the stone.
5. Redesign the arched window on the south façade of the addition to be an orthogonally
shaped window.
6. Per HPC Resolution #16, Series of 2015, granted a 10’ combined sideyard and a 5’ rear
yard setback. HPC also granted a 500 square foot floor area bonus.
7. Per HPC Resolution #16, Series of 2015, a report from a licensed engineer, architect or
housemover demonstrating that the house can be moved must be submitted with the
building permit application in addition to a bond, letter of credit or cashier’s check in the
amount of $30,000 to ensure the safe relocation.
8. 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,
P130
IV.B.
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: 530 W. Hallam, Lots K,
L, and M, Block 28, 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 12th day of August,
2015.
________________________________
Willis Pember, Chair
Approved as to Form:
___________________________________
Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney
ATTEST:
___________________________
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
P131
IV.B.
1
TO: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
FROM: Forum Phi
RE: 223 E Hallam Street
DATE: July 14, 2015
Dear Director,
Forum Phi requests your approval of an HPC Land Use Application for Major Development based
on the “temporary relocation” standards for a historic structure located at 223 E Hallam Street.
The subject property is listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures.
The single-family residence is located on Lot 2 of the 223 E Hallam Street Lot Split. It was
previously remodeled with several non-historic additions. With these additions, the single-family
residence was converted into a duplex in the 1950’s.
Per the attached Administrative Subdivision Amendment Lot Split to Lots C, D, E and F, Block 72,
City and Townsite of Aspen, approval has been given to reallocate the density between Lots 1
and 2 of this subdivision resulting in allocating 2 units to Lot 1 and 1 unit to Lot 2. This proposal
focuses on restoring the historic Victorian located on Lot 2 and converting it back to a single-
family residence. A large portion of the project will include removing two non-historic additions
from the front and rear of the historic Victorian and rebuilding the historic front and rear porches.
This proposal also relocates the historic Victorian closer to the street to maintain proper street
frontage for the historic resources. Additionally, moving the house forward allows the addition to
be located further back on the site and brings the lot into compliance with the RDS code section
26.410.040.A.2 which requires 60% of the front facade to be within 5' of the setback line. There
will be a substantial subgrade/basement addition underneath the historic structure, which will
cause it to be temporarily shored in place during the preliminary construction of the basement and
then relocated to its final position. The existing non-historic main and upper level will be
remodeled and new addition will be constructed at the South end of the site, behind the resource.
The Final Land Use Application for Major Development Review is complete per the City of Aspen
Community Development Department's Historic Preservation Application Package.
Sincerely,
Steev Wilson, AIA
P132
IV.B.
2
City of Aspen Review Standards Compliance
26.410.040. Residential Design Standards
A. Site Design.
1. Building orientation.
The existing street-facing facade on the historic building is parallel to Hallam Street and will
remain.
2. Build-to lines.
The proposed relocation of the historic structure will locate more than 60% of the facade within
five feet of the minimum setback.
3. Fences.
We will relocate the historic fence to the North, East and West property lines up to the front
facade of the house. There is a significant amount of this historic fence located on the neighbor’s
lot, which is Lot 1 of the Lot Split, and they have offered the fence to be relocated to our lot.
Behind the front facade, we are proposing a 6' privacy fence per 26.575.020.E.5.p.
B. Building form.
1. Secondary mass.
We are proposing the new addition to the house to serve as the secondary mass element. We
are locating more than 10% of the floor area in this volume and connecting it to the historic
resource with a linking element. Our proposed subordinate linking element is 10' in length, no
more than 10' in length, and has a plate height of less than 9'.
C. Parking, garages and carports.
1. For all residential uses that have access from an alley or private road, the [listed] standards
shall apply:
a) Parking, garages and carports shall be accessed from an alley or private road.
b) If the garage doors are visible from a street or alley, then they shall be single-stall doors or
double-stall doors designed to appear like single-stall doors.
c) If the garage doors are not visible from a street or alley, the garage doors may be either single
stall or normal double-stall garage doors.
The proposed garage doors are double stall doors and appear like single stall doors. They are
visible and accessed from the alley.
D. Building elements.
1. Street oriented entrance and principal window.
The existing historic house has a street-facing principal window to remain. The proposed
entrance is street oriented.
a) The proposed entry door is no more than ten (10) feet back from the front-most wall of
the building and is not taller than eight (8) feet.
b) The proposed front porch is greater than 50 square feet with a minimum depth of six
feet. The entry porch is one story in height.
c) The existing street-facing facade contains a significant group of windows.
2. First story element.
The lot contains an existing historic structure to remain that predates the residential design
standards.
P133
IV.B.
3
3. Windows.
a) The existing and proposed street-facing windows do not span between nine and
twelve feet above the finished floor.
b) There are no non-orthogonal windows proposed.
4. Lightwells.
The proposed lightwells are recessed behind the front-most wall of the building and are
not located on the street-facing facade.
E. Context.
1. Materials.
a) The quality of the existing and proposed exterior materials and their application is
consistent on all sides of the building. Historic materials are to be maintained and to be
separate from the proposed addition.
b) The use of materials is true to their characteristics. Proposed materials will be
approved at the HPC Final Review.
c) There are no proposed highly reflective materials. Proposed materials will be approved
at the HPC Final Review.
2. Inflection.
The existing structure to the West of us is 1.5 stories. The lot to the East of us has a 1-
story garage that is at the front of the lot. The historic resource is located as far back
along the common lot line as the 1 story structure and therefore we are unable to inflect.
P134
IV.B.
4
City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines
Introduction
The property at 223 E Hallam Street is listed in the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites
and Structures. As required for submittal, this letter of compliance is for HPC Conceptual Review.
This project is located on Lot 2 of the 223 E. Hallam Street Lot Split (previously Lots E & F), on
East Hallam Street.
Chapter 1 - Streetscape and Lot Features
1.1-1.6 A 30” wrought-iron fence currently located along the property line at the North end of the
Site. This fence will remain and be adjusted to re-align the entrance through the fence with the
restored front porch. The neighbor at 221 E Hallam Street, Lot 1 of the 223 E Hallam Street Lot
Split, has offered the historic fence that is currently location on their lot to be relocated our lot.
Previously, these 2 lots were 1 large lot that contained the Victorian home that is located on Lot 2.
Being that this fence is related to the Victorian home, relocating the extent of the historic fence to
Lot 2 is the most appropriate solution. If there is not an adequate length historic fence, the
additional length of fence that we are proposing will be custom made to match the existing fence.
We are proposing a privacy fence behind the front facade of the building along the East and West
property lines. This fence will be wood. The new fence components visible from the street will
match the existing historic fence. The fencing between the side yards will be compatible with the
historic context as well as with the proposed addition.
1.7-1.8 There are no existing or proposed retaining walls.
1.9 The existing property has 2 concrete walks that extend past the property line on the North
side of the site. There is a wood walk from the rear of the house that extends to the South end of
the site and the alley that will be removed. The existing 2-story garage to be removed extends
1’9” into the East side yard setback and 5’9” into the South rear yard setback. The existing
garage is accessed via the unpaved Block 72 alley. In the proposed design, the garage is
accessed via the same alley, but on the West side of the site. There is 1 proposed walkway at
the front of the house that will lead through the historic fence to the restored historic front porch.
We are proposing a brick paver walkway which is accurate to the Victorian period and is similar to
the other houses along East Hallam Street.
1.10-1.13 We are not proposing any paving besides the main walkway in the front of the house
and a perviously paved driveway. Due to the several non-historic additions that have been added
on to the Victorian as well as the construction of the garage, there are no historic planting
features located on the site. All tree removal and new plantings will be approved by HPC and the
Parks Department.
1.15 All proposed site lighting will be shielded and located around the walkways and entrances to
the home. All site lighting will be approved by HPC.
1.16-1.17 There are no remaining historically significant landscape features or irrigation ditches.
Chapter 2 - Historic Building Materials
2.1-2.6 The primary historic building material is painted cedar shingle; the lower level of the
home has horizontal cedar siding while the upper portion is sided with round sawn cedar shingle
siding. The historic materials are to remain and any necessary repairs will be made. The existing
P135
IV.B.
5
roof is composed of asphalt shingles and will be replaced as necessary during the construction
period.
2.9-2.10 No historic building materials will be covered.
Chapter 3 - Windows
3.1-3.8 All historic windows are to remain, although it appears several have been previously
replaced. The existing windows at the historic main level and upper levels of the Victorian will
remain unchanged and will receive proper maintenance where required. These windows are
double-hung type with wood trim and sills. All historic windows will receive repairs where
required, with no changes to character-defining features. Replacement windows are not
anticipated for the historic portions of the project. If required, any replacements will preserve the
historic character of openings, design, materials, size and proportion, and profile. Storm windows
may be installed to enhance energy performance of the historic structure, but have not been
proposed at this time.
Chapter 4 - Doors
4.1-4.6 The historic structure has 2 existing historic doors that lead to existing rooms 103 and
105. These doors will be retained within the project. The new door on the restored front porch
will either be compatible with the style and type of door that would have originally been used,
considering location, size and shape or will be one of the remaining historic doors depending on
size and condition.
Chapter 5 - Porches
5.1-5.4 The historic front and rear porches were removed with the 2 non-historic additions to the
front and rear of the Victorian. Our proposal restores both of these porches.
5.5 The porches on the front and rear of the Victorian will be re-constructed to what the Historical
Preservation Committee and Architect believe would be the appearance and materials of the
original porch. The architect has researched examples of other houses of the same period and
style to best determine the design of the original porch. There are no existing photographs of the
historic porch and a Sanborn map dated 1867 has indicated the original location of the porch.
The proposed porch materials will appear similar to a porch of this era in style and form. We are
using 333 Bleeker Street as a reference house for restoring the front porch and images from the
Aspen Historical Society as references for restoring the rear porch.
Chapter 6 - Architectural Details
6.1-6.6 Distinct architectural details exist on the historic structure, specifically the bay windows,
wood siding and trim. These details represent those typical of the late 1800s Victorian Era and
will be maintained and repaired only where required. Any repairs and/or replacements to historic
features will be documented prior to submission of a building permit and construction.
Chapter 7 - Roofs
7.1-7.11 The existing roof structure and chimneys will be maintained in its current condition over
the portion of the existing home that is historic, with repairs where required. We will be removing
P136
IV.B.
6
the non-historic dormer on the south-east corner of the historic structure. The new roof material
on the addition will be an asphalt shingle.
Chapter 8 - Secondary Structures
8.1-5 The property contains a 1 story non-historic garage on the alley side of the site that will be
removed.
Chapter 9 - Building Relocation & Foundations
9.1 Relocating the structure accommodates other improvements to the Lot and will assure
preservation to the historic resource. The proposed design includes the addition of a
basement/lower level to the extent of the setback lines of the property. There is a small existing
266 sqft basement with 7’ ceilings. The historic foundation has been altered significantly due to
the construction of the additions to the front and rear of the structure, and another non-historic
addition from the 60's that was removed in the 90's. During the relocation of the historic
resource, we will take apart the existing foundation and reassemble it in the new position.
Depending on structural conditions, the stone may be applied as a veneer but will look as it
currently does. The historic home will be relocated to the North-West corner of the site to allow
for the clear separation between old and new forms. Four proposed lightwells will be added to
the building, recessed behind the front facade. There will be two lightwells located on both the
West and East sides of the site.
Chapter 10 - Building Additions
10.1-10.2 The rear section of the house, which currently contains the kitchen on the main level
and a small bedroom on the upper level, was a historic addition completed before 1904, as seen
in the Sanborn maps. In the early 1950s, an addition was constructed onto the front of the
building, eliminating the front porch. A second addition was attached onto the South-West corner
of the building around the same time. The shed roof on the rear of the building is non-historic.
The existing non-historic additions will be removed in order to assure preservation of the original
historic resource and the historic addition.
10.3-10.11 The proposed addition has been designed such that the character of the historic
structure is restored in areas where it was lost and maintained in the areas where it still exists.
The addition will be differentiated from the historic home through linking an element that will
connect the Victorian with the addition. The proposed roof forms are similar to those on the
resource, yet have a steeper slope in order to differentiate the two. The proposed siding
materials are similar to the historic resource in that they will be painted cedar siding, yet are
different in the scale and style. All portions of this addition will be located to the rear of the
historic structure and behind the primary street-facing facade.
10.12-10.14 There are no additions to the rooftops of the historic structure.
Chapter 11 - New Buildings on Landmarked Properties/Historic Landmark Lot Splits
There are no new buildings proposed on this lot.
Chapter 12 - Design in the Main Street Historic District
This property is not located in the Main Street Historic District.
P137
IV.B.
7
Chapter 13 - Design in the Commercial Core Historic District
This property is not located in the Commercial Core Historic District.
Chapter 14 - General Guidelines
14.1-14.2 The structure is a residence and is not required to comply with the ADA.
14.3-14.5 The historic structure is of wood frame construction, with the existing siding painted
white and several shades of blue. Any new color schemes chosen for the historic structure will
be simple, coordinated, and consistent with the character of a Victorian built in the late 1800s.
The proposed addition will also be coordinated with the historic scheme, while remaining
distinguishable in color and material.
14.6-14.8 Exterior lighting will be simple in form and detail. Any proposed site lighting will be
shielded and/or low intensity. Visual impacts from interior lighting will be subdued.
14.9-14.13 The surface of the historic structure will be maintained, repaired, and cleaned where
necessary. The methods used will be low impact and follow the recommendations of the
preservation design guidelines. Any repainting methods will be planned carefully.
14.14-14.16 Mechanical and service areas will be located within the proposed addition. All
service areas will be visually blocked from the primary street facade. All facades of the historic
structure will remain free of mechanical and service equipment.
14.17-14.24 The proposed garage will be accessed from the existing alleyway via a perviously
paved driveway. The driveway will not be visible from the primary building facade.
14.25-14.29 The project is a single-family residence and will not utilize any signage.
The removal of existing non-historic addition and the proposed addition will preserve and
enhance the character of the historic Victorian, particularly by relocating all additions to the rear
and creating separation between the Victorian and proposed addition. The proposed roof form is
similar to the historic and does not obscure historically important features of the Victorian.
Most of the new floor area will be located subgrade. The proposed floor area is approximately
3,700 square feet. This is below the maximum allowable FAR for the parcel plus the 500 sqft
bonus from HPC (totaling an allowable 3,740 square feet).
P138
IV.B.
