HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.HPC.202012091
AGENDA
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
December 9, 2020
4:30 PM,
WEBEX
Go to: www.webex.com Click "Join" at the top right-hand corner
Enter Meeting Number 126 606 4649
Password provided 81611
Click "Join Meeting"
OR
Join by phone
Call: 1-408-418-9388
Meeting number (access code): 126 606 4649#
I.SITE VISIT
II.ROLL CALL
III.MINUTES
III.A.Minutes Nov 11 and 18
minutes.hpc.20201118.pdf
minutes.hpc.20201111.pdf
IV.PUBLIC COMMENTS
V.COMMISSIONER MEMBER COMMENTS
VI.DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
VII.PROJECT MONITORING
VIII.STAFF COMMENTS
IX.CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT ISSUED
X.CALL UP REPORTS
XI.SUBMIT PUBLIC NOTICE FOR AGENDA ITEMS
1
2
XII.OLD BUSINESS
XIII.NEW BUSINESS
XIII.A.227 E. Bleeker Street - Conceptual Major Development, Relocation, Setback
Variations and Floor Area Bonus, PUBLIC HEARING
227_E_Bleeker_Memo_2020_12_09.pdf
227_E_Bleeker_Resolution_DRAFT.pdf
ExhibitA.1_HPGuidelinesCriteria.pdf
ExhibitA.2_RelocationCriteria.pdf
ExhibitA.3_SetbackVariationCriteria.pdf
ExhibitA.4_FloorAreaBonus.pdf
ExhibitB_ReferralComments.pdf
ExhibitC_Application_2020_12_09.pdf
XIV.ADJOURN
XV.NEXT RESOLUTION NUMBER
Typical Proceeding Format for All Public Hearings
1)Conflicts of Interest (handled at beginning of agenda)
2) Provide proof of legal notice (affidavit of notice for PH)
3) Staff presentation
4) Board questions and clarifications of staff
5) Applicant presentation
6) Board questions and clarifications of applicant
7) Public comments
8)Board questions and clarifications relating to public comments
9) Close public comment portion of bearing
10) Staff rebuttal/clarification of evidence presented by applicant and public comment
11) Applicant rebuttal/clarification
End of fact finding.
Deliberation by the commission commences.
No further interaction between commission and staff, applicant or public
12) Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed among commissioners.
13) Discussion between commissioners*
14) Motion*
*Make sure the discussion and motion includes what criteria are met or not met.
Revised April 2, 2014
2
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER11, 2020
Chairperson Greenwood opened the special meeting at 4:30 p.m.
Commissioners in attendance: Jeffrey Halferty, Kara Thompson, Scott Kendrick, Roger Moyer,
Sherri Sanzone, Gretchen Greenwood.
Commissioners not in attendance:
Staff present:
Amy Simon, Interim Planning Director/Historic Preservation Officer
Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner
Jim True, City Attorney
Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney
Wes Graham, Deputy City Clerk
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
PUBLIC COMMENT: None
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: None
DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT: Ms. Sanzone stated that she has a conflict with the second
agenda item 211 West Hopkins.
PROJECT MONITORING: Ms. Simon stated that there has been a lot of project monitoring
happening and she has been in direct communication with the monitors.
Ms. Yoon stated that she will be reaching out to her monitors with details on a project.
NEW BUSINESS: None
OLD BUSINESS: 500 W. Main Street- Final Major Development. John Rowland and Dana
Ellis of Rowland + Broughton.
Mr. Rowland stated that there was concern at the last meeting about the proportion in relation to
the front covered porch. Mr. Rowland showed a rendering of the new proposed porch with added
articulation. He pointed out that the deck has a tiered element to break up the visual of a large
bulkhead. Mr. Rowland said while walking through the West End studying the porches and what
makes them stick out, it was the dentil veil that sits up under the covered patio. Mr. Rowland
stated that the new plan has lowered the building by a foot. He said that the front patio window
will be a simple frame and no-frill, he added that all the windows will be stained wood.
Ms. Ellis stated that they change the plan of a heavy band around the profile of the gable to an
articulation of steps in the profile with a more traditional gable treatment. She further explained
that the new plan gives a shadow line to the front façade otherwise reading as very
contemporary. Ms. Ellis said that in the landscaping plan the lilac bushes that sit along the
property line were given a great focus for preservation and they also create a nice buffer between
properties. Ms. Ellis stated that they will be adding trees along the same property line to create a
screening element. Mr. Rowland pointed out that the lilac bushes do not sit on the 500 W. Main
property, they sit on the next-door neighbor’s property. He further stated that the neighbors have
voiced concern about protecting the lilacs at all costs. Ms. Ellis stated that there will be a stone
walkway and patio to the front of the building. She explained the stone would be a cut face large
format light gray. Ms. Ellis stated that on the second floor there are two green roof elements to
help with the flat roof option and to help bring back the natural feel of the space while relating to
the landscape of the neighboring property. She explained that the plants that will be in the green
elements will be low maintenance, low water-dependent concerning water restrictions. Ms. Ellis
3
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER11, 2020
stated that they will be adding two dogwood trees into planters to help break up the visual to the
alley. She said that the stepping stones that go along the side of the building will help create a
pedestrian buffer between the Mesa store and the proposed building. Ms. Ellis stated that the
large tree that sits on the street will remain in the public right away. Mr. Rowland reviewed the
materials that will be used. He explained that the siding will be a wood lap that can be painted
white, the wood windows and front door will be stained, the columns will be gray painted metal
matching the roof, and finally, the stone walkway will connect to the entry in a cut stone. Ms.
Ellis said that they are proposing a simple wall sconce that will be next to the front door and
flanking the garage doors in the back and will be a simple downlight.
STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon stated at conceptual review a standard waived from the
residential design that dealt with the building mass, building articulation requires a break in the
sidewalls of the project within 50-feet of the front. She said that there are no dimensional
variances involved in the project. She explained that HPC is reviewing landscaping, lighting, and
materials for final review. Ms. Simon stated that the applicant was successful in addressing the
board's concerns about the heaviness of the front of the project. Ms. Simon said that staff is
recommending approval with conditions. She said that the proposed decking of the porch is stone
and normally in the historic district they would see wood decks and listed this as a discussion to
review with staff and monitor. A second condition Ms. Simon listed is to review the lighting plan
to ensure it meets the code. The final condition is vested rights for three years from the time of
approval.
Ms. Sanzone asked the applicant where the dry well is located.
Ms. Ellis stated that the dry well is located at the Mesa Store parking area.