Z-CVR COVER
Z-001
Z-002
Z-003
PLAT
SURVEY
ZONING SUMMARY
RDS COMPLIANCE
SITE PLAN
Z-007
Z-008X
Z-009X
Z-010X
Z-008
Z-009
Z-010
Z-011
Z-101
Z-102
Z-103
Z-104
Z-201
Z-202
Z-203
Z-204
Z-205
Z-206
WALL DEMOLITION CALCULATIONS
FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS
FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS
FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS
FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS
FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS
FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS
TEMPORARY RELOCATION
FLOOR PLANS
FLOOR PLANS
FLOOR PLANS
FLOOR PLANS
HEIGHTS
HEIGHTS
HEIGHTS
HEIGHTS
HEIGHTS
HEIGHT OVER TOPOGRAPHY
Z-005
Z-006
SETBACKS | PROJECTIONS
ROOF DEMOLITION CALCULATIONS
Z-301
Z-302
LANDSCAPE PLAN
LIGHTING SPECS
LAND USE APPROVALS
LAND USE APPROVALS
LAND USE APPROVALS
SHEET INDEXPROJECT SITE
223 E Hallam Street, Aspen, CO, 81611, USA
223 E Hallam StSCOPE OF WORK
The remodel of a landmarked historic residence - removing two non-
historic additions, removing a non-historic detatched garage, moving
the entire remaining structure to the North West corner of the Lot,
building an addition to the rear of the house, and the addition of a
subgrade level.HPC MAJOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
STRUCTURAL
CONSULTANTS
SURVEYOR
MECHANICAL
COPYRIGHT
CONTRACTOR
CIVIL
SHEET TITLE
7/30/15
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:KPT
1422
FORUM PHI, LLC
Tuttle Surveying Services
727 Blake Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
P: 970.928.9708
F: 970.947.9007
jeff@tss-us.com
Roaring Fork Engingeering
richardg@rfeng.biz
PO Box 9554
Aspen, CO 81611
970.948.7474
Bighorn Consulting Engineers
shawn@bighorneng.com
569 S Westgate Dr #1
Grand Junction CO, 81505
970.241.8709
Albright & Associates
jack@albright-associates.com
402 Park Ave Unit E
Basalt, CO 81621
970.927.4363
TBD
DATE OF PUBLICATION
Z-CVR
COVER
223 E Hallam Street, Aspen,
CO, 81611, USA
223 E Hallam St
715 West Main Street, Suite 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585
PARCEL ID # 273-707-316-008
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT 2 OF 223 E HALLAM
STREET LOT SPLIT
ZONE DISTRICT R-6
12/31/14SD HPC REVIEW
HPC CON. REVISED3/24/15SD
SD 5/7/15 HPC CON. REVISED 2
SD 7/14/15 HPC FINAL REVIEW
SD 7/30/15 HPC FINAL REVIEW 2
P
1
3
9
I
V
.
B
.
P
1
4
0
I
V
.
B
.
P
1
4
1
I
V
.
B
.
Allowable Floor Area
223 E Hallam St, Lot 2
Allowable Floor Area Reference
Per R-6 26.710.040.D.11Lot is 6,000 sq ft therefore, per R-6
code, this Lot has an allowable FAR
Unique Approvals Reference
Variances Reference
Exemptions Reference
Garage Exemption
First 250 sq ft exempt; Next 250 sq
ft to exclude 50% of area 26.575.020.D.7.
Deck Exemption 486 sq ft exempt (Allowable floor area 3,240 sq ft x 15%)26.575.020.D.5.
Floor Area Summary Existing Gross (Sq Ft)Existing Floor Area (Sq Ft)Proposed Gross (Sq Ft)Proposed Floor Area (Sq Ft)Reference
Lower Level 257.75 17.55 3,817.25 142.19
Main Level 2,037.50 1,550.25 2,483.50 2,108.50
Upper Level 1,015.50 1,015.50 1,485.00 1,485.00
Deck Area (including covered front porch)40.00 0.00 427.50 0.00
TOTAL 3,350.75 2,583.30 8,213.25 3,735.69
Zoning Allowance & Project Summary
223 E Hallam St, Lot 2
Proposed Development Single Family | Remodel/Addition
Parcel #273-707-316-008
Zone District R-6
Setbacks Existing
Allowed
(Principal)
Allowed
(Accessory)
Proposed
(Principal)
Proposed
(Accessory)Reference
Front 3'-0 1/2”10'15'10'N/A 26.710.040.D.2
Rear 10'10'5'10'5'26.710.040.D.3
West Side 5'5'N/A 5'N/A 26.710.040.D.4
East Side 1'-7”5'N/A 5'N/A 26.710.040.D.4
Combined Side 10'15'N/A 10'N/A 26.710.040.D.4
Distance between Buildings N/A 5'N/A N/A 26.710.040.D.9
Corner Lot no no Plat
Supplemental Breakdown Info Existing Required Proposed Reference
Open Space %N/A Not Required for R-6 N/A 26.710.040.D.10
Site Coverage 33.90%50%41.70%26.710.040.D.7
On-Site Parking 2 (garage)2 2
Land Value Summary Actual Value Reference
Land $3,200,000.00 Pitkin County Assessor
Improvements $199,700.00 Pitkin County Assessor
Total $3,399,700.00 Pitkin County Assessor
Net Lot Area
223 E Hallam St, Lot 2
Zone District Requirements Reference
Min. Gross Lot Area (per R-6)6,000 Sq Ft; 3,000 Sq Ft for Historic Landmark Properties 26.710.040.D.1
Min. Net Lot Area (per R-6)4,500 Sq Ft; 3,000 Sq Ft for Historic Landmark Properties 26.710.040.D.2
Lot Size Per Survey Reference
Reductions for area with slopes 0%-20% (100% of parcel area to be included in Net
Lot Area)N/A
Survey
26.575.020-1
Reductions for area with slopes 20%-30% (50% of parcel area to be included in Net
Lot Area)N/A
Survey
26.575.020-1
Reductions for area with slopes greater than 30% (0% of parcel area to be included in
Net Lot Area)N/A
Survey
26.575.020-1
Total Area Reductions
Net Lot Area 6,000 Sq Ft Per Plat
STRUCTURAL
CONSULTANTS
SURVEYOR
MECHANICAL
COPYRIGHT
CONTRACTOR
CIVIL
SHEET TITLE
7/30/15
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:KPT
1422
FORUM PHI, LLC
Tuttle Surveying Services
727 Blake Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
P: 970.928.9708
F: 970.947.9007
jeff@tss-us.com
Roaring Fork Engingeering
richardg@rfeng.biz
PO Box 9554
Aspen, CO 81611
970.948.7474
Bighorn Consulting Engineers
shawn@bighorneng.com
569 S Westgate Dr #1
Grand Junction CO, 81505
970.241.8709
Albright & Associates
jack@albright-associates.com
402 Park Ave Unit E
Basalt, CO 81621
970.927.4363
TBD
DATE OF PUBLICATION
Z-001
ZONING SUMMARY
223 E Hallam Street, Aspen,
CO, 81611, USA
223 E Hallam St
715 West Main Street, Suite 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585
PARCEL ID # 273-707-316-008
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT 2 OF 223 E HALLAM
STREET LOT SPLIT
ZONE DISTRICT R-6
12/31/14SD HPC REVIEW
HPC CON. REVISED3/24/15SD
SD 5/7/15 HPC CON. REVISED 2
SD 7/14/15 HPC FINAL REVIEW
SD 7/30/15 HPC FINAL REVIEW 2
P
1
4
2
I
V
.
B
.
Residential Design Standards Compliance
Project Name
RDS Section Code Description Compliance Description Referenced Z Sheets
A. Site Design 1. Building orientation.The front facades of all principal structures are parallel to the street. This is not a corner lot. Z-006
2. Build-to lines. Z-006
3. Fences.Z-006
B. Building Form 1. Secondary mass.Z-006
a) Parking, garages and carports shall be accessed from an alley or private road.The garage is accessed from the alley.Z-101
Z-203
The garage doors are visible from the alley. Z-203
The garage is accessed from the alley.Z-203
The garage is accessed from the alley.Z-203
The garage is accessed from the alley.Z-203
The garage is accessed from the alley.Z-203
The garage is accessed from the alley.Z-203
The garage is accessed from the alley.Z-203
D. Building Elements Z-201
Z-101
Z-101
There is a significant group of windows in the historic resource that face the street.Z-201
2. First story element.Z-101
3. Windows.The proposed street facing windows do not span between 9' and 12'.Z-201
There are no non-orthogonal windows existing to remain or proposed.Z-201 – Z-205
All light-wells are recessed behind the front-most wall of the building.Z-101
E. Context 1. Materials.Z-201 – Z-205
Proposed materials will be used in ways that are true to their characteristics.Z-201 – Z-205
c) Highly reflective surfaces shall not be used as exterior materials.There are no proposed highly reflective exterior materials.Z-201 – Z-205
2. Inflection.
Z-201
Z-102
The front facades of all principal structures shall be parallel to the street. On corner lots, both
street-facing facades must be parallel to the intersecting streets. On curvilinear streets, the
front facade of all structures shall be parallel to the tangent of the midpoint of the arc of the
street. Parcels as outlined in Subsection 26.410.010.B.4 shall be exempt from this
requirement. One (1) element, such as a bay window or dormer, placed at a front corner of the
building may be on a diagonal from the street if desired.
On parcels or lots of less than fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet, at least sixty percent
(60%) of the front façade shall be within five (5) feet of the minimum front yard setback line.
On corner sites, this standard shall be met on the frontage with the longest block length.
Porches may be used to meet the sixty percent (60%) standard.
Due to the relocation of the historic resource, more than 60% of the front facade will be within
5 feet of the front yard setback.
Fences, hedgerows and planter boxes shall not be more than forty-two (42) inches high,
measured from natural grade, in all areas forward of the front facade of the house. Man-made
berms are prohibited in the front yard setback.
The historic fence that is proposed to be located at the front of the house is no more than 42”.
All new single-family and duplex structures shall locate at least ten percent (10%) of their total
square footage above grade in a mass which is completely detached from the principal
building or linked to it by a subordinate linking element. This standard shall only apply to
parcels within the Aspen infill area pursuant to Subsection 26.410.010.B.2. Accessory
buildings such as garages, sheds and accessory dwelling units are examples of appropriate
uses for the secondary mass. A subordinate linking element for the purposes of linking a
primary and secondary mass shall be at least ten (10) feet in length, not more than ten (10)
feet in width, and with a plate height of not more than nine (9) feet. Accessible outdoor space
over the linking element (e.g. a deck) is permitted but may not be covered or enclosed. Any
railing for an accessible outdoor space over a linking element must be the minimum
reasonably necessary to provide adequate safety and building code compliance and the railing
must be 50% or more transparent.
More than 10% of the total above grade square footage is located in a secondary mass that is
connected to the primary structure by a subordinate linking element that is 10' in length, 10' in
width and has a plate height of less than 9'.
C. Parking, Garages and
Carports
1. For all residential uses
that have access from an
alley or private road, the
following standards shall
apply:
b) If the garage doors are visible from a street or alley, then they shall be single-stall doors or
double-stall doors designed to appear like single-stall doors.
The garage doors are visible from the alley and are double stall doors that appear like single
stall doors.
c) If the garage doors are not visible from a street or alley, the garage doors may be either
single-stall or normal double-stall garage doors.
2. For all residential uses
that have access only from
a public street, the
following standards shall
be apply:
a) On the street facing facade(s), the width of the living area on the first floor shall be at least
five (5) feet greater than the width of the garage or carport.
b) The front facade of the garage or the front-most supporting column of a carport shall be set
back at least ten (10) feet further from the street than the front-most wall of the house.
c) On lots of at least fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet in size, the garage or carport may
be forward of the front facade of the house only if the garage doors or carport entry are
perpendicular to the street (side-loaded).
d) When the floor of a garage or carport is above or below the street level, the driveway cut
within the front yard setback shall not exceed two (2) feet in depth, measured from natural
grade.
e) The vehicular entrance width of a garage or carport shall not be greater than twenty-four
(24) feet.
f) If the garage doors are visible from a public street or alley, then they shall be single-stall
doors or double-stall doors designed to appear like single-stall doors.
1. Street oriented entrance
and principal window.
All single-family homes and duplexes, except as outlined in Subsection 26.410.010.B.4 shall
have a street-oriented entrance and a street facing principal window. Multi-family units shall
have at least one (1) street-oriented entrance for every four (4) units and front units must have
a street facing a principal window. On corner lots, entries and principal windows should face
whichever street has a greater block length. This standard shall be satisfied if all of the
following conditions are met:
The historic resource that is proposed to be relocated at the front of the lot has a street
oriented entrance and a street facing principal window.
a) The entry door shall face the street and be no more than ten (10) feet back from the front-
most wall of the building. Entry doors shall not be taller than eight (8) feet.
The entry door of the historic resource is no more than 10' back from the front most wall of the
building. The entry door is not taller than 8'.
b) A covered entry porch of fifty (50) or more square feet, with a minimum depth of six (6') feet,
shall be part of the front facade. Entry porches and canopies shall not be more than one (1)
story in height.
The entry porch of the historic resource is being restored. It is more than 6' in depth and not
more than 1 story in height. It is more that 50 square feet.
c) A street-facing principal window requires that a significant window or group of windows face
street.
All residential buildings shall have a first story street-facing element the width of which
comprises at least twenty percent (20%) of the building's overall width and the depth of which
is at least six (6) feet from the wall the first story element is projecting from. Assuming that the
first story element includes interior living space, the height of the first story element shall not
exceed ten (10) feet, as measured to the plate height. A first story element may be a porch or
living space. Accessible space (whether it is a deck, porch or enclosed area) shall not be
allowed over the first story element; however, accessible space over the remaining first story
elements on the front façade shall not be precluded.
The historic resource does not have a first story street facing element and therefore this is not
applicable.
a) Street-facing windows shall not span through the area where a second floor level would
typically exist, which is between nine (9) and twelve feet (12) above the finished first floor. For
interior staircases, this measurement will be
made from the first landing if one exists. A transom window above the main entry is exempt
from this standard.
b) No more than one (1) non-orthogonal window shall be allowed on each facade of the
building. A single non-orthogonal window in a gable end may be divided with mullions and still
be considered one (1) non-orthogonal window. The requirement shall only apply to Subsection
26.410.010.B.2.
4. Lightwells.All areaways, lightwells and/or stairwells on the street-facing facade(s) of a building shall be
entirely recessed behind the front-most wall of the building.
a) The quality of the exterior materials and details and their application shall be consistent on
all sides of the building.
The quality of the exterior materials and their application is consistent on all sides of the
building.
b) Materials shall be used in ways that are true to their characteristics. For instance stucco,
which is a light or non-bearing material, shall not be used below a heavy material, such as
stone.
The following standard must be met for parcels which are six thousand (6,000) square feet or
over and as outlined in Subsection 26.410.010.B.2:
a) If a one-story building exists directly adjacent to the subject site, then the new construction
must step down to one-story in height along their common lot line. If there are one-story
buildings on both sides of the subject site, the applicant may choose the side toward which to
Inflect.
There is a 1 story building on the lot to the east of our property and we are inflecting in the
proposed addition to that lot with a 1 story garage.
A one-story building shall be defined as follows: A one story building shall mean a structure or
portion of a structure, where there is only one (1) floor of fully usable
living space, at least twelve (12) feet wide across the street frontage. This standard shall be
met by providing a one story element which is also at least twelve (12) feet wide across the
street frontage and one (1) story tall as far back along the common lot line as the adjacent
building is one (1) story.
The proposed addition is located behind the historic resource and therefore the inflection is
not visible from the street. It is more than 12' wide on the alley/south side of the lot and has
only one floor of fully usable space.
Residential Design Standards Unique Approvals & Variances
See Land Use Approvals for complete list of approved resolutions and/or admin approvals. This project
does not include any unique approvals related specifically to RDS.
STRUCTURAL
CONSULTANTS
SURVEYOR
MECHANICAL
COPYRIGHT
CONTRACTOR
CIVIL
SHEET TITLE
7/30/15
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:KPT
1422
FORUM PHI, LLC
Tuttle Surveying Services
727 Blake Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
P: 970.928.9708
F: 970.947.9007
jeff@tss-us.com
Roaring Fork Engingeering
richardg@rfeng.biz
PO Box 9554
Aspen, CO 81611
970.948.7474
Bighorn Consulting Engineers
shawn@bighorneng.com
569 S Westgate Dr #1
Grand Junction CO, 81505
970.241.8709
Albright & Associates
jack@albright-associates.com
402 Park Ave Unit E
Basalt, CO 81621
970.927.4363
TBD
DATE OF PUBLICATION
Z-002
RDS COMPLIANCE
223 E Hallam Street, Aspen,
CO, 81611, USA
223 E Hallam St
715 West Main Street, Suite 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585
PARCEL ID # 273-707-316-008
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT 2 OF 223 E HALLAM
STREET LOT SPLIT
ZONE DISTRICT R-6
12/31/14SD HPC REVIEW
HPC CON. REVISED3/24/15SD
SD 5/7/15 HPC CON. REVISED 2
SD 7/14/15 HPC FINAL REVIEW
SD 7/30/15 HPC FINAL REVIEW 2
P
1
4
3
I
V
.
B
.
8'-10"
1
0
'
-
0
"
6'-2"
10
'
-
0
"
5
'
-
0
"
LINE OF
EXTERIOR
WALL
LEGAL ADDRESS:
LOT 2 OF 223 E HALLAM
STREET LOT SPLIT
ZONE DISTRICT : R-6
LOT SIZE: 6,000 SQFT
SQFT
PROJECT ZERO: 7896'-6"
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
L
I
N
E
F
R
O
N
T
Y
A
R
D
SE
T
B
A
C
K
SIDE YARD
SETBACK
RE
A
R
Y
A
R
D
SE
T
B
A
C
K
[P
R
I
N
C
I
P
L
E
ST
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
]
R
E
A
R
YA
R
D
SE
T
-
BA
C
K
[G
A
R
A
G
E
]
SIDE
YARD
SET-
BACK
E HALLAM STREET
LOT 1 OF 223 E HALLAM
STREET LOT SPLIT 225 E HALLAM
STREET
ALLEY BLOCK 72
7895
7896
7897
5'-0"
5
'
-
0
"
1'-4"
7'-01/2"
7'-37/8"
7'-37/8"
LINE OF
EXTERIOR
WALL
EXISTING HISTORIC
FENCE TO BE
RELOCATED TO
PROPERTY LINE
6' PRIVACY FENCE TO
BE LOCATED BEHIND
FRONT FACADE OF
ADDITION PER
26.575.020.E.5.p
LIGHTWELL TO
EXTEND INTO
SETBACK PER
26.575.020.E.5.i; SEE
LOWER LEVEL FLOOR
PLAN SHEET Z-101
FOR DIMS
LIGHTWELL TO
EXTEND INTO
SETBACK PER
26.575.020.E.5.i; SEE
LOWER LEVEL FLOOR
PLAN SHEET Z-101
FOR DIMS
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
L
I
N
E
7895
7896
7897
FR
O
N
T
Y
A
R
D
SE
T
B
A
C
K
SIDE
YARD
SET-
BACK
SIDE
YARD
SET-
BACK
SIDE
YARD
SET-
BACK
R
E
A
R
YA
R
D
S
E
T
-
BA
C
K
E HALLAM STREET
LOT 1 OF 223 E HALLAM
STREET LOT SPLIT
225 E HALLAM
STREET
ALLEY BLOCK 72
LEGAL ADDRESS:
LOT 2 OF 223 E HALLAM
STREET LOT SPLIT
ZONE DISTRICT : R-6
LOT SIZE: 6,000 SQFT SQFT
PROJECT ZERO: 7896'-6"
TREE TO BE REMOVED
PROPOSED TREE
TREE LEGEND
N
1X EXISTING SITE PLAN 1/8" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED SITE PLAN 1/8" = 1'-0"
STRUCTURAL
CONSULTANTS
SURVEYOR
MECHANICAL
COPYRIGHT
CONTRACTOR
CIVIL
SHEET TITLE
7/30/15
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:KPT
1422
FORUM PHI, LLC
Tuttle Surveying Services
727 Blake Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
P: 970.928.9708
F: 970.947.9007
jeff@tss-us.com
Roaring Fork Engingeering
richardg@rfeng.biz
PO Box 9554
Aspen, CO 81611
970.948.7474
Bighorn Consulting Engineers
shawn@bighorneng.com
569 S Westgate Dr #1
Grand Junction CO, 81505
970.241.8709
Albright & Associates
jack@albright-associates.com
402 Park Ave Unit E
Basalt, CO 81621
970.927.4363
TBD
DATE OF PUBLICATION
Z-003
SITE PLAN
223 E Hallam Street, Aspen,
CO, 81611, USA
223 E Hallam St
715 West Main Street, Suite 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585
PARCEL ID # 273-707-316-008
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT 2 OF 223 E HALLAM
STREET LOT SPLIT
ZONE DISTRICT R-6
12/31/14SD HPC REVIEW
HPC CON. REVISED3/24/15SD
SD 5/7/15 HPC CON. REVISED 2
SD 7/14/15 HPC FINAL REVIEW
SD 7/30/15 HPC FINAL REVIEW 2
P
1
4
4
I
V
.
B
.
6,000.00 sq ft
1,550.25 sq ft
487.25 sq ft
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
L
I
N
E
EXISTING SITE
COVERAGE:
33.9%
6,000.00 sq ft
2,507.25 sq ft
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
L
I
N
E
ALLOWABLE SITE
COVERAGE PER R-6:
50%
PROPOSED SITE
COVERAGE:
41.7%
N
EXISTING SITE COVERAGE 1/8" = 1'-0"PROPOSED SITE COVERAGE 1/8" = 1'-0"
STRUCTURAL
CONSULTANTS
SURVEYOR
MECHANICAL
COPYRIGHT
CONTRACTOR
CIVIL
SHEET TITLE
7/30/15
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:KPT
1422
FORUM PHI, LLC
Tuttle Surveying Services
727 Blake Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
P: 970.928.9708
F: 970.947.9007
jeff@tss-us.com
Roaring Fork Engingeering
richardg@rfeng.biz
PO Box 9554
Aspen, CO 81611
970.948.7474
Bighorn Consulting Engineers
shawn@bighorneng.com
569 S Westgate Dr #1
Grand Junction CO, 81505
970.241.8709
Albright & Associates
jack@albright-associates.com
402 Park Ave Unit E
Basalt, CO 81621
970.927.4363
TBD
DATE OF PUBLICATION
Z-004
SITE COVERAGE
223 E Hallam Street, Aspen,
CO, 81611, USA
223 E Hallam St
715 West Main Street, Suite 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585
PARCEL ID # 273-707-316-008
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT 2 OF 223 E HALLAM
STREET LOT SPLIT
ZONE DISTRICT R-6
12/31/14SD HPC REVIEW
HPC CON. REVISED3/24/15SD
SD 5/7/15 HPC CON. REVISED 2
SD 7/14/15 HPC FINAL REVIEW
SD 7/30/15 HPC FINAL REVIEW 2
P
1
4
5
I
V
.
B
.
1
1
A A
B B
C C
D D
E E
F F
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
C C
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
L
I
N
E
21
3
456
7 8
9
10
11
12
1513
14
16
17
18 19
157.25 sq ft 155.25 sq ft
301.25 sq ft 301.25 sq ft
124.25 sq ft19.75 sq ft
143.25 sq ft
264.50 sq ft
194.25 sq ft
5.00 sq ft 31.50 sq ft
198.50 sq ft
104.00 sq ft
277.25 sq ft
204.00 sq ft
19.50 sq ft
19.50 sq ft 177.00 sq ft
227.50 sq ft
21.50 sq ft
35.50 sq ft
2.75 sq ft
1918
1 2
3
4
3
56
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
7
Demolition Calculations
223 E Hallam St, Lot 2
Roof Demolition
Roof Label Individual Roof Area (Sq Ft)
Area of Roof to be Removed
(Sq Ft)
1 157.25 157.25
2 155.25 155.25
3 144.00 144.00
4 143.25 143.25
5 264.50 35.50
6 194.25 0.00
7 5.00 0.00
8 31.50 2.75
9 198.50 0.00
10 104.00 0.00
11 277.25 0.00
12 204.00 0.00
13 19.50 19.50
14 19.50 19.50
15 177.00 0.00
16 227.50 227.50
17 21.50 21.50
18 301.25 301.25
19 301.25 301.25
Roof Surface Total (Sq Ft)2,946.25
Roof Surface Area to be Removed (Sq Ft)1,528.50
Demolition Totals
Roof + Wall Area Used for Demo Calculation (Sq Ft)6,732.00
Surface Area to be Removed (Sq Ft)3,720.25
Total 55.26%
EXISTING ROOF
TO REMAIN
ROOF TO BE
DEMOLISHED
ROOF DEMO
LEGEND
N
ROOF DEMO PLAN 1/8" = 1'-0"ROOF DEMO FILLS - FLAT PLANE METHOD 1/8" = 1'-0"
STRUCTURAL
CONSULTANTS
SURVEYOR
MECHANICAL
COPYRIGHT
CONTRACTOR
CIVIL
SHEET TITLE
7/30/15
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:KPT
1422
FORUM PHI, LLC
Tuttle Surveying Services
727 Blake Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
P: 970.928.9708
F: 970.947.9007
jeff@tss-us.com
Roaring Fork Engingeering
richardg@rfeng.biz
PO Box 9554
Aspen, CO 81611
970.948.7474
Bighorn Consulting Engineers
shawn@bighorneng.com
569 S Westgate Dr #1
Grand Junction CO, 81505
970.241.8709
Albright & Associates
jack@albright-associates.com
402 Park Ave Unit E
Basalt, CO 81621
970.927.4363
TBD
DATE OF PUBLICATION
Z-006
ROOF DEMOLITION
CALCULATIONS
223 E Hallam Street, Aspen,
CO, 81611, USA
223 E Hallam St
715 West Main Street, Suite 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585
PARCEL ID # 273-707-316-008
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT 2 OF 223 E HALLAM
STREET LOT SPLIT
ZONE DISTRICT R-6
12/31/14SD HPC REVIEW
HPC CON. REVISED3/24/15SD
SD 5/7/15 HPC CON. REVISED 2
SD 7/14/15 HPC FINAL REVIEW
SD 7/30/15 HPC FINAL REVIEW 2
P
1
4
6
I
V
.
B
.