PUBLIC COMMENT: Peter Fornell. Mr. Fornell stated if an applicant requested and was
granted an addition of 2000 square feet for a project the Building Department would be
reviewing the approvals and building before, during, and after. Mr. Fornell explained that he has
seen four different references to the size of the Mesa Store building. Mr. Fornell further
explained that in an early application the size is 6000 square feet, county records call it 4500
square feet, in the 2018 application, it calls it 4417 square feet, and finally, the approval
document calls it 3451 square feet. Mr. Fornell stated that he has had multiple conversations with
Mr. True the City Attorney and said that this should be a matter for Referendum One. He said the
only one that would not be subjected to Referendum One is the 3451 square foot. Mr. Fornell
stated that he has asked multiple times where did this final number come from and no response
from staff. He said if the number is not coming from the Building Dept. then HPC does not really
know the size of this building. Mr. Fornell said that this is backwards, and the approvals of extra
square footage should not be granted until the building size is known. He stated that he will take
this issue as far as he needs to so the public domain and Building Dept. gets an accurate
measurement. Mr. Fornell said that this could be a matter for City of Aspen voters. Mr. Fornell
reiterated his question of where did the 3451 square feet come from. He stated that he has never
seen in his 40 years of being in Aspen that a board take an opinion from an applicant of size and
scope of a project that was not verified by City staff. Mr. Fornell stated that this discussion needs
to be put on hold until the size of the Mesa building is confirmed and if it should go to the voters.
4
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER11, 2020
Mr. True stated that he has responded to everything Mr. Fornell just stated in a memo. He
explained that this is not the venue for this discussion, that this is between City Council and Mr.
Fornell. Mr. True said he gave a detailed analysis of every question he asked.
Ms. Greenwood stated that this is not the place to hash this out. She said when HPC gets an
application there is a level of expectation and assumption that the project was vetted completely.
Ms. Greenwood stated that this not in HPC’s purview to get into these kinds of details.
Mr. Fornell restated his stance that the 3415 square foot did not come from the Building Dept.
Mr. True stated that this is incorrect and pointed out in the memo he sent to Mr. Fornell and
referenced footnote one and that it explains. He restated that this is not the proper venue to
discuss this matter.
Ms. Greenwood stated that HPC receives projects that have been vetted and the board does not
comment on disputes.
Amos Underwood. Mr. Underwood wanted to make sure his letter was attached to the agenda.
Ms. Simon stated his letter was distributed to the board outside the October 28th agenda since
the agenda was already sent out when the letter was received. She summarized the letter.
Mr. Underwood summarized his letter.
Ms. Thompson asked Ms. Simon about the statement she made saying that the building depth is
no longer an issue.
Ms. Simon stated that at conceptual review the board discussed the massing and reviewed
requests for variances from the residential design standards. She explained that HPC required the
applicant to restudy so they could meet garages and one story element. A variation was granted
for building articulation. She further explained that the applicant showed massing models of the
reduction to the upper floor and the back of the site and that this was more meaningful and HPC
expected this.
COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION: Ms. Greenwood stated that she likes the details and added
articulation to the deck and that this has made a huge impact on the massing. She said it is
appreciated when an applicant listens to the board and returns with thoughtful solutions. Ms.
Greenwood stated that she appreciates the gray stone walkway and for a modern building it is
perfect and does not need to be reviewed. She said the stone walkway tells the same story as a
historic walkway but in a modern fashion and the materials work great with the building. Ms.
Greenwood stated that she is in favor of moving this project forward.
Mr. Kendrick stated he likes the changes made to the building and that they were nicely done. He
said the combination of lowering the height by a foot, the single window on the front façade, and
the articulation on the deck area makes it feel smaller in scale and mass and giving it more of a
cottage feel.
5
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER11, 2020
Ms. Sanzone stated that she agrees with Ms. Greenwood and Mr. Kendrick’s comments. She said
the applicant has done a great job taking and applying HPC’s comments and resolving the design
issues.
Ms. Thompson stated this is a significant improvement from what was presented from last time.
She said that in the drawing it noted the gray walkway as concrete but in the rendering, it is
shown as stone. Ms. Thompson stated that the walkway should stay in as a condition with staff
and monitor.
Ms. Greenwood stated that the walkway should be natural stone.
Mr. Moyer stated that he is ok with the stone walkway, the deck is much better, the porch is
much simpler, and the reduction in mass is great. Mr. Moyer said if the applicant uses a
composite material with no overhangs the structure should not sit on the ground. He explained
the material will decompose and rot. He said one way to avoid this for a few years would be to
paint both sides and ends.
Mr. Halferty stated he appreciates the applicant’s response to the directions given. He said the
articulation was well executed. He said the issue with the square footage and the neighbor puts
the applicant at risk along with City staff. Mr. Halferty stated that the lighting plan was done
well, and he is fine with either stone or concrete for the walkway. He said that the lilac bushes
should be under staff and monitor.
Ms. Greenwood stated that there is nothing in the conditions about the lilac bushes and that they
are hard to build around. She asked if this issue should be taken further or left in the hands of the
applicant.
Ms. Simon stated that the lilac bushes are indicated on the site plan as being preserved.
Ms. Sanzone stated that adding language around a preservation plan to protect the lilacs would
make her feel a bit more comfortable.
Ms. Greenwood stated that condition #4 will be to add language around a preservation plan to
protect the lilacs.
Ms. Greenwood motioned to approve Resolution #025-2020 with added conditions. Ms.
Thompson seconded.
ROLL CALL: Mr. Halferty, Yes; Mr. Kendrick, Yes; Mr. Moyer, Yes; Ms. Thompson, Yes;
Ms. Greenwood, Yes. All in favor, Motion carried 5-0.
Ms. Sanzone left the meeting.
OLD BUSINESS: 211 W. Hopkins Avenue– AspenModern Historic Designation,
Conceptual Major Development Review including Relocation, Variations.
STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon stated that the project was near approval on October 28th
however the board agreed with staff that a restudy needed to be done on the north façade of the
6
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER11, 2020
proposed new building. Ms. Simon reviewed the application that was present at the October 28th
meeting. Ms. Simon stated at the time the November 18th packet was written staff felt that not
enough restudy was done in reference to the north façade. She explained that the applicant
submitted more options of the restudy at a later date. Ms. Simon stated that she will outline
staff’s recommendations and would like to see this project move forward. Ms. Simon reviewed
and read the condition attached to the resolution. Ms. Simon stated the staff is recommending
approval. Ms. Simon said that the applicant will be presenting two other alternatives that change
the orientation of the roofline that brings it down to a low eave behind the Pan Abode.
APPLICANT COMMENTS: Sara Adams with BendonAdams and John Rowland of Rowland
+ Broughton.