1
1
A A
B B
C C
D D
E E
F F
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
C C
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
L
I
N
E
A
B
C
D
EF
G
H
I
J
K
LM
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T U V
S
W
X
Y
Z
AA
HISTORIC
1
1
A A
B B
C C
D D
E E
F F
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
C C
P H
M
S
R BB
CC
DDEE
FF
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
L
I
N
E
HISTORIC
54.00 sq ft
163.50 sq ft 181.25 sq ft 135.00 sq ft
153.25 sq ft
171.00 sq ft
41.25 sq ft 38.25 sq ft
12.50 sq ft12.50 sq ft
25.25 sq ft
19.00 sq ft
14.50 sq ft10.00 sq ft 88.75 sq ft 112.75 sq ft
166.25 sq ft
32.50 sq ft
72.25 sq ft30.25 sq ft 30.25 sq ft
202.25 sq ft
13.75 sq ft
30.00 sq ft
34.75 sq ft
49.25 sq ft15.25 sq ft
208.25 sq ft
161.50 sq ft
197.00 sq ft
164.50 sq ft
A B C D E
F HG I J K
L M N O P
Q R S T U V W
BB
CCDD
EE
FF
X Y Z
AA
387.75 sq ft
300.00 sq ft
10.75 sq ft
13.75 sq ft
3.75 sq ft3.75 sq ft
126.00 sq ft
9.25 sq ft
3.50 sq ft
49.75 sq ft
18.25 sq ft
44.50 sq ft
18.25 sq ft
226.25 sq ft
26.50 sq ft
8.50 sq ft
232.50 sq ft
8.00 sq ft
5.75 sq ft
226.25 sq ft
29.00 sq ft
33.00 sq ft8.75 sq ft 8.75 sq ft
Demolition Calculations
223 E Hallam St, Lot 2
Wall Demolition
Wall Label Individual Wall Area (Sq Ft)
Area Reduced for Fenestration
(Sq Ft)
Area of Wall to be Removed
(Sq Ft)
A 163.50 0.00 163.50
B 181.25 0.00 181.25
C 135.00 0.00 135.00
D 153.25 0.00 153.25
E 171.00 0.00 171.00
F 41.25 10.00 0.00
G 38.25 14.50 0.00
H 387.75 69.25 54.00
I 88.75 0.00 88.75
J 112.75 0.00 112.75
K 166.25 0.00 166.25
L 32.50 0.00 32.50
M 300.00 32.00 0.00
N 126.00 12.75 0.00
O 49.75 18.25 0.00
P 226.25 35.00 0.00
Q 44.50 18.25 0.00
R 232.50 13.75 0.00
S 226.25 29.00 0.00
T 30.25 8.75 0.00
U 75.25 33.00 0.00
V 30.25 8.75 0.00
W 202.25 0.00 202.25
X 208.25 0.00 208.25
Y 161.50 0.00 161.50
Z 197.00 0.00 197.00
AA 164.50 0.00 164.50
BB 13.75 0.00 0.00
CC 30.00 0.00 0.00
DD 34.75 0.00 0.00
EE 49.25 0.00 0.00
FF 15.25 0.00 0.00
Wall Surface Area Total (Sq Ft)4,089.00
Area Reduced for Fenestration (Sq Ft)303.25
Area Used for Demo Calculation (Sq Ft)3,785.75
Wall Surface Area to be Removed (Sq Ft)2,191.75
Demolition Totals
Roof + Wall Area Used for Demo Calculation (Sq Ft)6,732.00
Surface Area to be Removed (Sq Ft)3,720.25
Total 55.26%
EXISTING WALL
TO REMAIN
WALL TO BE
DEMOLISHED
WALL DEMO
LEGEND
Demolition Calculations
223 E Hallam St, Lot 2
Wall Demolition
Wall Label Individual Wall Area (Sq Ft)
Area Reduced for Fenestration
(Sq Ft)
Area of Wall to be Removed
(Sq Ft)
A 163.50 0.00 163.50
B 181.25 0.00 181.25
C 135.00 0.00 135.00
D 153.25 0.00 153.25
E 171.00 0.00 171.00
F 41.25 10.00 0.00
G 38.25 14.50 0.00
H 387.75 69.25 54.00
I 88.75 0.00 88.75
J 112.75 0.00 112.75
K 166.25 0.00 166.25
L 32.50 0.00 32.50
M 300.00 32.00 0.00
N 126.00 12.75 0.00
O 49.75 18.25 0.00
P 226.25 35.00 0.00
Q 44.50 18.25 0.00
R 232.50 13.75 0.00
S 226.25 29.00 0.00
T 30.25 8.75 0.00
U 75.25 33.00 0.00
V 30.25 8.75 0.00
W 202.25 0.00 202.25
X 208.25 0.00 208.25
Y 161.50 0.00 161.50
Z 197.00 0.00 197.00
AA 164.50 0.00 164.50
BB 13.75 0.00 0.00
CC 30.00 0.00 0.00
DD 34.75 0.00 0.00
EE 49.25 0.00 0.00
FF 15.25 0.00 0.00
Wall Surface Area Total (Sq Ft)4,089.00
Area Reduced for Fenestration (Sq Ft)303.25
Area Used for Demo Calculation (Sq Ft)3,785.75
Wall Surface Area to be Removed (Sq Ft)2,191.75
Demolition Totals
Roof + Wall Area Used for Demo Calculation (Sq Ft)6,732.00
Surface Area to be Removed (Sq Ft)3,720.25
Total 55.26%
Demolition Calculations223 E Hallam St, Lot 2Wall Demolition Wall Label Individual Wall Area (Sq Ft)Area Reduced for Fenestration(Sq Ft)Area of Wall to be Removed(Sq Ft)A 163.50 0.00 163.50B181.25 0.00 181.25C135.00 0.00 135.00D153.25 0.00 153.25E171.00 0.00 171.00F41.25 10.00 0.00G38.25 14.50 0.00
H 387.75 69.25 54.00
I 88.75 0.00 88.75
J 112.75 0.00 112.75
K 166.25 0.00 166.25
L 32.50 0.00 32.50
M 300.00 32.00 0.00
N 126.00 12.75 0.00
O 49.75 18.25 0.00
P 226.25 35.00 0.00
Q 44.50 18.25 0.00
R 232.50 13.75 0.00
S 226.25 29.00 0.00
T 30.25 8.75 0.00
U 75.25 33.00 0.00
V 30.25 8.75 0.00
W 202.25 0.00 202.25
X 208.25 0.00 208.25
Y 161.50 0.00 161.50
Z 197.00 0.00 197.00
AA 164.50 0.00 164.50
BB 13.75 0.00 0.00
CC 30.00 0.00 0.00
DD 34.75 0.00 0.00
EE 49.25 0.00 0.00
FF 15.25 0.00 0.00
Wall Surface Area Total (Sq Ft)4,089.00
Area Reduced for Fenestration (Sq Ft)303.25
Area Used for Demo Calculation (Sq Ft)3,785.75
Wall Surface Area to be Removed (Sq Ft)2,191.75
Demolition Totals
Roof + Wall Area Used for Demo Calculation (Sq Ft)6,732.00
Surface Area to be Removed (Sq Ft)3,720.25
Total 55.26%
N
MAIN LEVEL DEMO PLAN 1/8" = 1'-0"UPPER LEVEL DEMO PLAN 1/8" = 1'-0"WALL DEMO FILLS 1/8" = 1'-0"
STRUCTURAL
CONSULTANTS
SURVEYOR
MECHANICAL
COPYRIGHT
CONTRACTOR
CIVIL
SHEET TITLE
7/30/15
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:KPT
1422
FORUM PHI, LLC
Tuttle Surveying Services
727 Blake Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
P: 970.928.9708
F: 970.947.9007
jeff@tss-us.com
Roaring Fork Engingeering
richardg@rfeng.biz
PO Box 9554
Aspen, CO 81611
970.948.7474
Bighorn Consulting Engineers
shawn@bighorneng.com
569 S Westgate Dr #1
Grand Junction CO, 81505
970.241.8709
Albright & Associates
jack@albright-associates.com
402 Park Ave Unit E
Basalt, CO 81621
970.927.4363
TBD
DATE OF PUBLICATION
Z-007
WALL DEMOLITION
CALCULATIONS
223 E Hallam Street, Aspen,
CO, 81611, USA
223 E Hallam St
715 West Main Street, Suite 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585
PARCEL ID # 273-707-316-008
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT 2 OF 223 E HALLAM
STREET LOT SPLIT
ZONE DISTRICT R-6
12/31/14SD HPC REVIEW
HPC CON. REVISED3/24/15SD
SD 5/7/15 HPC CON. REVISED 2
SD 7/14/15 HPC FINAL REVIEW
SD 7/30/15 HPC FINAL REVIEW 2
P
1
4
7
I
V
.
B
.
1
1
A A
B B
C C
D D
E E
F F
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
C C
12
'
-
3
1/
2
"
16'-03/8"
16'-03/8"
12
'
-
3
1/
2
"
4.
3.
2.
1.
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
L
I
N
E
CRAWL
CRAWL
CRAWL
257.75 sq ft
16'-03/8"12'-31/2"16'-03/8"12'-31/2"
7'
-
0
"
112.25 sq ft 86.00 sq ft 112.25 sq ft 86.00 sq ft
15.00 sq ft 12.00 sq ft
1.2.3.4.
EXPOSED WALL AREA
WALL BELOW GRADE
Floor Area Calculations
223 E Hallam St, Lot 2
Existing Lower Level Wall Calculations
Lower Level Wall Label Total Wall Area (Sq Ft)Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)
1 112.25 0.00
2 86.00 0.00
3 112.25 15.00
4 86.00 12.00
Overall Total Wall Areas (Sq Ft)396.50
Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)27.00
% of Exposed Wall (Exposed / Total)6.8%
Existing Lower Level Floor Area Calculations
Lower Level Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft)257.75
Lower Level Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)17.55
Total Existing Floor Area Calculations
Lower Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)17.55
Main Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)1550.25
Deck/Porch Floor Area (Sq Ft)0.00
Upper Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)1015.50
Total Existing Floor Area (Sq Ft)2,583.30
LIVABLE FLOOR AREA
GARAGE
DECK
EXEMPT AREA
N
EXISTING LOWER LEVEL 1/8" = 1'-0"
EXISTING LOWER LEVEL 1/8" = 1'-0"
SUGBRADE CALC LEGEND
FAR LEGEND STRUCTURAL
CONSULTANTS
SURVEYOR
MECHANICAL
COPYRIGHT
CONTRACTOR
CIVIL
SHEET TITLE
7/30/15
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:KPT
1422
FORUM PHI, LLC
Tuttle Surveying Services
727 Blake Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
P: 970.928.9708
F: 970.947.9007
jeff@tss-us.com
Roaring Fork Engingeering
richardg@rfeng.biz
PO Box 9554
Aspen, CO 81611
970.948.7474
Bighorn Consulting Engineers
shawn@bighorneng.com
569 S Westgate Dr #1
Grand Junction CO, 81505
970.241.8709
Albright & Associates
jack@albright-associates.com
402 Park Ave Unit E
Basalt, CO 81621
970.927.4363
TBD
DATE OF PUBLICATION
Z-008X
FLOOR AREA
CALCULATIONS
223 E Hallam Street, Aspen,
CO, 81611, USA
223 E Hallam St
715 West Main Street, Suite 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585
PARCEL ID # 273-707-316-008
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT 2 OF 223 E HALLAM
STREET LOT SPLIT
ZONE DISTRICT R-6
12/31/14SD HPC REVIEW
HPC CON. REVISED3/24/15SD
SD 5/7/15 HPC CON. REVISED 2
SD 7/14/15 HPC FINAL REVIEW
SD 7/30/15 HPC FINAL REVIEW 2
P
1
4
8
I
V
.
B
.
1
1
A A
B B
C C
D D
E E
F F
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
C C
40.00 sq ft
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
L
I
N
E
1,550.25 sq ft
487.25 sq ft
LIVABLE FLOOR AREA
GARAGE
DECK
EXEMPT AREA
Floor Area Calculations
223 E Hallam St, Lot 2
Existing Main Level Floor Area Calculations
Main Level Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft)1550.25
Garage Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft)487.25
Garage Floor Area (Sq Ft)112.25 (487.25 - 375)
Main Level Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)1550.25
Garage Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)112.25
Main Level Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)1550.25
Existing Deck/Porch Floor Area Calculations
Front Porch Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft)0.00
Deck Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft)40.00
Exempt Deck Floor Area (Sq Ft)486.00 (3,240 sq ft x 15%)
Deck/Porch Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)0.00
Total Existing Floor Area Calculations
Lower Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)17.55
Main Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)1550.25
Deck/Porch Floor Area (Sq Ft)0.00
Upper Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)1015.50
Total Existing Floor Area (Sq Ft)2,583.30 EXISTING MAIN LEVEL 1/8" = 1'-0"
FAR LEGEND
STRUCTURAL
CONSULTANTS
SURVEYOR
MECHANICAL
COPYRIGHT
CONTRACTOR
CIVIL
SHEET TITLE
7/30/15
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:KPT
1422
FORUM PHI, LLC
Tuttle Surveying Services
727 Blake Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
P: 970.928.9708
F: 970.947.9007
jeff@tss-us.com
Roaring Fork Engingeering
richardg@rfeng.biz
PO Box 9554
Aspen, CO 81611
970.948.7474
Bighorn Consulting Engineers
shawn@bighorneng.com
569 S Westgate Dr #1
Grand Junction CO, 81505
970.241.8709
Albright & Associates
jack@albright-associates.com
402 Park Ave Unit E
Basalt, CO 81621
970.927.4363
TBD
DATE OF PUBLICATION
Z-009X
FLOOR AREA
CALCULATIONS
223 E Hallam Street, Aspen,
CO, 81611, USA
223 E Hallam St
715 West Main Street, Suite 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585
PARCEL ID # 273-707-316-008
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT 2 OF 223 E HALLAM
STREET LOT SPLIT
ZONE DISTRICT R-6
12/31/14SD HPC REVIEW
HPC CON. REVISED3/24/15SD
SD 5/7/15 HPC CON. REVISED 2
SD 7/14/15 HPC FINAL REVIEW
SD 7/30/15 HPC FINAL REVIEW 2
P
1
4
9
I
V
.
B
.
1
1
A A
B B
C C
D D
E E
F F
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
C C
OPEN TO
BELOW
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
L
I
N
E
771.75 sq ft
243.75 sq ft
LIVABLE FLOOR AREA
GARAGE
DECK
EXEMPT AREA
Floor Area Calculations
223 E Hallam St, Lot 2
Existing Upper Level Floor Area Calculations
Upper Level Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft)771.75
Upper Level Garage Floor Area (Sq Ft)243.75
Upper Level Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)1015.50
Total Existing Floor Area Calculations
Lower Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)17.55
Main Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)1550.25
Deck/Porch Floor Area (Sq Ft)0.00
Upper Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)1015.5
Total Existing Floor Area (Sq Ft)2,583.30 EXISTING UPPER LEVEL 1/8" = 1'-0"
FAR LEGEND
STRUCTURAL
CONSULTANTS
SURVEYOR
MECHANICAL
COPYRIGHT
CONTRACTOR
CIVIL
SHEET TITLE
7/30/15
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:KPT
1422
FORUM PHI, LLC
Tuttle Surveying Services
727 Blake Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
P: 970.928.9708
F: 970.947.9007
jeff@tss-us.com
Roaring Fork Engingeering
richardg@rfeng.biz
PO Box 9554
Aspen, CO 81611
970.948.7474
Bighorn Consulting Engineers
shawn@bighorneng.com
569 S Westgate Dr #1
Grand Junction CO, 81505
970.241.8709
Albright & Associates
jack@albright-associates.com
402 Park Ave Unit E
Basalt, CO 81621
970.927.4363
TBD
DATE OF PUBLICATION
Z-010X
FLOOR AREA
CALCULATIONS
223 E Hallam Street, Aspen,
CO, 81611, USA
223 E Hallam St
715 West Main Street, Suite 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585
PARCEL ID # 273-707-316-008
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT 2 OF 223 E HALLAM
STREET LOT SPLIT
ZONE DISTRICT R-6
12/31/14SD HPC REVIEW
HPC CON. REVISED3/24/15SD
SD 5/7/15 HPC CON. REVISED 2
SD 7/14/15 HPC FINAL REVIEW
SD 7/30/15 HPC FINAL REVIEW 2
P
1
5
0
I
V
.
B
.
UP
2
1
x
7
4
1
/
6
4
"
=
1
3
'
-
4
1
/
2
"
1
2
3
4
5
9.00 sq ft
9.00 sq ft
9.00 sq ft
9.00 sq ft
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
L
I
N
E
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
3,817.25 sq ft
1
1
D D
E E
F F
2
2
4
4
5
5
A A
B B
C C
3
3
43'-0"20'-4"4'-0"
56'-10"
13'-10"3'-0"8'-0"3'-0"29'-0"
45'-81/8"
36'-2"
19'-4"3'-0"13'-10"
1'-37/8"41'-0"
11
'
-
0
"
3'
-
0
"
9'
-
6
"
12
'
-
6
"
12
'
-
6
"
3'
-
0
"
9'
-
6
"
12
'
-
6
"
11
'
-
0
"
223.75 sq ft473.00 sq ft
451.00 sq ft14.50 sq ft
44.00 sq ft 710.50 sq ft
28.50 sq ft28.50 sq ft
571.00 sq ft 452.00 sq ft
28.50 sq ft 24.00 sq ft
1.2.3.4.
5.6.7.8.
EXPOSED WALL AREA
WALL BELOW GRADE
LIVABLE FLOOR AREA
GARAGE
DECK
EXEMPT AREA
Floor Area Calculations
223 E Hallam St, Lot 2
Proposed Lower Level Exposed Wall Calculations
Lower Level Wall Label Total Wall Area (Sq Ft)Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)
1 473.00 0.00
2 223.75 0.00
3 44.00 0.00
4 710.50 57.00
5 571.00 0.00
6 452.00 28.50
7 14.50 0.00
8 451.00 24.00
Overall Total Wall Area (Sq Ft)2,939.75
Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)109.50
% of Exposed Wall (Sq Ft) (Exposed / Total)3.72%
Proposed Lower Level Floor Area Calculations
Lower Level Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft)3,817.25
Lower Level Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)142.19
Total Proposed Floor Area Calculations
Lower Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)142.19
Main Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)2108.50
Upper Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)1485.00
Deck/Porch Floor Area (Sq Ft)0.00
Total Proposed Floor Area (Sq Ft)3,735.69
N
PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL 1/8" = 1'-0"
LOWER LEVEL SUBGRADE FILLS 1/8" = 1'-0"
SUGBRADE CALC LEGEND
FAR LEGEND
STRUCTURAL
CONSULTANTS
SURVEYOR
MECHANICAL
COPYRIGHT
CONTRACTOR
CIVIL
SHEET TITLE
7/30/15
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:KPT
1422
FORUM PHI, LLC
Tuttle Surveying Services
727 Blake Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
P: 970.928.9708
F: 970.947.9007
jeff@tss-us.com
Roaring Fork Engingeering
richardg@rfeng.biz
PO Box 9554
Aspen, CO 81611
970.948.7474
Bighorn Consulting Engineers
shawn@bighorneng.com
569 S Westgate Dr #1
Grand Junction CO, 81505
970.241.8709
Albright & Associates
jack@albright-associates.com
402 Park Ave Unit E
Basalt, CO 81621
970.927.4363
TBD
DATE OF PUBLICATION
Z-008
FLOOR AREA
CALCULATIONS
223 E Hallam Street, Aspen,
CO, 81611, USA
223 E Hallam St
715 West Main Street, Suite 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585
PARCEL ID # 273-707-316-008
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT 2 OF 223 E HALLAM
STREET LOT SPLIT
ZONE DISTRICT R-6
12/31/14SD HPC REVIEW
HPC CON. REVISED3/24/15SD
SD 5/7/15 HPC CON. REVISED 2
SD 7/14/15 HPC FINAL REVIEW
SD 7/30/15 HPC FINAL REVIEW 2
P
1
5
1
I
V
.
B
.
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
L
I
N
E
D
W
D
W
1
1
D D
E E
F F
2
2
4
4
5
5
A A
B B
C C
3
3
RG
F
500.00 sq ft
71.50 sq ft
48.00 sq ft
1,983.50 sq ft
FRONT PORCH
PER 26.575
020.D.5
LIVABLE FLOOR AREA
GARAGE
DECK
EXEMPT AREA
Floor Area Calculations
223 E Hallam St, Lot 2
Proposed Main Level Floor Area Calculations
Main Level Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft)1983.50
Garage Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft)500.00
Garage Floor Area (Sq Ft)125.00 (500 - 375)
Main Level Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)1983.50
Garage Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)125.00
Total Main Level Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)2108.50
Proposed Deck/Porch Floor Area Calculations
Front Porch Floor Area (Sq Ft)48.00 Main Level – Exempt
Deck Floor Area (Sq Ft) (Main Level)71.50 Main Level
Deck Floor Area (Sq Ft) (Upper Level)308.00 Upper Level
Total Deck Floor Area (Sq Ft)379.50
Exempt Deck Floor Area (Sq Ft)486.00 (3,240 sq ft x 15%)
Deck/Porch Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)0.00
Total Proposed Floor Area Calculations
Lower Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)142.19
Main Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)2108.50
Upper Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)1485.00
Deck/Porch Floor Area (Sq Ft)0.00
Total Proposed Floor Area (Sq Ft)3,735.69
N
PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL 1/8" = 1'-0"
FAR LEGEND
STRUCTURAL
CONSULTANTS
SURVEYOR
MECHANICAL
COPYRIGHT
CONTRACTOR
CIVIL
SHEET TITLE
7/30/15
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:KPT
1422
FORUM PHI, LLC
Tuttle Surveying Services
727 Blake Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
P: 970.928.9708
F: 970.947.9007
jeff@tss-us.com
Roaring Fork Engingeering
richardg@rfeng.biz
PO Box 9554
Aspen, CO 81611
970.948.7474
Bighorn Consulting Engineers
shawn@bighorneng.com
569 S Westgate Dr #1
Grand Junction CO, 81505
970.241.8709
Albright & Associates
jack@albright-associates.com
402 Park Ave Unit E
Basalt, CO 81621
970.927.4363
TBD
DATE OF PUBLICATION
Z-009
FLOOR AREA
CALCULATIONS
223 E Hallam Street, Aspen,
CO, 81611, USA
223 E Hallam St
715 West Main Street, Suite 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585
PARCEL ID # 273-707-316-008
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT 2 OF 223 E HALLAM
STREET LOT SPLIT
ZONE DISTRICT R-6
12/31/14SD HPC REVIEW
HPC CON. REVISED3/24/15SD
SD 5/7/15 HPC CON. REVISED 2
SD 7/14/15 HPC FINAL REVIEW
SD 7/30/15 HPC FINAL REVIEW 2
P
1
5
2
I
V
.
B
.
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
L
I
N
E
OPEN TO
BELOW
1
1
D D
E E
F F
2
2
4
4
5
5
A A
B B
C C
3
3
108.50 sq ft
537.50 sq ft
199.50 sq ft
947.50 sq Ō
ATTIC EXEMPT
PER 26.575
020.D.3
LIVABLE FLOOR AREA
GARAGE
DECK
EXEMPT AREA
Floor Area Calculations
223 E Hallam St, Lot 2
Proposed Upper Level Floor Area Calculations
Upper Level Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft)1485.00 (537.5 + 947.5)
Upper Level Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)1485.00
Proposed Deck/Porch Floor Area Calculations
Front Porch Floor Area (Sq Ft)48.00 Main Level – Exempt
Deck Floor Area (Sq Ft) (Main Level)71.50 Main Level
Deck Floor Area (Sq Ft) (Upper Level)308.00 Upper Level
Total Deck Floor Area 379.50
Exempt Deck Floor Area (Sq Ft)486.00 (3,240 sq ft x 15%)
Deck/Porch Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)0.00
Total Proposed Floor Area Calculations
Lower Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)142.19
Main Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)2108.50
Upper Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)1485.00
Deck/Porch Floor Area (Sq Ft)0.00
Total Proposed Floor Area (Sq Ft)3,735.69
NN
PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL 1/8" = 1'-0"
FAR LEGEND STRUCTURAL
CONSULTANTS
SURVEYOR
MECHANICAL
COPYRIGHT
CONTRACTOR
CIVIL
SHEET TITLE
7/30/15
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:KPT
1422
FORUM PHI, LLC
Tuttle Surveying Services
727 Blake Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
P: 970.928.9708
F: 970.947.9007
jeff@tss-us.com
Roaring Fork Engingeering
richardg@rfeng.biz
PO Box 9554
Aspen, CO 81611
970.948.7474
Bighorn Consulting Engineers
shawn@bighorneng.com
569 S Westgate Dr #1
Grand Junction CO, 81505
970.241.8709
Albright & Associates
jack@albright-associates.com
402 Park Ave Unit E
Basalt, CO 81621
970.927.4363
TBD
DATE OF PUBLICATION
Z-010
FLOOR AREA
CALCULATIONS
223 E Hallam Street, Aspen,
CO, 81611, USA
223 E Hallam St
715 West Main Street, Suite 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585
PARCEL ID # 273-707-316-008
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT 2 OF 223 E HALLAM
STREET LOT SPLIT
ZONE DISTRICT R-6
12/31/14SD HPC REVIEW
HPC CON. REVISED3/24/15SD
SD 5/7/15 HPC CON. REVISED 2
SD 7/14/15 HPC FINAL REVIEW
SD 7/30/15 HPC FINAL REVIEW 2
P
1
5
3
I
V
.
B
.
CURRENT LOCATION
OF HOUSE
PROPOSED LOCATION
OF HOUSE
POTENTIAL LOCATION OF
HOUSE DURING
CONSTRUCTION TO BE
CONFIRMED BY
STRUCTURAL ENGINEER
AND HOUSE MOVING
CONSULTANT
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
L
I
N
E
7895
7896
7897
N
1 TEMPORARY RELOCATION PLAN 1/8" = 1'-0"
STRUCTURAL
CONSULTANTS
SURVEYOR
MECHANICAL
COPYRIGHT
CONTRACTOR
CIVIL
SHEET TITLE
7/30/15
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:KPT
1422
FORUM PHI, LLC
Tuttle Surveying Services
727 Blake Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
P: 970.928.9708
F: 970.947.9007
jeff@tss-us.com
Roaring Fork Engingeering
richardg@rfeng.biz
PO Box 9554
Aspen, CO 81611
970.948.7474
Bighorn Consulting Engineers
shawn@bighorneng.com
569 S Westgate Dr #1
Grand Junction CO, 81505
970.241.8709
Albright & Associates
jack@albright-associates.com
402 Park Ave Unit E
Basalt, CO 81621
970.927.4363
TBD
DATE OF PUBLICATION
Z-011
TEMPORARY
RELOCATION
223 E Hallam Street, Aspen,
CO, 81611, USA
223 E Hallam St
715 West Main Street, Suite 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585
PARCEL ID # 273-707-316-008
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT 2 OF 223 E HALLAM
STREET LOT SPLIT
ZONE DISTRICT R-6
12/31/14SD HPC REVIEW
HPC CON. REVISED3/24/15SD
SD 5/7/15 HPC CON. REVISED 2
SD 7/14/15 HPC FINAL REVIEW
SD 7/30/15 HPC FINAL REVIEW 2
P
1
5
4
I
V
.
B
.
1
1
A A
B B
C C
D D
E E
F F
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
L
I
N
E
CRAWL
000
2X
Z-202
4X
Z-204
1X
Z-201
3X
Z-203
C
D
W
CD
W
UP
2
1
x
7
4
1
/
6
4
"
=
1
3
'
-
4
1
/
2
"
1
2
3
4
5
1
1
A A
C C
D D
E E
F F
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
B B
80
'
-
2
"
26
'
-
2
1/
2
"
10
'
-
2
"
13
'
-
7
1/
4
"
8'
-
1
0
1/
4
"
21
'
-
4
"
50'-0"
2'-37/8"24'-53/8"8'-33/4"14'-11"
14
'
-
2
"
4'
-
4
"
6'
-
8
"
1'
-
0
1/
2
"
3'
-
3
1/
2
"
6'
-
1
0
1/
2
"
13
'
-
7
1/
4
"
30
'
-
2
1/
4
"
15
'
-
2
"
4'
-
4
"
17
'
-
1
0
1/
2
"
21
'
-
9
1/
2
"
4'
-
4
"
17
'
-
8
"
45'-0"5'-0"
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
L
I
N
E
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
BEDROOM 1
007
BATH 1
008
CLOSET 1
009
BEDROOM 2
011
BATH 2
012
CLOSET 2
013
BEDROOM 3
014
BATH 3
016
BATH 4
018
CLOSET
017
CLOSET 4
020
MECH ROOM
002
LAUNDRY
003
STAIR
010
REC ROOM
001
BAR
006
2
Z-2024
Z-204
1
Z-201
3
Z-203
BEDROOM 4
019
N
1X EXISTING LOWER LEVEL 3/16" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL 3/16" = 1'-0"
STRUCTURAL
CONSULTANTS
SURVEYOR
MECHANICAL
COPYRIGHT
CONTRACTOR
CIVIL
SHEET TITLE
7/30/15
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:KPT
1422
FORUM PHI, LLC
Tuttle Surveying Services
727 Blake Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
P: 970.928.9708
F: 970.947.9007
jeff@tss-us.com
Roaring Fork Engingeering
richardg@rfeng.biz
PO Box 9554
Aspen, CO 81611
970.948.7474
Bighorn Consulting Engineers
shawn@bighorneng.com
569 S Westgate Dr #1
Grand Junction CO, 81505
970.241.8709
Albright & Associates
jack@albright-associates.com
402 Park Ave Unit E
Basalt, CO 81621
970.927.4363
TBD
DATE OF PUBLICATION
Z-101
FLOOR PLANS
223 E Hallam Street, Aspen,
CO, 81611, USA
223 E Hallam St
715 West Main Street, Suite 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585
PARCEL ID # 273-707-316-008
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT 2 OF 223 E HALLAM
STREET LOT SPLIT
ZONE DISTRICT R-6
12/31/14SD HPC REVIEW
HPC CON. REVISED3/24/15SD
SD 5/7/15 HPC CON. REVISED 2
SD 7/14/15 HPC FINAL REVIEW
SD 7/30/15 HPC FINAL REVIEW 2
P
1
5
5
I
V
.
B
.
1
1
A A
C C
D D
E E
F F
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
B B
80
'
-
2
"
26
'
-
2
1/
2
"
10
'
-
2
"
13
'
-
7
1/
4
"
8'
-
1
0
1/
4
"
21
'
-
4
"
3'
-
0
"
14
'
-
2
"
4'
-
4
"
6'
-
8
"
1'
-
0
1/
2
"
3'
-
3
1/
2
"
6'
-
1
0
1/
2
"
13
'
-
7
1/
4
"
8'
-
1
0
1/
4
"
21
'
-
4
"
50'-0"
2'-37/8"24'-53/8"8'-33/4"14'-11"
2'-37/8"1'-4"22'-6"73/8"8'-33/4"14'-11"3'-8"
3'
-
0
"
3'
-
4
1/
2
"
10
'
-
9
1/
2
"
4'
-
4
"
7'
-
8
1/
2
"
10
'
-
2
"
13
'
-
7
1/
4
"
8'
-
1
0
1/
4
"
21
'
-
4
"
1.1
Z-201
2
Z-2024
Z-204
1
Z-201
3
Z-203
2.1
Z-203
104
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
L
I
N
E
UP
GARAGE
107
MUDROOM
106
DINING ROOM
103
LIVING ROOM
102
STAIR
101
ENTRY
100
HALL
104
STAIR
110
D
W
D
W
RG
F
PATIO
PATIO
KITCHEN
108
BREAKFAST ROOM
109
FAMILY ROOM
111
PWDR
105
CD W
CD
W
F
F
RG
RG
1
1
A A
B B
C C
D D
E E
F F
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
2X
Z-202
4X
Z-204
1X
Z-201
3X
Z-203
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
L
I
N
E
HISTORIC
LIVING ROOM
101
BEDROOM
102
BATH
104KITCHEN
103
DINING ROOM
105
LIVING ROOM
106
KITCHEN
107
ENTRY
108
BATH
111
STORAGE
109
CLOSET
110
GARAGE
112
N
2 PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL 3/16" = 1'-0"2X EXISTING MAIN LEVEL 3/16" = 1'-0"
STRUCTURAL
CONSULTANTS
SURVEYOR
MECHANICAL
COPYRIGHT
CONTRACTOR
CIVIL
SHEET TITLE
7/30/15
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:KPT
1422
FORUM PHI, LLC
Tuttle Surveying Services
727 Blake Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
P: 970.928.9708
F: 970.947.9007
jeff@tss-us.com
Roaring Fork Engingeering
richardg@rfeng.biz
PO Box 9554
Aspen, CO 81611
970.948.7474
Bighorn Consulting Engineers
shawn@bighorneng.com
569 S Westgate Dr #1
Grand Junction CO, 81505
970.241.8709
Albright & Associates
jack@albright-associates.com
402 Park Ave Unit E
Basalt, CO 81621
970.927.4363
TBD
DATE OF PUBLICATION
Z-102
FLOOR PLANS
223 E Hallam Street, Aspen,
CO, 81611, USA
223 E Hallam St
715 West Main Street, Suite 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585
PARCEL ID # 273-707-316-008
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT 2 OF 223 E HALLAM
STREET LOT SPLIT
ZONE DISTRICT R-6
12/31/14SD HPC REVIEW
HPC CON. REVISED3/24/15SD
SD 5/7/15 HPC CON. REVISED 2
SD 7/14/15 HPC FINAL REVIEW
SD 7/30/15 HPC FINAL REVIEW 2
P
1
5
6
I
V
.