Ms. Adams stated that the feedback that was given on the Oct. 28th meeting was great. She said
that nothing has changed from the AspenModern request or the restoration plan. Ms. Adams
stated that her team focused on the north elevation and the feedback that was given. She
explained that HPC felt that the elevation was too flat and domineering and needed to add depth
and breaking down the mass of the new addition. Ms. Adams stated that she will be presenting
four different options that address the north elevation. The first option Ms. Adams showed kept
the street-facing shallow gable with an add on of a 20inch eave that matches the Pan Abode. She
explained that the team has pulled in more reference material to the new addition with the
vertical seams and a breakdown of the siding with different size wood siding. Ms. Adams stated
that they wanted to relate form and material to the Pan Abode however wanted to be a bit more
playful with the windows. She said that the entrance under the gable has not changed much
under any of the options. Ms. Adams stated that option two has an asymmetrical shallow roof,
the windows and materials are the same as option one. Option three shows the north façade
turned to line up with the Pan Abode. She pointed out the added dormer that relates to the
entrance to the Pan Abode. Ms. Adams stated in option four, is like option three with the north
facade turned to line up with the Pan Abode however, there is no dormer and is just a simple
roofline. Ms. Adams said that the fence that raised some concern was lowered to two and a half
feet and spaced boards to create more transparency. Mr. Rowland stated the rotated ridge options
that go parallel to the Pan Abode don’t change the operations of the house but are not as playful
as the first two options. Ms. Adams stated that they would like to add language to the condition
that states otherwise negotiated with the Parks Dept. and Engineering Dept. She explained the
conditions seem to be too finite, and that is not the intent of staff or the referral departments. Ms.
Adams stated that they plan on working with Parks and Engineering Dept for their approvals
along the way and stay in constant communication.
Mr. Kendrick asked if there is any room to lower the overall height.
Mr. Rowland explained if lowered there would be an additional cost to the mechanical system
and applicant.
Ms. Adams said the Pan Abode is so small that anything behind it will feel big. She further said
that with the two large trees in the front yard that will be preserved, and the addition will fit in
nicely behind the frame.
Mr. Halferty asked staff which roof line they prefer.
Ms. Simon stated that option three or four with lower eave height is more sympathetic.
7
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER11, 2020
PUBLIC COMMENT: David Scruggs neighbor. Mr. Scruggs thanked Ms. Simon for
answering all of his questions that he had sent her and commended the applicant team for being
responsive. He stated that the Pan Abode is twelve feet tall and is a product of the 40’s & 50’s
and would be pretty difficult to live in by today’s standards without a modern addition. Mr.
Scruggs stated that he is in favor of option one. He explained the eves and gable compliment the
Pan Abode along with the simplicity of the form.
COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION: Ms. Thompson said that the fenestration changes are great
and definitely add a bit of playfulness to the different structures. She said she is torn between the
options and that she likes them all.
Ms. Greenwood agreed with Ms. Thompson about the fenestration changes. Ms. Greenwood
stated that she likes option four the most. She explained that option four is the most sympathetic
and best solution to simplifying the addition. Ms. Greenwood said when you compare to option
one, option one has two different roof pitches and is much more complicated. She stated when
HPC discusses Victorian homes with additions, the gable will always face the same way as the
historic resource does and that same theme should follow with the Pan Abode. Ms. Greenwood
said that she agrees with the materials and articulations.
Mr. Kendrick said that he agrees with staff that option three and four do bring the massing down
however option one and two work better architecturally. He stated that he likes the fenestration
and overall details that have been added. He said he is willing to move forward with option one
or two.
Ms. Greenwood asked Mr. Kendrick if he thinks the roofline of options one and two are a bit
busy after reviewing options three and four.
Mr. Kendrick stated he does not think so.
Mr. Halferty stated that it is tough when you have a small Pan Abode and adding a large
addition. He said he appreciates the fence redesign. He said he agrees with Ms. Greenwood that
it does get busy.
Ms. Thompson stated that the elegant sloping roofline of option four of the addition against the
Pan Abode is a success and clean.
Ms. Greenwood stated that she likes that the chimney of the Pan Abode and the new addition is
on the same side. She said it tells a similar story.
Ms. Thompson agrees and said it was very playful and sympathetic.
Mr. Halferty stated that the plate height is too tall.
Ms. Greenwood asked if the plate height is the same for each option.
Mr. Rowland stated that the plate height does not change in any option.
8
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER11, 2020
Mr. Moyer stated that this is a tough decision since the Pan Abode is 12 feet tall. He suggested a
way around the height problem is to raise the Pan Abode a few feet with the foundation. He said
that he would support a plate height reduction on the second floor. Mr. Moyer stated he likes
option 3. He explained he likes the playfulness of the dormer. He said he could go with option 4
as well.
Ms. Greenwood stated that you don’t see dormers on a Pan Abode redo concept. She said that
the dormer is not successful. Ms. Greenwood said that you can’t tell what is old versus new with
option four. She explained that option four follows the design idea into the future quietly
especially from the street.
Mr. Moyer restated that he is fine with option four.
Mr. Kendrick stated that he prefers option four to option three, he explained that the dormer
makes it too symmetrical between the three peaks of the entry of the Pan Abode, the dormer, and
the new addition. Mr. Kendrick said that option four almost blends in too much to the Pan Abode
and if HPC is looking for a product of its own time, option one or two delivers.
Ms. Thompson stated that the simplistic detailing on the new addition will be very clear and the
difference will be highlighted while complementing. Ms. Thompson said that she could have
been on board with the dormer if it was on the entrance to the new addition and more of a direct
relation to the Pan Abode, however since it is a simple window there is no real relation and
cannot support.
Ms. Greenwood asked if the chimney on the new addition sits above the ridgeline as the Pan
Abode does.
Mr. Rowland said no the chimney will not sit on the ridgeline. He said that the chimney might
look a bit short but the Pan Abode set a precedent.
Ms. Thompson stated that she understands the concern about the plate height. She explained that
it is extremely changing to add a two-story resource behind a one-story and not knowing that the
addition is behind it. She stated that she is ok with the plate height.
Ms. Greenwood stated that she is ok with plate height. She explained that if there was a
reduction of any sort, that is should be on the 8:12 pitch over the entry. Ms. Greenwood said that
she has no objections to the 4:12 pitch plate height.
Ms. Greenwood stated that Ms. Thompson, Mr. Moyer, and herself agree with option four. She
asked Mr. Halferty and Mr. Kendrick where is their thinking.
Mr. Halferty stated that it is between option four and one. He explained he is always looking for
a lower plate height on new additions.
Mr. Kendrick stated that he is between options one and four and leaning towards one.
9
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER11, 2020
Ms. Greenwood stated that HPC agrees that this project should move forward.
Ms. Simon said that unanimous consent would be very helpful.
Ms. Thompson moved to approve Resolution #025-2020 with attached conditions and option
four, for the roof form.
Ms. Greenwood stated that they did not ask the architects which option they preferred.
Ms. Adams stated they preferred option one and so does the neighbor.
Ms. Greenwood seconded the motion.
Ms. Greenwood stated that option one and four are the best. She said that she is in total
agreement with staff about option four.
Mr. Kendrick asked if the applicant could state which option, he would prefer for him and his
family.
Matt Joblon owner. Mr. Joblon stated that his goals are to get an incredible home built that is
long-lasting and sets a new standard with HPC. He said that the reality is if it is option one or
four, it won’t change his family’s life. Mr. Joblon stated that he is excited to get this job done
and would like for HPC to be proud to be coauthors of this world-class project with unanimous
consent.
Ms. Greenwood called for a roll call vote.
ROLL CALL: Mr. Halferty, Yes; Mr. Kendrick, Yes; Mr. Moyer, Yes; Ms. Greenwood, Yes;
Ms. Thompson, Yes. All in favor, Motion carried 5-0.
Ms. Thompson stated that all the requests that the applicant is requesting is extremely reasonable
and should be an easy yes for City Council. She said that HPC is very excited about this project.
Mr. Kendrick said he would like to reiterate Ms. Thompson’s comments.
Adjourn All in favor, Motion carried 5-0.
_________________________
Wes Graham, Deputy Clerk
10
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 11 2020
Vice Chairperson Thompson opened the meeting at 4:30 p.m.
Commissioners in attendance: Jeffrey Halferty, Scott Kendrick, Kara Thompson, Roger Moyer,
Sheri Sanzone, Gretchen Greenwood.
Commissioners not in attendance:
Staff present:
Amy Simon, Interim Planning Director/Historic Preservation Officer
Ben Anderson, Principal Long Range Planner
Jim True, City Attorney
Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney
Wes Graham, Deputy City Clerk
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Ms. Thompson stated there needed to be a spelling error fixed.
Mr. True stated that the minutes from October 14th needed to be amended to say Ms. Sanzone is
not the project monitor for the Red Onion project.
PUBLIC COMMENT: Ms. Simon reminded the commission that there will be a special
HPC meeting on Wednesday, November 18th.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: None
PROJECT MONITORING: None
NEW BUSINESS: Lift One Lodge, Historic Preservation, Final Major Development Plan
Review.
STAFF COMMENTS: Mr. Anderson showed a rendering of the site plan and stated that there
are three elements to the Lift One corridor project. The first is Gorsuch Haus which is going
through concurrent review with the Planning and Zoning commission, the second is Lift One
Lodge which is the subject before HPC for approval and is currently in concurrent review with
P&Z, and lastly is the City Park and Dean Street Interface. Mr. Anderson said that this project
has been the topic of discussion and community interest for many years. Mr. Anderson gave a
brief review of the history of the project. He stated that in 2011 Lift One Lodge received
approval by Ordinance #11-2011. Mr. Anderson said that the project was put on hold for a few
years to address a few amendments to the Lift One Lodge approvals. Mr. Anderson said that in
2016 Gorsuch Haus's application was submitted for that project and this is what sparked the
conversation in the community to bring the lift down closer to town. In 2018 a revised
application for Lift One Lodge and Gorsuch Haus was submitted and the Lift 1 corridor project
review began. Mr. Anderson stated that HPC reviewed this project and passed Resolution #016-
2018 for conceptual approval. He further explained that City Council approved the ordinances
referring the project to a public vote and passing. Mr. Anderson stated that the development
review committee and Open Space and Trails Board both recommended approval for the park
design and now the project is at final review for HPC and P&Z. He explained that if HPC and
P&Z approve the project, after 180 days there will be an approval of document review leading
into building permit. Mr. Anderson explained that P&Z and HPC are both working on the same
review but focusing on different aspects. P&Z is looking at planned development and detailed
review, and final commercial design, while HPC is looking at final major development review
focusing on relocation and preservation of the Skiers’ Chalet Lodge and Steakhouse, Historic
Lift One structure, and park context and design. Mr. Anderson showed a rendering of the final
lot split and configuration between the City Park and Lift One Lodge. Mr. Anderson stated that
11
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 11 2020
he wanted to clarify that the HPC review authority because there is a lot of detail going on and
with P&Z as well. He explained that HPC is being asked to look at Lot3 the City Park, providing
context to the Skiers’ Chalet, Historic Lift One structures, and the Skiers’ Chalet Steakhouse.
Mr. Anderson reviewed the HPC Resolution #016-2018 and stated that staff has looked at this
resolution and followed the conditions of approval and will continue to do so as the project
advances.
Ms. Greenwood asked if the public will have access to the Dolinsek Park as a drop-off.
Mike Tunte with the Parks Department stated that the design of Dolinsek Park has a ways to go
and there is a concept and plan to develop over the coming year. There is no final design for the
park. He further explained that forms that are shown are roughly what will there, but final details
have not been flushed out yet. Mr. Tunte stated that he does not foresee a dropoff along Monarch
St. and that a dropoff would take up a lot of space in an area with a lot of spatial constraints.
APPLICANT COMMENTS: Stan Clauson of Clauson and Associates representing the
applicant and Scott Glass of Guerin Glass Architects, Laura Kirk with DMH Design.
Mr. Clauson outlined the approved scope of the lodge project consisting of a mix of fractional
ownership and hotel rooms, residential units, underground parking for public and lodge use. Mr.
Clauson stated that the Skiers’ Chalet building will be renovated into the long-awaited skiers'
museum, ticketing, and skier services along with ski lockers open to the public. Mr. Clauson said
there would be street improvements to Dean Street with an added bike line and skier drop-off.
He stated that there will be renovations on the historic Lift One gantry and towers. Mr. Clauson
said that the new lift will be a Telemix lift, which is a mix of chairs and cabins. Mr. Clauson
listed the community benefits for this development. He said that this will become a second portal
for Aspen Mountain, revitalizing the area, gaining a piece of Aspen history with the new
museum, and with the new lift world classing races will return. He further explained with a
second portal will help the congestion on Gondola Plaza. Mr. Clauson stated that visitors to the
base will be greeted by the three key resources the Skires' Chalet, Gantry, and Steakhouse,
creating an exciting base area. Mr. Clauson further stated that new lodging will provide rooms
lost over the years. Mr. Clauson showed a map of the pedestrian amenity plan that includes the
new city park, patios, walkways. Mr. Clauson stated that Dean Street will be improved
considerably with a 12-foot wide one direction road and with a 6-foot counter flow line for bikes.
There will be a major drop off area added with restored sidewalks. Mr. Clauson stated that the
historic Gantry would be restored along with its original color. He explained that a
preservationist has given detailed instructions on how to accomplish the finishes. Mr. Clauson
said that the historic left towers would be relocated to two proposed locations on the mountain.
The first location would be at the top of Lift One to show the original alinement. The second
tower would be relocated to what is called midway to show where the original Lift One ended.
Mr. Moyer stated that the historic lift should be properly stripped and refinished properly. He
explained that encapsulating the lift would only kick the problem of refinishing and restoring
down the road. Mr. Moyer said that this should be a condition of approval.
Ms. Greenwood asked if HPC will get to see the materials presented and landscaping.
Mr. Glass stated that they will be covering materials and landscaping.
Mr. Glass showed a rendering of the Lift One project and stated that the historic resources are the
prime actors and that they frame the portal and become the front door. He further said that the
historic resources allow the wrapping of the new lift in a historic and new architecture. Mr. Glass
showed a rendering of the relocated Skiers’ Chalet with the new parking garage entrance. He
stated that after the relocation their mission will be to restore the essential elements of the Chalet.