B
.
1
1
A A
B B
C C
D D
E E
F F
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
2X
Z-202
4X
Z-204
1X
Z-201
3X
Z-203
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
L
I
N
E
HISTORIC
BEDROOM
203
CLOSET
202
BEDROOM
207HALL
201
BATH
204
BEDROOM
205
BEDROOM
206
1
1
A A
C C
D D
E E
F F
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
B B
2
Z-2024
Z-204
1
Z-201
3
Z-203
80
'
-
2
"
26
'
-
2
1/
2
"
10
'
-
2
"
13
'
-
7
1/
4
"
8'
-
1
0
1/
4
"
21
'
-
4
"
2'
-
2
1/
2
"
24
'
-
0
"
3'
-
3
"
6'
-
1
1
"
13
'
-
7
1/
4
"
8'
-
1
0
1/
4
"
21
'
-
4
"
50'-0"
2'-37/8"24'-53/8"8'-33/4"14'-11"
2'-37/8"24'-53/8"8'-01/4"31/2"14'-11"
3'
-
0
"
2'
-
2
1/
2
"
1'
-
2
"
15
'
-
1
1/
4
"
7'
-
8
3/
4
"
10
'
-
2
"
13
'
-
7
1/
4
"
8'
-
1
0
1/
4
"
21
'
-
4
"
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
L
I
N
E
DN
STAIR
210
MASTER BEDROOM
206
MASTER BATHROOM
207
MASTER CLOSET
208
ATTIC
GUEST MASTER BEDROOM
203GUEST MASTER
BATHROOM
205
STAIR
201
DECK
DECK
N
3X EXISTING UPPER LEVEL 3/16" = 1'-0"3 PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL 3/16" = 1'-0"
STRUCTURAL
CONSULTANTS
SURVEYOR
MECHANICAL
COPYRIGHT
CONTRACTOR
CIVIL
SHEET TITLE
7/30/15
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:KPT
1422
FORUM PHI, LLC
Tuttle Surveying Services
727 Blake Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
P: 970.928.9708
F: 970.947.9007
jeff@tss-us.com
Roaring Fork Engingeering
richardg@rfeng.biz
PO Box 9554
Aspen, CO 81611
970.948.7474
Bighorn Consulting Engineers
shawn@bighorneng.com
569 S Westgate Dr #1
Grand Junction CO, 81505
970.241.8709
Albright & Associates
jack@albright-associates.com
402 Park Ave Unit E
Basalt, CO 81621
970.927.4363
TBD
DATE OF PUBLICATION
Z-103
FLOOR PLANS
223 E Hallam Street, Aspen,
CO, 81611, USA
223 E Hallam St
715 West Main Street, Suite 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585
PARCEL ID # 273-707-316-008
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT 2 OF 223 E HALLAM
STREET LOT SPLIT
ZONE DISTRICT R-6
12/31/14SD HPC REVIEW
HPC CON. REVISED3/24/15SD
SD 5/7/15 HPC CON. REVISED 2
SD 7/14/15 HPC FINAL REVIEW
SD 7/30/15 HPC FINAL REVIEW 2
P
1
5
7
I
V
.
B
.
1
1
A A
B B
C C
D D
E E
F F
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
C C
2X
Z-202
4X
Z-204
1X
Z-201
3X
Z-203
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
L
I
N
E
12:12 12:12
12:12
12:12
12:12
12:12 12:12
3:12
1:12
8:12 8:12
5.5:12
5.5:12
10:12 10:12
10:12
10:12
1
1
A A
C C
D D
E E
F F
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
B B
2
Z-2024
Z-204
1
Z-201
3
Z-203
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
L
I
N
E
12:12 12:12
12:12
12:12
12:12
12:12 12:12
.25:12 .25:12
12:12
12:12
12:12
12:12
12:12 12:12
6:12
8:12
1:12
2:12
N
4X EXISTING ROOF PLAN 3/16" = 1'-0"4 PROPOSED ROOF PLAN 3/16" = 1'-0"
STRUCTURAL
CONSULTANTS
SURVEYOR
MECHANICAL
COPYRIGHT
CONTRACTOR
CIVIL
SHEET TITLE
7/30/15
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:KPT
1422
FORUM PHI, LLC
Tuttle Surveying Services
727 Blake Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
P: 970.928.9708
F: 970.947.9007
jeff@tss-us.com
Roaring Fork Engingeering
richardg@rfeng.biz
PO Box 9554
Aspen, CO 81611
970.948.7474
Bighorn Consulting Engineers
shawn@bighorneng.com
569 S Westgate Dr #1
Grand Junction CO, 81505
970.241.8709
Albright & Associates
jack@albright-associates.com
402 Park Ave Unit E
Basalt, CO 81621
970.927.4363
TBD
DATE OF PUBLICATION
Z-104
FLOOR PLANS
223 E Hallam Street, Aspen,
CO, 81611, USA
223 E Hallam St
715 West Main Street, Suite 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585
PARCEL ID # 273-707-316-008
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT 2 OF 223 E HALLAM
STREET LOT SPLIT
ZONE DISTRICT R-6
12/31/14SD HPC REVIEW
HPC CON. REVISED3/24/15SD
SD 5/7/15 HPC CON. REVISED 2
SD 7/14/15 HPC FINAL REVIEW
SD 7/30/15 HPC FINAL REVIEW 2
P
1
5
8
I
V
.
B
.
5 4 3 2 1
LINE OF
SETBACK
@ NORTH
ELEVATION
PROPERTY
LINE @
NORTH
ELEVATION
LINE OF
SETBACK
@ NORTH
ELEVATION
PROPERTY
LINE @
NORTH
ELEVATION
1/3 POINT FROM EAVE TO RIDGE
1/3 POINT FROM EAVE TO
RIDGE
1/3 POINT FROM EAVE TO RIDGE
1/3 POINT FROM EAVE TO
RIDGE
R-6 ZONE DISTRICT
HEIGHT LIMIT 25'
1/3 POINT FROM
EAVE TO RIDGE
EXISTING 4" SIDING TO BE
REPAINTED
EXISTING ROUND SAWN
SHINGLE TO BE REPAINTED
EXISTING WINDOW TRIM TO
BE PAINTED
EXISTING ASPHALT SHINGLE
TO BE REPLACED WITH NEW
ASPHALT SHINGLE
HIST. UPPER LEVEL
T.O. PLY VIF
MAIN LEVEL
T.O. PLY 100'- 0" =
7896'-3"
HIST. MAIN LEVEL
T.O. FF 101'- 5"
18
'
-
7
1/
2
"
23
'
-
2
5/
8
"
23
'
-
5
7/
8
"
23
'
-
9
3/
4
"
12
'
-
1
0
5/
8
"
12
'
-
1
0
5/
8
"
12
'
-
1
0
5/
8
"
HISTORIC STONE FOUNDATION
TO BE PAINTED
UPPER LEVEL
T.O. PLY 111'- 0"
EXISTING RIDGE
127' - 11"
PROPOSED RIDGE
128' - 11/4"
LOWER LEVEL
T.O. SLAB 86'- 0"
1.
2.
12
12
12
12
6.12
12
7.
12
12
4.3.5.
345 2 1
LINE OF
SETBACK
@ NORTH
ELEVATION
PROPERTY
LINE @
NORTH
ELEVATION
LINE OF
SETBACK
@ NORTH
ELEVATION
PROPERTY
LINE @
NORTH
ELEVATION
1/3 POINT FROM EAVE TO RIDGE 1/3 POINT FROM EAVE TO RIDGE R-6 ZONE DISTRICT
HEIGHT LIMIT 25'
INTERPOLATED
SLOPE1/3 POINT
FROM EAVE TO
RIDGE
TOP OF STRUCTURE
PROPOSED ASPHALT
SHINGLE ROOF
PROPOSED CEDAR SHINGLE
TO BE PAINTED
PROPOSED 6" CEDAR SIDING
TO BE PAINTED
PROPOSED PAINTED METAL
CLAD WINDOWS
MAIN LEVEL
T.O. PLY 100'- 0"
= 7896'-6"
HIST. MAIN LEVEL
T.O. FF 101'-5"
23
'
-
7
1/
2
"
24
'
-
6
1/
8
"
PROPOSED BRICK VENEER
FOUNDATION TO BE PAINTED
UPPER LEVEL
T.O. PLY 111'- 0"
LOWER LEVEL
T.O. SLAB 86'- 0"
18.
8
12 12
8
18.
4
12 13.
19.
EXISTING RIDGE
127' - 11"
PROPOSED RIDGE
128' - 11/4"
5 4 3 2 1
TO BE REMOVED
LINE OF
SETBACK
@ NORTH
ELEVATION
PROPERTY
LINE @
NORTH
ELEVATION
LINE OF
SETBACK
@ NORTH
ELEVATION
PROPERTY
LINE @
NORTH
ELEVATION
HIST. MAIN LEVEL
T.O. FF 101'- 5" =
7897'-11"
HIST. CRAWL LEVEL
T.O. SLAB 93'- 21/2"
1
'
-
9
"
HIST. UPPER LEVEL
T.O. PLY 111'- 31/2"
EXISTING RIDGE
127' - 11"
1 PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION 3/16" = 1'-0"1.1 PROPOSED NORTH EAST ELEVATION
1X EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION 3/16" = 1'-0"
STRUCTURAL
CONSULTANTS
SURVEYOR
MECHANICAL
COPYRIGHT
CONTRACTOR
CIVIL
SHEET TITLE
7/30/15
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:KPT
1422
FORUM PHI, LLC
Tuttle Surveying Services
727 Blake Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
P: 970.928.9708
F: 970.947.9007
jeff@tss-us.com
Roaring Fork Engingeering
richardg@rfeng.biz
PO Box 9554
Aspen, CO 81611
970.948.7474
Bighorn Consulting Engineers
shawn@bighorneng.com
569 S Westgate Dr #1
Grand Junction CO, 81505
970.241.8709
Albright & Associates
jack@albright-associates.com
402 Park Ave Unit E
Basalt, CO 81621
970.927.4363
TBD
DATE OF PUBLICATION
Z-201
HEIGHTS
223 E Hallam Street, Aspen,
CO, 81611, USA
223 E Hallam St
715 West Main Street, Suite 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585
PARCEL ID # 273-707-316-008
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT 2 OF 223 E HALLAM
STREET LOT SPLIT
ZONE DISTRICT R-6
12/31/14SD HPC REVIEW
HPC CON. REVISED3/24/15SD
SD 5/7/15 HPC CON. REVISED 2
SD 7/14/15 HPC FINAL REVIEW
SD 7/30/15 HPC FINAL REVIEW 2
P
1
5
9
I
V
.
B
.
A B C D E F
1/3 POINT FROM EAVE TO RIDGE1/3 POINT FROM EAVE TO RIDGE
1/3 POINT FROM EAVE TO RIDGE
LINE OF
SETBACK
@ EAST
ELEVATION
PROPERTY
LINE @
EAST
ELEVATION
LINE OF
SETBACK
@ EAST
ELEVATION
PROPERTY
LINE @
EAST
ELEVATION
R-6 ZONE DISTRICT
HEIGHT LIMIT 25'
TOP-MOST PORTION
TOP-MOST PORTION
PROPOSED 6" CEDAR
SIDING TO BE PAINTED
PROPOSED PAINTED
METAL CLAD WINDOWS
PROPOSED CEDAR
SHINGLE TO BE
PAINTED
PROPOSED ASPHALT
SHINGLE ROOF
HIST. UPPER LEVEL
T.O. PLY VIF
MAIN LEVEL
T.O. PLY 100'- 0" =
7896'-3"
HIST. MAIN LEVEL
T.O. FF 101'- 5"
23
'
-
7
1/
2
"
23
'
-
7
1/
2
"
11
'
-
3
1/
2
"
11
'
-
9
"
PROPOSED BRICK
VENEER FOUNDATION
TO BE PAINTED
17.
12
12
17.
12
12
18.
12
2
19.
20.
12
1
UPPER LEVEL
T.O. PLY 111'- 0"
EXISTING RIDGE
127' - 11"
PROPOSED RIDGE
128' - 11/4"
LOWER LEVEL
T.O. SLAB 86'- 0"
A B C D E F
TO BE REMOVED
TO BE REMOVED
LINE OF
SETBACK
@ EAST
ELEVATION
PROPERTY
LINE @
EAST
ELEVATION
LINE OF
SETBACK
@ EAST
ELEVATION
PROPERTY
LINE @
EAST
ELEVATION
HIST. MAIN LEVEL
T.O. FF 101'- 5" =
7897'-11"
HIST. CRAWL LEVEL
T.O. SLAB 93'- 21/2"
HIST. UPPER LEVEL
T.O. PLY 111'- 31/2"
EXISTING RIDGE
127' - 11"
2 PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION 3/16" = 1'-0"
2X EXISTING EAST ELEVATION 3/16" = 1'-0"
STRUCTURAL
CONSULTANTS
SURVEYOR
MECHANICAL
COPYRIGHT
CONTRACTOR
CIVIL
SHEET TITLE
7/30/15
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:KPT
1422
FORUM PHI, LLC
Tuttle Surveying Services
727 Blake Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
P: 970.928.9708
F: 970.947.9007
jeff@tss-us.com
Roaring Fork Engingeering
richardg@rfeng.biz
PO Box 9554
Aspen, CO 81611
970.948.7474
Bighorn Consulting Engineers
shawn@bighorneng.com
569 S Westgate Dr #1
Grand Junction CO, 81505
970.241.8709
Albright & Associates
jack@albright-associates.com
402 Park Ave Unit E
Basalt, CO 81621
970.927.4363
TBD
DATE OF PUBLICATION
Z-202
HEIGHTS
223 E Hallam Street, Aspen,
CO, 81611, USA
223 E Hallam St
715 West Main Street, Suite 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585
PARCEL ID # 273-707-316-008
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT 2 OF 223 E HALLAM
STREET LOT SPLIT
ZONE DISTRICT R-6
12/31/14SD HPC REVIEW
HPC CON. REVISED3/24/15SD
SD 5/7/15 HPC CON. REVISED 2
SD 7/14/15 HPC FINAL REVIEW
SD 7/30/15 HPC FINAL REVIEW 2
P
1
6
0
I
V
.
B
.
1 2 3 4 5
1/3 POINT FROM EAVE TO RIDGE
1/3 POINT FROM EAVE TO RIDGE
SEE PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION DRAWING
1.1 SHEET Z-201 FOR HEIGHT MEASUREMENT
LINE OF
SETBACK
@ SOUTH
ELEVATION
PROPERTY
LINE @
SOUTH
ELEVATION
LINE OF
SETBACK
@ SOUTH
ELEVATION
PROPERTY
LINE @
SOUTH
ELEVATION
R-6 ZONE DISTRICT
HEIGHT LIMIT 25'
PROPOSED ASPHALT
SHINGLE ROOF
PROPOSED CEDAR SHINGLE
TO BE PAINTED
PROPOSED PAINTED METAL
CLAD WINDOWS
PROPOSED 6" CEDAR SIDING
TO BE PAINTED
HIST. UPPER LEVEL
T.O. PLY VIF
MAIN LEVEL
T.O. PLY 100'- 0" =
7896'-3"
HIST. MAIN LEVEL
T.O. FF 101'- 5"
PROPOSED BRICK VENEER
FOUNDATION TO BE PAINTED
12
12
18.18.
12
12
UPPER LEVEL
T.O. PLY 111'- 0"
EXISTING RIDGE
127' - 11"
PROPOSED RIDGE
128' - 11/4"
LOWER LEVEL
T.O. SLAB 86'- 0"
1 2 3 4 5
TO BE REMOVED
TO BE REMOVED
LINE OF
SETBACK
@ SOUTH
ELEVATION
PROPERTY
LINE @
SOUTH
ELEVATION
LINE OF
SETBACK
@ SOUTH
ELEVATION
PROPERTY
LINE @
SOUTH
ELEVATION
HIST. MAIN LEVEL
T.O. FF 101'- 5" =
7897'-11"
HIST. CRAWL LEVEL
T.O. SLAB 93'- 21/2"
HIST. UPPER LEVEL
T.O. PLY 111'- 31/2"
EXISTING RIDGE
127' - 11"
C D E F
1/3 POINT FROM EAVE TO RIDGE
1/3 POINT FROM EAVE TO RIDGE1/3 POINT FROM EAVE TO RIDGE
1/3 POINT FROM EAVE TO RIDGE
TOP MOST PORTION OF STRUCTURETOP MOST PORTION OF STRUCTURE
PROPOSED ASPHALT
SHINGLE ROOF
PROPOSED CEDAR SHINGLE
TO BE PAINTED
PROPOSED 6" CEDAR SIDING
TO BE PAINTED
PROPOSED PAINTED METAL
CLAD WINDOWS
MAIN LEVEL
T.O. PLY 100'- 0"
= 7896'-6"
HIST. MAIN LEVEL
T.O. FF 101'- 5"
MAIN LEVEL
T.O. PLY 100'- 0"
= 7896'-6"
18
'
-
7
3/
8
"
23
'
-
5
7/
8
"
17
'
-
1
1
1/
2
"
10
'
-
1
0
5/
8
"
12
'
-
0
1/
2
"
PROPOSED BRICK VENEER
FOUNDATION TO BE PAINTED
LOWER LEVEL
T.O. SLAB 86'- 0"
UPPER LEVEL
T.O. PLY 111'- 0"
1.12
12
12
12
6.
12
12
6.
9.12
12
11.12
1
10.12
1
EXISTING RIDGE
127' - 11"
PROPOSED RIDGE
128' - 11/4"
3 PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION 3/16" = 1'-0"
3X EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION 3/16" = 1'-0"
2.1 PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION 3/16" = 1'-0"
STRUCTURAL
CONSULTANTS
SURVEYOR
MECHANICAL
COPYRIGHT
CONTRACTOR
CIVIL
SHEET TITLE
7/30/15
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:KPT
1422
FORUM PHI, LLC
Tuttle Surveying Services
727 Blake Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
P: 970.928.9708
F: 970.947.9007
jeff@tss-us.com
Roaring Fork Engingeering
richardg@rfeng.biz
PO Box 9554
Aspen, CO 81611
970.948.7474
Bighorn Consulting Engineers
shawn@bighorneng.com
569 S Westgate Dr #1
Grand Junction CO, 81505
970.241.8709
Albright & Associates
jack@albright-associates.com
402 Park Ave Unit E
Basalt, CO 81621
970.927.4363
TBD
DATE OF PUBLICATION
Z-203
HEIGHTS
223 E Hallam Street, Aspen,
CO, 81611, USA
223 E Hallam St
715 West Main Street, Suite 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585
PARCEL ID # 273-707-316-008
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT 2 OF 223 E HALLAM
STREET LOT SPLIT
ZONE DISTRICT R-6
12/31/14SD HPC REVIEW
HPC CON. REVISED3/24/15SD
SD 5/7/15 HPC CON. REVISED 2
SD 7/14/15 HPC FINAL REVIEW
SD 7/30/15 HPC FINAL REVIEW 2
P
1
6
1
I
V
.
B
.
TOP MOST
PORTION OF
STRUCTURE
F E D C B A
1/2 POINT FROM EAVE TO RIDGE
1/3 POINT FROM EAVE TO RIDGE
TOP OF TRELLIS
1/3 POINT FROM EAVE TO RIDGE
1/3 POINT FROM EAVE TO RIDGE
LINE OF
SETBACK
@ WEST
ELEVATION
PROPERTY
LINE @
WEST
ELEVATION
LINE OF
SETBACK
@ WEST
ELEVATION
PROPERTY
LINE @
WEST
ELEVATION
R-6 ZONE DISTRICT
HEIGHT LIMIT 25'
1/3 POINT FROM EAVE TO RIDGEEXISTING ASPHALT SHINGLE
TO BE REPLACED WITH
NEW ASPHALT SHINGLE
EXISTING 4" SIDING TO BE
REPAINTED
EXISTING WINDOW TRIM TO
BE PAINTED
EXISTING ROUND SAWN
SHINGLE TO BE REPAINTED
PROPOSED ASPHALT
SHINGLE ROOF
PROPOSED CEDAR
SHINGLE TO BE PAINTED
PROPOSED PAINTED METAL
CLAD WINDOWS
PROPOSED 6" CEDAR
SIDING TO BE PAINTED
HIST. UPPER LEVEL
T.O. PLY VIF
MAIN LEVEL
T.O. PLY 100'- 0" =
7896'-3"
HIST. MAIN LEVEL
T.O. FF 101'- 5"
2
0
'
-
8
3/
4
"
24
'
-
6
1/
8
"
2
4
'
-
9
3/
8
"
23
'
-
9
3/
8
"
2
3
'
-
3
1/
2
"
14
'
-
8
3/
4
"
1
2
'
-
1
0
1/
2
"
11
'
-
7
1/
4
"
1/3 POINT FROM EAVE TO RIDGE
1/3 POINT FROM EAVE TO
RIDGE
HISTORIC STONE FOUNDATION
TO BE PAINTED
PROPOSED BRICK VENEER
FOUNDATION TO BE PAINTED
6
12
12
8
12
12
13.
14.
15.
12.
16.
7.12
12
8.
14.12
12
UPPER LEVEL
T.O. PLY 111'- 0"
EXISTING RIDGE
127' - 11"
PROPOSED RIDGE
128' - 11/4"
LOWER LEVEL
T.O. SLAB 86'- 0"
F E D C B A
TO BE REMOVED
TO BE REMOVED
TO BE REMOVED
LINE OF
SETBACK
@ WEST
ELEVATION
PROPERTY
LINE @
WEST
ELEVATION
LINE OF
SETBACK
@ WEST
ELEVATION
PROPERTY
LINE @
WEST
ELEVATION
HIST. MAIN LEVEL
T.O. FF 101'- 5" =
7897'-11"
HIST. CRAWL LEVEL
T.O. SLAB 93'- 21/2"
HIST. UPPER LEVEL
T.O. PLY 111'- 31/2"
EXISTING RIDGE
127' - 11"
4 PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION 3/16" = 1'-0"
4X EXISTING WEST ELEVATION 3/16" = 1'-0"
STRUCTURAL
CONSULTANTS
SURVEYOR
MECHANICAL
COPYRIGHT
CONTRACTOR
CIVIL
SHEET TITLE
7/30/15
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:KPT
1422
FORUM PHI, LLC
Tuttle Surveying Services
727 Blake Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
P: 970.928.9708
F: 970.947.9007
jeff@tss-us.com
Roaring Fork Engingeering
richardg@rfeng.biz
PO Box 9554
Aspen, CO 81611
970.948.7474
Bighorn Consulting Engineers
shawn@bighorneng.com
569 S Westgate Dr #1
Grand Junction CO, 81505
970.241.8709
Albright & Associates
jack@albright-associates.com
402 Park Ave Unit E
Basalt, CO 81621
970.927.4363
TBD
DATE OF PUBLICATION
Z-204
HEIGHTS
223 E Hallam Street, Aspen,
CO, 81611, USA
223 E Hallam St
715 West Main Street, Suite 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585
PARCEL ID # 273-707-316-008
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT 2 OF 223 E HALLAM
STREET LOT SPLIT
ZONE DISTRICT R-6
12/31/14SD HPC REVIEW
HPC CON. REVISED3/24/15SD
SD 5/7/15 HPC CON. REVISED 2
SD 7/14/15 HPC FINAL REVIEW
SD 7/30/15 HPC FINAL REVIEW 2
P
1
6
2
I
V
.
B
.
2
Z-2024
Z-204
1
Z-201
3
Z-203
23'-71/2"23'-71/2"
23'-31/2"
23'-31/2"
23'-31/2"23'-31/2"
24'-61/2"
11'-71/4"
11'-9"
11'-31/2"
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
L
I
N
E
7895
7896
7897
1
1
D D
E E
F F
2
2
4
4
5
5
A A
B B
C C
3
3
24'-93/8"
24-01/4"
20'-117/8"
10'-105/8"
23'-93/8"
18'-71/2"23'-25/8"
23'-57/8"
23'-57/8"
14'-83/4"17'-111/2"
12'-105/8"
12'-105/8"12'-105/8"
12'-01/2"
23'-31/2"
12:12 12:12
12:12
12:12
12:12
12:12 12:12
.25:12 .25:12
12:12
12:12
12:12
12:12
12:12 12:12
6:12
8:12
1:12
2:12
1.2.
5.
4.
3.
6.7.
8.9.10.
11.
18.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
1212
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
1
12
1
12
1
12
6
12
8
12 18.12
12
12
12
12
12
19.
2
12
20.
1
12
Height Over Topography
223 E Hallam St, Lot 2
Elevation Label Elevation of Natural Grade Elevation of Proposed Grade Most Restrictive
Roof Height over
Topography
Actual Roof Height over Most
Restrictive
1 7895'-2 1/4"7895'-2 1/4"Natural 7913'-9 3/4"18'-7 1/2"
2 7895'-0”7895'-0”Natural 7918'-2 5/8"23'-2 5/8"
3 7895'-0”7895'-0”Natural 7907'-10 5/8"12'-10 5/8"
4 7895'-0”7895'-0”Natural 7907'-10 5/8"12'-10 5/8"
5 7895'-1”7895'-1”Natural 7907'-11 5/8"12'-10 5/8"
6 7895'-5 1/4"7895'-5 1/4"Natural 7918'-11 1/8"23'-5 7/8"
7 7895'-1 1/4"7895'-1 1/4"Natural 7918'-10 5/8"23'-9 3/8"
8 7895'-4”7895'-4”Natural 7910'-0 3/4"14'-8 3/4"
9 7895'-5 3/4"7895'-5 3/4"Natural 7913'-5 1/4"17'-11 1/2"
10 7895'-5 3/4"7895'-5 3/4"Natural 7907'-6 1/4"12'-0 1/2"
11 7895'-10 3/4”7895'-10 3/4”Natural 7906'-9 3/8"10'-10 5/8"
12 7895'-10 1/4”7895'-10 1/4”Natural 7916'-10 1/8"20'-11 7/8"
13 7895'-10 1/4”7895'-10 1/4”Natural 7920'-4 3/8"24'-6 1/8"
14 7896'-1 3/4”7896'-1 3/4”Natural 7919'-5 1/4"23'-3 1/2"
15 7896'-1 3/4”7896'-1 3/4”Natural 7920'-11 1/8"24'-9 3/8"
16 7896'-0”7896'-0”Natural 7907'-7 1/4"11'-7 1/4"
17 7896'-0”7896'-0”Natural 7919'-3 1/2"23'-3 1/2"
18 7896'-0”7896'-0”Natural 7919'-7 1/2"23'-7 1/2"
19 7895'-8 1/2 7895'-8 1/2 Natural 7907'-5 1/2"11'-9"
20 7896'-0”7896'-0”Natural 7907'-3 1/2"11'-3 1/2"
N
1 PROPOSED ROOF TOPOGRAPHY 3/16" = 1'-0"
STRUCTURAL
CONSULTANTS
SURVEYOR
MECHANICAL
COPYRIGHT
CONTRACTOR
CIVIL
SHEET TITLE
7/30/15
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:KPT
1422
FORUM PHI, LLC
Tuttle Surveying Services
727 Blake Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
P: 970.928.9708
F: 970.947.9007
jeff@tss-us.com
Roaring Fork Engingeering
richardg@rfeng.biz
PO Box 9554
Aspen, CO 81611
970.948.7474
Bighorn Consulting Engineers
shawn@bighorneng.com
569 S Westgate Dr #1
Grand Junction CO, 81505
970.241.8709
Albright & Associates
jack@albright-associates.com
402 Park Ave Unit E
Basalt, CO 81621
970.927.4363
TBD
DATE OF PUBLICATION
Z-206
HEIGHT OVER
TOPOGRAPHY
223 E Hallam Street, Aspen,
CO, 81611, USA
223 E Hallam St
715 West Main Street, Suite 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585
PARCEL ID # 273-707-316-008
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT 2 OF 223 E HALLAM
STREET LOT SPLIT
ZONE DISTRICT R-6
12/31/14SD HPC REVIEW
HPC CON. REVISED3/24/15SD
SD 5/7/15 HPC CON. REVISED 2
SD 7/14/15 HPC FINAL REVIEW
SD 7/30/15 HPC FINAL REVIEW 2
P
1
6
3
I
V
.