12
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 11 2020
Mr. Glass said that they will be restoring the balconies around the permeator of the building and
restoring the colors on the build. Mr. Glass stated that the Chalet is fairly buried in the ground
and for the relocation to work the Chalet will need to be exposed to its lowest level. Mr. Glass
explained that they will be addressing this in a few different ways. The first will be extending the
landscape around the base of Chalet. The second remedy will be taking the Chalet off its original
CMU block and place it on a board form concrete pour. Mr. Glass said that it is important to
keep that masonry material but with an upgrade to intergrade naturally with the surrounding site.
Mr. Glass stated that some of the outside staircases will be persevered. The lower staircase will
not be fictional since it no longer reaches the ground and will lead into a flower bed but will
remain for esthetics. He explained that the double staircase that sat in front of the building will
be removed since it did not make any sense with the new location and it would block any access
regimes that the building required. Mr. Glass stated that the Steakhouse will be sitting in a very
similar footprint only a few hundred feet down and will sit on a series of terraces that will
integrate with the landscape and surroundings. He said that there will be more extensive
terracing to the northside of the resource for restaurant seating and that they have worked with
the Parks Dept. to integrate the landscaping. Mr. Glass stated that there is a staircase on the back
of the Steakhouse that is being removed since it is not functional and does not serve a purpose.
Mr. Glass showed a rendering of the site plan with different terracing with landscaping and
access point to the historic landmarks. Mr. Glass pointed out that the bathroom building has been
relocated next to the historic Skiers’ Chalet. Mr. Glass stated that with the help of the Aspen
Historical Society they were able to understand the evolution of the Steakhouse. He explained
that the proposal is to quiet the building down a bit and bring it back to its simple pure form. Mr.
Glass stated that there are a couple of levels below grade that house a kitchen, locker rooms, and
bathrooms. They will also connect to the hotel and parking. Mr. Glass went on to describe the
layout of each level of the restraint. Mr. Glass stated that they have worked very closely with the
building movers and their structural engineers on how to relocate this building while maintaining
the building and the new configuration. Mr. Glass said that they have settled on an upgraded
foundation that fits into the landscaping and sits up a little to keep off the ground which is
keeping up with how the Steakhouse sits historically. He further explained that there will be a
steel frame that is threaded through the interior of the building with a moment frame to help get
the form back to being true and be able to open the space up. Mr. Glass stated that there is not a
lot of new modifications to the Skiers’ Chalet exterior. He referenced a few photos showing the
double staircase that will be removed and said that they will take all the elements restore them
and properly replicate them if needed. Mr. Glass compared the historic fenestration to the
proposed fenestration of the front of the Chalet and said that all the fenestrations are in similar
placement and that changes that are happening down low where there is a new door on the base.
Mr. Glass stated that on the westside they will be adding a door and windows on the base for
skier services. He said on the southside there will be added windows for the museum and café.
Mr. Glass showed floor plans of each level of the Skiers’ Chalet that included skier services, and
skier museum. Mr. Glass stated that the framing of the Skiers’ Chalet can be left intact and his
team will thread through the framing a series of a new structure while sister the studs, adding
wood beams, sister the rafters, and joist while preserving the building. Mr. Glass stated that
material for the exposed foundation will be a board form concrete pour and is replicated around
the elements.
Ms. Thompson asked Mr. Glass to talk about the elevator overrun that has been added.
13
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 11 2020
Mr. Glass stated unfortunately elevators need overruns. For the elevator to access the top floor of
the Skiers’ Chalet it is in the best spot to hide the overrun and will be clad in a material that hides
the visual impact.
Ms. Kirk stated that permeable pavers are being considered for the Dean Street walkway and
pedestrian zones. She explained that Dean Street will have a herringbone pattern while the
pedestrian zones will follow an ashlar pattern, both will be in the same color scheme. Ms. Kirk
showed a rendering of the planting plan and stated that there will be simple planters around the
historic buildings helping ground them to the landscape while not compete with the architecture
of the resource. Ms. Kirk stated that they are working with the Parks Dept. on a grass mixture for
the ski area creating a mode are that transitions up to a natural grass and planting area.
Mr. Glass showed a rendering of the preliminary lighting plan and stated that they will not up
light the historic resources. He said all lights will meet the Dark Ski requirements and local
codes. Mr. Glass said they will be installing shielded lights on the historic gantry. Mr. Glass
stated that the overall feel for the light design is a modern minimalist light feel nothing too fussy.
Mr. Glass said that there will be a few wayfinding signs attached to the Skiers’ Chalet and
throughout pedestrian walkways for convenience to the guess to help navigate and identify
landmarks.
Mr. Halfery asked if Mr. Glass could talk about the Chalet greets the ground.
Mr. Glass stated board form concrete will be the base of the Chalet to connect it with the other
aspects of the project.
Ms. Thompson asked if the railings at the Skiers’ Chalet and around the Steakhouse are glass.
Mr. Glass stated that the railing on the terrace of the Steakhouse is glass. He said they chose
glass because it is the most contemporary and translucent. The railing does not touch the
resource. Mr. Glass stated that there is another glass railing between the new elevator shaft and
Chalet. And again, the glass is not touching the resource.
Ms. Thompson asked how the lighting fixtures were going to be integrated with the glass railing
if there is no uplighting.
Mr. Glass stated that there are two options. The first being the light fixture attached to the bottom
part of the railing with an edge condition or fix it to the deck and light it horizontally.
Mr. Clauson stated that the glass railing was apart of the original approval from HPC.
Ms. Greenwood asked if the City Lot a landmark.
Ms. Simon stated that it was.
David Corbin from the Aspen Skiing Company. Mr. Corbin stated that he confirms what Mr.
Clauson stated about the relocation and preservation of the historic towers. He further said he
does not see any additional approvals needed from the Forest Serves or Pitkin County.
Mr. Tunte stated that Parks and the applicant have been working very close to make sure the
goals and vision of the parks and open space are realized.
STAFF COMMENTS: Mr. Anderson reviewed the final review criteria that included site
planning and landscape design, rehabilitation of historic buildings, new construction,
accessibility, lighting mechanical equipment, service areas, and signs.
Ms. Simon reviewed the new conditions that were added. The added conditions can be found on
pages 21-22 of the HPC packet.
Mr. Anderson reviewed the last condition for the location and design of the lift shack. He said
that the understanding of the lift shack is to house the control panel, storage, and be general
support for the lift. Mr. Anderson showed a rendering of the location of the lift shack which is
14
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 11 2020
adjacent to the new lift terminal. He stated that there will be an administrative PD approval for
the building.
Ms. Thompson stated that HPC did not see any detail about the public bathrooms, and asked if
they would be under the same review.
Mr. Anderson stated that could be a possibility with HPC direction. He explained that the
bathrooms are apart of Lift One Lodge's responsibility to bring the building down, then it
becomes part of the Parks Dept to manage.
Ms. Greenwood asked where will the bathrooms be located.
Mr. Anderson said that the structure will be located southeast of the Skiers’ Chalet above the
garage opening.
Ms. Greenwood stated that this should have been apart of the final review. She further said that
this should be an added approval.