B
.
5 4 3 2 1
LINE OF
SETBACK
@ NORTH
ELEVATION
PROPERTY
LINE @
NORTH
ELEVATION
LINE OF
SETBACK
@ NORTH
ELEVATION
PROPERTY
LINE @
NORTH
ELEVATION
EXISTING 4" SIDING TO BE
REPAINTED
EXISTING ROUND SAWN
SHINGLE TO BE REPAINTED
EXISTING WINDOW TRIM TO
BE PAINTED
EXISTING ASPHALT SHINGLE
TO BE REPLACED WITH NEW
ASPHALT SHINGLE
HIST. UPPER LEVEL
T.O. PLY VIF
MAIN LEVEL
T.O. PLY 100'- 0" =
7896'-3"
HIST. MAIN LEVEL
T.O. FF 101'- 5"
HISTORIC STONE FOUNDATION
TO BE PAINTED
UPPER LEVEL
T.O. PLY 111'- 0"
EXISTING RIDGE
127' - 11"
PROPOSED RIDGE
128' - 11/4"
LOWER LEVEL
T.O. SLAB 86'- 0"
1 PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0"
STRUCTURAL
CONSULTANTS
SURVEYOR
MECHANICAL
COPYRIGHT
CONTRACTOR
CIVIL
SHEET TITLE
7/30/15
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:KPT
1422
FORUM PHI, LLC
Tuttle Surveying Services
727 Blake Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
P: 970.928.9708
F: 970.947.9007
jeff@tss-us.com
Roaring Fork Engingeering
richardg@rfeng.biz
PO Box 9554
Aspen, CO 81611
970.948.7474
Bighorn Consulting Engineers
shawn@bighorneng.com
569 S Westgate Dr #1
Grand Junction CO, 81505
970.241.8709
Albright & Associates
jack@albright-associates.com
402 Park Ave Unit E
Basalt, CO 81621
970.927.4363
TBD
DATE OF PUBLICATION
Z-207
HEIGHTS
223 E Hallam Street, Aspen,
CO, 81611, USA
223 E Hallam St
715 West Main Street, Suite 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585
PARCEL ID # 273-707-316-008
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT 2 OF 223 E HALLAM
STREET LOT SPLIT
ZONE DISTRICT R-6
12/31/14SD HPC REVIEW
HPC CON. REVISED3/24/15SD
SD 5/7/15 HPC CON. REVISED 2
SD 7/14/15 HPC FINAL REVIEW
SD 7/30/15 HPC FINAL REVIEW 2
P
1
6
4
I
V
.
B
.
EXISTING ROUND SAWN SHINGLE
TO BE PAINTED
PROPOSED CEDAR SHINGLE SIDING
EXISTING HORIZONTAL SIDING TO
BE PAINTED WHITE
PROPOSED HORIZONTAL CEDAR
SIDING
EXISTING ASPHALT ROOF MATERIAL
TO BE REPLACED
PROPOSED ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF
MATERIAL
PROPOSED MATERIALS:
ADDITION
PROPOSED MATERIALS:
HISTORIC RESOURCE
EXISTING HORIZONTAL SIDING TO
BE PAINTED WHITE
EXISTING FOUNDATION MATERIAL
TO BE PAINTED
PROPOSED FOUNDATION VENEER
MATERIAL
PROPOSED MATERIALS
PROPOSED PAINTED METAL CLAD
WINDOWS
STRUCTURAL
CONSULTANTS
SURVEYOR
MECHANICAL
COPYRIGHT
CONTRACTOR
CIVIL
SHEET TITLE
7/30/15
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:KPT
1422
FORUM PHI, LLC
Tuttle Surveying Services
727 Blake Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
P: 970.928.9708
F: 970.947.9007
jeff@tss-us.com
Roaring Fork Engingeering
richardg@rfeng.biz
PO Box 9554
Aspen, CO 81611
970.948.7474
Bighorn Consulting Engineers
shawn@bighorneng.com
569 S Westgate Dr #1
Grand Junction CO, 81505
970.241.8709
Albright & Associates
jack@albright-associates.com
402 Park Ave Unit E
Basalt, CO 81621
970.927.4363
TBD
DATE OF PUBLICATION
Z-208
MATERIALS
223 E Hallam Street, Aspen,
CO, 81611, USA
223 E Hallam St
715 West Main Street, Suite 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585
PARCEL ID # 273-707-316-008
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT 2 OF 223 E HALLAM
STREET LOT SPLIT
ZONE DISTRICT R-6
12/31/14SD HPC REVIEW
HPC CON. REVISED3/24/15SD
SD 5/7/15 HPC CON. REVISED 2
SD 7/14/15 HPC FINAL REVIEW
SD 7/30/15 HPC FINAL REVIEW 2
P
1
6
5
I
V
.
B
.
E HALLAM STREET - LOOKING SOUTH
E HALLAM STREET - LOOKING NORTH
ALLEY BLOCK 72 - LOOKING NORTH
ALLEY BLOCK 72 - LOOKING SOUTH
PROJECT SITE PROJECT SITE
PROJECT SITE
STRUCTURAL
CONSULTANTS
SURVEYOR
MECHANICAL
COPYRIGHT
CONTRACTOR
CIVIL
SHEET TITLE
7/30/15
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:KPT
1422
FORUM PHI, LLC
Tuttle Surveying Services
727 Blake Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
P: 970.928.9708
F: 970.947.9007
jeff@tss-us.com
Roaring Fork Engingeering
richardg@rfeng.biz
PO Box 9554
Aspen, CO 81611
970.948.7474
Bighorn Consulting Engineers
shawn@bighorneng.com
569 S Westgate Dr #1
Grand Junction CO, 81505
970.241.8709
Albright & Associates
jack@albright-associates.com
402 Park Ave Unit E
Basalt, CO 81621
970.927.4363
TBD
DATE OF PUBLICATION
Z-209
STREETSCAPE
223 E Hallam Street, Aspen,
CO, 81611, USA
223 E Hallam St
715 West Main Street, Suite 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585
PARCEL ID # 273-707-316-008
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT 2 OF 223 E HALLAM
STREET LOT SPLIT
ZONE DISTRICT R-6
12/31/14SD HPC REVIEW
HPC CON. REVISED3/24/15SD
SD 5/7/15 HPC CON. REVISED 2
SD 7/14/15 HPC FINAL REVIEW
SD 7/30/15 HPC FINAL REVIEW 2
P
1
6
6
I
V
.
B
.
5'-0"
5
'
-
0
"
1'-4"
7'-031/64"
7'-37/8"
7'-37/8"
LINE OF
EXTERIOR
WALL
EXISTING HISTORIC
FENCE TO BE
RELOCATED TO
PROPERTY LINE
6' PRIVACY FENCE TO
BE LOCATED BEHIND
FRONT FACADE OF
ADDITION PER
26.575.020.E.5.p
LIGHTWELL TO
EXTEND INTO
SETBACK PER
26.575.020.E.5.i; SEE
LOWER LEVEL FLOOR
PLAN SHEET Z-101
FOR DIMS
LIGHTWELL TO
EXTEND INTO
SETBACK PER
26.575.020.E.5.i; SEE
LOWER LEVEL FLOOR
PLAN SHEET Z-101
FOR DIMS
EXTENT OF
LOWER
LEVEL
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
L
I
N
E
7895
7896
7897
FR
O
N
T
Y
A
R
D
SE
T
B
A
C
K
SIDE
YARD
SET-
BACK
SIDE
YARD
SET-
BACK
SIDE
YARD
SET-
BACK
R
E
A
R
YA
R
D
S
E
T
-
BA
C
K
E HALLAM STREET
LOT 1 OF 223 E HALLAM
STREET LOT SPLIT
225 E HALLAM
STREET
ALLEY BLOCK 72
LEGAL ADDRESS:
LOT 2 OF 223 E HALLAM
STREET LOT SPLIT
ZONE DISTRICT : R-6
LOT SIZE: 6,000 SQFT SQFT
PROJECT ZERO: 7896'-6"
PLANTER
PLANTERPLANTER
PLANTER
ALLEY BLOCK 72
E HALLAM STREET
PATIO
DRIVEWAY PATIO
DECK
DECK
PROPOSED ASPEN TREE
PROPOSED SMALL
VEGETATION
LANDSCAPE LEGEND
PROPOSED EXTERIOR
SCONCE
PROPOSED PLANTER
8'-10"
1
0
'
-
0
"
6'-2"
10
'
-
0
"
5
'
-
0
"
LINE OF
EXTERIOR
WALL
LEGAL ADDRESS:
LOT 2 OF 223 E HALLAM
STREET LOT SPLIT
ZONE DISTRICT : R-6
LOT SIZE: 6,000 SQFT
SQFT
PROJECT ZERO: 7896'-6"
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
L
I
N
E
F
R
O
N
T
Y
A
R
D
SE
T
B
A
C
K
SIDE YARD
SETBACK
RE
A
R
Y
A
R
D
SE
T
B
A
C
K
[P
R
I
N
C
I
P
L
E
ST
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
]
R
E
A
R
YA
R
D
SE
T
-
BA
C
K
[G
A
R
A
G
E
]
SIDE
YARD
SET-
BACK
E HALLAM STREET
LOT 1 OF 223 E HALLAM
STREET LOT SPLIT 225 E HALLAM
STREET
ALLEY BLOCK 72
N
1 PROPOSED LANDSCAPE 1/8" = 1'-0"EXISTING LANDSCAPE 1/8" = 1'-0"
STRUCTURAL
CONSULTANTS
SURVEYOR
MECHANICAL
COPYRIGHT
CONTRACTOR
CIVIL
SHEET TITLE
7/30/15
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:KPT
1422
FORUM PHI, LLC
Tuttle Surveying Services
727 Blake Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
P: 970.928.9708
F: 970.947.9007
jeff@tss-us.com
Roaring Fork Engingeering
richardg@rfeng.biz
PO Box 9554
Aspen, CO 81611
970.948.7474
Bighorn Consulting Engineers
shawn@bighorneng.com
569 S Westgate Dr #1
Grand Junction CO, 81505
970.241.8709
Albright & Associates
jack@albright-associates.com
402 Park Ave Unit E
Basalt, CO 81621
970.927.4363
TBD
DATE OF PUBLICATION
Z-301
LANDSCAPE PLAN
223 E Hallam Street, Aspen,
CO, 81611, USA
223 E Hallam St
715 West Main Street, Suite 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585
PARCEL ID # 273-707-316-008
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT 2 OF 223 E HALLAM
STREET LOT SPLIT
ZONE DISTRICT R-6
12/31/14SD HPC REVIEW
HPC CON. REVISED3/24/15SD
SD 5/7/15 HPC CON. REVISED 2
SD 7/14/15 HPC FINAL REVIEW
SD 7/30/15 HPC FINAL REVIEW 2
P
1
6
7
I
V
.
B
.
Fixture Type:
Catalog Number:
Project:
Location:
WAC Lighting retains the right to modify the design of our products at any time as part of the company's continuous improvement program. JuL 2014
Modern Forms – A WAC Lighting Company
www.modernforms.com
Phone (800) 526.2588 • Fax (800) 526.2585
Headquarters/Eastern Distribution Center
44 Harbor Park Drive • Port Washington, NY 11050
Phone (516) 515.5000 • Fax (516) 515.5050
Western Distribution Center
1750 Archibald Avenue • Ontario, CA 91760
Phone (800) 526.2588 • Fax (800) 526.2585
SUSPENSE – model: WS-W19
LED Outdoor
FEATURES
• ETL & cETL listed for wet locations
• Dark sky friendly
• Universal driver (120V, 220V, 277V) only for WS-W1917*
• Twist lock glass for minimal hardware
• Integral transformer in canopy
• Replaceable LED module
• 277V option available for WS-W1911 and WS-W1915 only special order
• 70,000 hour potential life
• Color Temp: 3000K
• CRI: 90
PRODUCT DESCRIPTION
Giving the proverbial nod to tradition, it takes a powerful LED to pull off this look in a dark sky design. This contemporary lantern showcases a mouth blown clear
glass element and is equipped with state of the art LEDs for a filament-free design. Couple your passion for living with our passion for lighting.
SPECIFICATIONS
Construction: Aluminum with a thick, mouth blown clear glass element.
Light Source: High output LED.
Dimming: Dims to 10% with an electronic low voltage (ELV) dimmer.
Mounting: Mounts directly to junction box.
Finish: Brushed Aluminum (AL), Bronze (BZ).
WS-W19 –
Example: WS-W1915-AL
ORDER NUMBER
Model Height Width Watt Voltage
LED
Lumens
Delivered
Lumens Finish
WS-W19
11 11"8"11W 120V 860 590
AL
BZ
Brushed Aluminum
Bronze1515"10"11W 120V 860 625
17 17"14"11W universal*1050 835
10" - 12" - 16"8" - 10" - 14"
11" - 15" - 17"
For 277V special order, add an “F” before the finish: WS-W1915F-AL
Suspense Spec Sheet 1' = 1'-0"
STRUCTURAL
CONSULTANTS
SURVEYOR
MECHANICAL
COPYRIGHT
CONTRACTOR
CIVIL
SHEET TITLE
7/30/15
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:KPT
1422
FORUM PHI, LLC
Tuttle Surveying Services
727 Blake Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
P: 970.928.9708
F: 970.947.9007
jeff@tss-us.com
Roaring Fork Engingeering
richardg@rfeng.biz
PO Box 9554
Aspen, CO 81611
970.948.7474
Bighorn Consulting Engineers
shawn@bighorneng.com
569 S Westgate Dr #1
Grand Junction CO, 81505
970.241.8709
Albright & Associates
jack@albright-associates.com
402 Park Ave Unit E
Basalt, CO 81621
970.927.4363
TBD
DATE OF PUBLICATION
Z-302
LIGHTING SPECS
223 E Hallam Street, Aspen,
CO, 81611, USA
223 E Hallam St
715 West Main Street, Suite 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585
PARCEL ID # 273-707-316-008
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT 2 OF 223 E HALLAM
STREET LOT SPLIT
ZONE DISTRICT R-6
12/31/14SD HPC REVIEW
HPC CON. REVISED3/24/15SD
SD 5/7/15 HPC CON. REVISED 2
SD 7/14/15 HPC FINAL REVIEW
SD 7/30/15 HPC FINAL REVIEW 2
P
1
6
8
I
V
.
B
.