Mr. Halferty stated that the bathrooms are directly adjacent to the resource and is in the purview
of HPC.
Ms. Simon stated that the lift shack and bathrooms can be handled any way the commission feels
fit. She said this can be staff and monitor or bumped up to the full board.
Mr. Halferty stated that he is more concerned with the building adjacent to the historic resource.
Mr. Anderson stated that staff is recommending approval of the final major development review.
He explained that approval would confirm the role of previous approvals and conditions,
establishes new conditions based on the devolving design, and recommends approval of the
planned development and commercial design review to P&Z.
Ms. Thompson asked if the Steakhouse upper-level balconies will be accessible.
Mr. Glass stated that the balconies will not have access to them but will be preserved.
Ms. Thompson stated that she read in the packet that the railings will be increasing in height to
meet code.
Mr. Glass stated that there has been dissection with the Building Dept and an agreement to keep
the railings at the current height.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None
COMMISSION COMMENT: Ms. Greenwood stated that she is elated that the historic
building will be moved into the park area and preserved. She said she is disappointed that HPC
does not get to review the new buildings and that there is no visual relationship between the
historic buildings and new ones. Ms. Greenwood stated that she does not agree with the elevator
shaft and that it was presented as an afterthought and is a massive monolithic structure that sits
right in between the historic resources. She explained that this should be listed as a condition or
come back to the board after a restudy. Ms. Greenwood said that the materials that are being
used on the elevator shaft relates to the buildings further up the hill and should not be brought
down to this area. Ms. Greenwood stated that this reminds her of post-war brutalist architecture
and does not belong. She said that this needs to be restudied and redesigned and needs to come
back to the whole board. Ms. Greenwood pointed out that the elevator shaft does not meet
Design Guideline 1.19.
Mr. Halferty stated that the elevator shaft is needed for the project however the location next to
the historic resource is problematic. Mr. Halferty said that there needs to be extra thought with
the Steakhouse, restaurants come with hoods, scrubbers, etc. against the gentle roof slope of the
roofline and penetration. He stated that staff’s comments about the preservation of windows were
excellent and a very important piece to this project. Mr. Halfery stated that all ski lifts need a lift
building, however, this is a very predominant lift building, one of the first ski lifts in Colorado,
15
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 11 2020
and that HPC should have a say on this building. He said the landscape design plan is coming
along and is almost there and would like to see the lighting plan not so aggressive.
Ms. Sanzone asked to see the rendering of the elevator overrun.
Mr. Glass stated that his response about bout the cladding was about the overrun Ms. Thompson
was asking about not about the elevator shaft Ms. Greenwood was talking about. He explained
that the shaft is thought to be a concrete structure with a certain amount of detail. He further
explained that it would be very difficult to change the scale and material.
Ms. Greenwood stated that she has a problem with the elevator shaft. She said that there needs to
be some articulation or add a clock tower aspect.
Ms. Sanzone stated that she loves the relationship between the historic and modern architecture
presented. She said she likes that the landscape plan, it is quiet and that the resources need to be
able to stand out from the planters. Ms. Sanzone stated that she likes the use of the historic stairs
going into the planter. Ms. Sanzone said she likes the datum line referencing what the grade used
to be. She proposed that the planters be tipped back and allowed to come out and to ground the
landscape with the resource. Ms. Sanzone stated that she likes the board form concrete and that it
is being carried through to all the features. She said that the paving materials feel a bit
complicated and that the Design Guideline speaks to a simple paving pattern.
Mr. Kendrick stated this will be a great addition to the town. He agreed with Ms. Sanzone about
simplifying the pavers. Mr. Kendrick said with some small tweaks and adjustments to the
materials the elevator shaft could be resolved. He stated that he likes the functionality of this
project and would like to see it move forward.
Mr. Moyer stated that there are two issues for the Skiers’ Chalet in the winter. First, he said the
base of the building is very cold and foreboding. Second, he stated that the monolithic elevator
next to the resource. Mr. Moyer proposed the elevator shaft be transparent. He said there already
two in the community the Aspen Art Museum and Riverside Condos. Mr. Moyer stated that he
agrees with the comments about keeping the pavers simply. Mr. Moyer said the garage entrance
and landscaping take away from the Chalet and mixed with the base it is very reminiscent of a
military base. Mr. Moyer agreed with Ms. Greenwood’s comment about hiding the rooftop
mechanical.
Ms. Thompson asked if removing the second floor of the Steakhouse was done administratively.
Ms. Simon stated that they normally do not review interiors.
Ms. Thompson stated that she would like to see the balconies utilized like they were in the
historic photos that were presented rather than just decretive. Ms. Thompson stated that she likes
Mr. Moyers's comment about the elevator being all glass and that the shaft as presented now is
foreboding and unwelcoming and that there needs to be a restudy of massing and material. She
said she would like to see a rendering of what is happening on the backside of the Skiers’ Chalet
concerning the landscaping and bathrooms. Ms. Thompson stated that the bathroom building and
lift building need to come back to the board. Ms. Thompson proposed a condition for more
information about the lighting plan specifically around the resources. She said she agrees with
the comments about the pavers and with Mr. Halferty’s comments about the Steakhouse venting
penetration of the roof.
Ms. Greenwood asked if these concerns could be worked out with staff and a few monitors or is
this something that needs to come back to the whole board.
Ms. Thompson stated that most of these concerns can be staff and a few monitors however the
elevator, bathrooms, and the lift building need to come back to the board.
16
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 11 2020
Ms. Simon stated that the code allows two monitors on a proposal. She suggested that they could
have two monitors on lot one, two monitors on the park, and two monitors on lot three or assign
a couple of the members as monitors and instruct that the bigger issues need to come to the board
not as a public hearing but as a check-in.
Mr. Moyer stated that there are three aspects that need to come back to the board. The first being
the south side of the Skiers’ Chalet, the second is the lift build, and finally the elevator. He said
the rest can be handled by staff and monitors.
Ms. Thompson stated that there will be additional conditions regarding lighting, landscape
paving, and the restrooms and lift the building to come back to the board.
Mr. Moyer asked if they needed to add a condition about not encapsulating the historic lift.
Ms. Simon stated that how it is written, it will fall under staff and monitor. She explained if the
board wants it to be specific they should list it as a condition.
Ms. Greenwood asked Ms. Sanzone if she thinks the landscape plan should come back to the
whole board or staff and monitor.
Ms. Sanzone said that she would be fine either way and that there is a path for multiple monitors
should be fine. She said it seems that the hot topics are the southside of the Chalet, elevator, and
lift building. She further stated that they should come back to the board.
Ms. Greenwood asked how can the board approve the project and still have an aspect come back.
Ms. Thompson stated that condition 11 is an amendment to whatever is approved, and this could
be used for the bathrooms and the elevator.
Mr. Anderson stated that this is an option or let staff and monitor have their role and bring it to
the board for an update in a nonpublic hearing before issuing the final administrative approval.
Ms. Greenwood moved to extend the meeting; Mr. Moyer seconded the motion. All in favor 5-0,
Motion carried.
Mr. Clauson reviewed the origins of the three areas of concern and who is responsible for each
one. He said that working with staff and monitor followed by confirmation from the board is a
nice solution.
Ms. Greenwood reviewed condition #11 and stated that they should add the elevator and
bathrooms to this condition.
Mr. Anderson stated that adding in language for a restudy about simplifying landscaping and
lighting to the conditions.
Ms. Thompson moved to approve Resolution #023-2020 with added conditions; Ms. Greenwood
seconded.
ROLL CALL: ROLL CALL: Mr. Halferty, Yes; Mr. Kendrick, Yes; Mr. Moyer, Yes; Ms.
Greenwood, Yes; Ms. Thompson, Yes. All in favor, Motion carried 5-0.
Staff monitors
Steakhouse- Ms. Thompson and Ms. Sanzone
Skiers’ Chalet- Mr. Moyer and Ms. Sanzone
Park- Ms. Sanzone
Lift building – Mr. Halferty
17
Page 1 of 6
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
Memorandum
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner
THROUGH: Amy Simon, Interim Planning Director/Historic Preservation Officer
MEETING DATE: December 9, 2020
RE: 227 E. Bleeker Street – Conceptual Major Development, Relocation,
Setback Variations and Floor Area Bonus, PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICANT /OWNER:
277 East Bleeker LLC
REPRESENTATIVE:
Kim Raymond Architecture +
Interiors
LOCATION:
Street Address:
227 E. Bleeker Street
Legal Description:
Lot 2, East Bleeker Historic Lot
Split, according to the Final Plat
thereof filed on record in Plat
Book 78 at Page 5 as Reception
No. 521939, City and Townsite of
Aspen, Colorado
Parcel Identification Number:
PID# 2737-073-20-014
CURRENT ZONING & USE
R-6 (Moderate-Density
Residential); Single-family home
PROPOSED ZONING & USE:
No change
SUMMARY:
The applicant requests approval for Conceptual Major
Development to completely restore the historic home, relocate the
resource onto a new basement foundation and construct a new
addition to the rear of the property. Setback variations and a floor
area bonus of 250 sf are requested for this proposal. As a
historically designated landmark, this project is exempt from
Residential Design Standards Review (RDS).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff supports the restoration efforts of this project but
recommends continuation to restudy the design and site
configuration of the new addition to address all comments.
Site Locator Map – 227 E. Bleeker
227
18
Page 2 of 6
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
BACKGROUND:
227 E. Bleeker is a 4,500 sf lot in the R-6 zone district
that contains a Victorian era one-story miner’s cabin.
This lot was the result of a historic landmark lot split
that occurred in 2005 which created two 4,500 sf lots
and established the maximum allowable floor area for
each lot. Ordinance No. 34, Series of 2005
establishes 1,800 sf for 227 E. Bleeker (Lot 2) with
the ability to apply for 50% of potentially available
floor area bonus from HPC. The intent of this
condition was for the two lots in this lot split, each of
which contain a historic resource, to be able to receive half of the 500 square foot bonus that was
available to the original 9,000 square foot parcel, should their proposed redevelopment
applications demonstrate compliance with the criteria for bonuses.
Alterations such as enclosing the front porch, re-siding and adding new fenestration have been
made to the historic resource many years ago. The overall footprint of the resource, however,
remains similar to what is seen on the 1904 Sanborn map (Figure 2). The historic aerial
photograph (Figure 3) reveals the rear of the property, specifically the historic conditions of the
roofs. It is important to gather historic documentation and photographs to aid any restoration
efforts. More information in the form of historic photos or physical evidence is needed for an
accurate restoration of the front of the house.
REQUEST OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals:
• Major Development (Section 26.415.070.D) to restore the historic home and construct a
new addition to the rear of the property.
• Relocation (Section 26.415.090) to relocate the historic resource onto a new basement
foundation and straighten the resource on the lot.
Figure 1 – 227 E. Bleeker, 2020
Figure 2 – Sanborn Map, 1904 Figure 3 – Aspen, Colorado, 1890-1899
Source: Denver Public Library
19
Page 3 of 6
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
• Setback Variation (Section 26.415.110.C) for the new addition towards the rear of the
property, above and below grade.
• Floor Area Bonus (Section 26.415.110.F) allowed to request up to 250 sf but must meet all
relevant criteria for the bonus including exceptional preservation outcome.
The Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) is the final review authority, however, this project is
subject to Call-up Notice by City Council.
PROJECT SUMMARY:
The applicant proposes a complete restoration of the historic resource according to the Historic
Preservation Design Guidelines by opening up the enclosed front porch and demolishing small
non-historic additions on the north east corner of the house and the rear façade, and by restoring
historic siding and openings. The historic home is to be relocated onto a new basement foundation
and a two-story addition is proposed to the rear of the property connected by a one-story, 10’ long
connecting element. The applicant requests rear yard setback variations and a 250 sf floor area
bonus.
STAFF COMMENTS:
As noted by the applicant, this property has been neglected over the years and staff fully supports
the plan to restore the historic resource using historic documentation and exploratory demolition
to better understand the material integrity of the resource. Staff supports the proposed relocation
of the historic resource on a new basement foundation which will also address the portion of the
bay window overhang that is currently beyond the front yard setback. The proposed new addition
is adequately distanced from the historic resource and uses forms that are related to the historic
resource and meets the design guidelines, but staff recommends restudy because, given the need
for a transformer along the alley, the site appears to be unable to provide for two compliant on-
site parking spaces as proposed. In addition, staff finds certain alterations to the historic resource
to be inappropriate and recommends restudy.
Staff recommends HPC further discuss the following topic in more detail.
1. Historic Landmark – Restoration and Alterations:
A preservation plan will be required for the restoration
of the historic resource outlining the existing
conditions and the proposed treatments. Staff fully
supports the restoration of the historic resource and
the removal of non-historic materials and the re-
opening of the front porch and demolition of non-
historic additions. Staff finds the extensive scope of
work related to the restoration/ rehabilitation of the
historic resource gives the applicant the necessary
merit for requesting for a floor area bonus but finds a
proposed new secondary door on the front façade to Figure 4 – Proposed North Elevation
20
Page 4 of 6
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
be confusing and inappropriate. Design Guideline 4.5 speaks to the adding of new doors on a
prominent façade of the historic building to be inappropriate. When reviewing the Sanborn
map, it appears that this portion of the historic resource may have been extended at some
point, however, adding another new component such as a door creates additional confusion
to a street-facing main façade.
Staff supports the proposed restoration/rehabilitation efforts, but staff recommends the
removal of the new door and the secondary pathway at the front of the resource.
2. New Addition – Form, Materials and Fenestration: The proposed new addition is
compatible in size/scale and strikes a good balance between contemporary and historic
features (Design Guideline 10.8). The addition is located to the rear of the property towards
the alley, and the 10’ long connecting element creates a separation between the historic
resource and the new two-story addition (Design Guideline 10.9 & 10.10). The new addition
has a minimal footprint and utilizes forms found on the historic resource. The proposed siding
of the new addition relates to the restored historic siding material and selects contemporary
fenestration as the departing point for the design. In compliance with Design Guideline 10.6,
the proposed addition appears to relate to form and materials while deviating from fenestration.
Additional information regarding materials to be reviewed during Final Review for compatibility.
Staff finds the overall design of the new addition meets the relevant Historic
Preservation Design Guidelines but recommends restudy linked to comments and
concerns about providing on-site parking.
3. Site Planning and Parking: The proposed site planning respects the underlying zoning
requirements for front and side yard setbacks. The preliminary stormwater plans call for the
need to raise natural grade on the site for drainage, which may be acceptable if the change is
not seen as substantial (Design Guideline 9.4) and the project remains below the height limit,
which will be measured to the existing, not the raised condition. The building footprint for the
proposed addition is considerably smaller than the building footprint of the historic resource,
which staff finds to be successful. However, Engineering has indicated that the plans do not
represent an existing transformer at the south east corner of the property and that transformer
is in conflict with the proposed second on-site parking space (Figure 5). In addition to the
location and clearances necessary for the transformer, updates to an existing utility easement
need to be addressed. According to the Municipal Land Use Code, all residential dwelling units
must provide two code compliant on-site parking spaces.
Staff supports the location of the new addition but recommends a restudy of the
proposed design to address Engineering’s referral comments and provide for two code
compliant on-site parking spaces.
21
Page 5 of 6
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
Figure 5 – Proposed Site Plan with Parking
4. Setback Variations & Floor Area Bonus: Setback variations and floor area bonuses are
benefits available to historic properties granted by the HPC. They are site-specific approvals
that are tied to a specific design reviewed for compatibility and appropriateness.
Setback Variations: The applicant requests a reduction of the 10’ rear yard setback
requirement for the proposed addition, above and below grade. The proposed design shows
the subgrade level within the rear yard setback by approximately 3’-2.” The proposed above
grade one-car garage addition has livable space on top and is 3’-3” within the rear yard. A 6’-
9” setback variation would be needed for the proposed design. Staff finds the request for a
setback variation is appropriate because it pushes the new addition closer to the rear and
provides more distance between the historic resource and the new addition. See Exhibit A.3
for detailed staff findings.
Floor Area Bonus: The applicant plans to undertake a complete restoration of the historic
resource that includes reopening the front porch and removing non-historic materials. Staff
finds the addition of a secondary door and pathway on the front façade visually competes with
the historic main porch entrance and recommends its removal. (See Figure 5 for location of
secondary entry.) According to the code, a 4,500 sf lot is eligible for a maximum of 250 sf. and
the Historic Landmark Lot Split ordinance stipulates that the applicant may only request for
50% of the available bonus which was language intended to divide the 500 sf bonus between
the two lots created. Staff finds the request for a 250 sf floor area bonus is appropriate
considering the scope of preservation that will occur with the added condition that the
proposed secondary door and pathway be removed from the final design. See Exhibit A.4 for
criteria and detailed staff findings.
Staff finds all criteria for setback variations are met and supports the request. The
proposed restoration for the project will greatly benefit the historic resource but staff
recommends the removal of the secondary entry from E. Bleeker street to meet all
criteria for a floor area bonus.
22
Page 6 of 6
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
REFERRAL COMMENTS:
The application was referred out to other City departments who have requirements that will
significantly affect the permit review. Please see Exhibit B for full comments.
Engineering Department:
1. Existing transformer on the property is not shown on the survey or proposed drawings.
Provide clarification regarding capacity and location.
2. Update electric/communication utility easement recorded in Book 524 Pate 835 to meet
current clearance standards.
3. Proposed permeable pavers for single parking space conflicts with existing transformer.
4. Drainage letter states the intention of raising the existing first floor elevation for positive
drainage. HPC will need to weigh in on this comment for appropriateness.
5. Below grade stormwater infiltration system (StormTech) is not an approved Best
Management Practices (BMP) in the Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP) and will
need to be further vetted.
Zoning Department:
1. Deck exemption is calculated from prescribed floor area (1,800 sf) and does not include
the floor area bonus, therefore, the deck exemption is 270 sf.
2. Porches more than 30” above finished grade are attributed to floor area as deck.
3. Measuring subgrade wall calculations must be consistent and clearly depicted.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) continue this application with the
following direction:
1.) Remove the secondary entrance and pathway located at the front façade accessed from
E. Bleeker Street.
2.) Provide a solution that addresses the requirements regarding the transformer, existing
utility easement and the provision of required on-site parking.
3.) Provide a more detailed stormwater and drainage plan that is acceptable to all relevant
City Departments.
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution #____, Series of 2020
Exhibit A.1 – Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Criteria / Staff Findings
Exhibit A.2 – Relocation Review Criteria / Staff Findings
Exhibit A.3 – Setback Variations Review Criteria / Staff Findings
Exhibit A.4 – Floor Area Bonus / Staff Findings
Exhibit B – Referral Comments
Exhibit C – Application
23
HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2020
Page 1 of 3
RESOLUTION #__, SERIES OF 2020
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
GRANTING CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, RELOCATION,
SETBACK VARIATIONS AND A FLOOR AREA BONUS FOR THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 277 EAST BLEEKER STREET, LOT 2, EAST BLEEKER HISTORIC
LOT SPLIT, ACCORDING TO THE FINAL PLAT THEREOF FILED ON RECORD IN
PLAT BOOK 78 AT PAGE 5 AS RECEPTION NO. 521939, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF
ASPEN, COLORADO
PARCEL ID: 2737-073-20-014
WHEREAS, the applicant, 227 East Bleeker LLC, represented by Kim Raymond Architects +
Interiors, has requested HPC approval for Conceptual Major Development, Relocation, Setback
Variations and a Floor Area Bonus for the property located at 227 East Bleeker Street, Lot 2, East
Bleeker Historic Lot Split, according to the Final Plat Book 78 at Page 5 as Reception No. 521939,
City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. As a historic landmark, the site is exempt from
Residential Design Standards review; 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 Conceptual 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.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC
may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain
additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and
WHEREAS, for approval of Relocation, the application shall meet the requirements of Aspen
Municipal Code Section 26.415.090, Relocation; and
WHEREAS, for approval of Setback Variations, the application shall meet the requirements of
Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.415.110.C, Setback Variations; and
WHEREAS, for approval of Floor Area Bonus, the application shall meet the requirements of
Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.415.110.F, Floor Area Bonus; and
WHEREAS, Community Development Department staff reviewed the application for
compliance with applicable review standards and recommends continuation for restudy; and
WHEREAS, HPC reviewed the project on December 9, 2020. HPC considered the application,
the staff memo and public comment, and found the proposal consistent with the review standards
and granted approval with conditions by a vote of _ - _.
24
HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2020
Page 2 of 3
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That HPC hereby approves Conceptual Major Development, Relocation, Setback Variations and
Floor Area Bonus for 227 East Bleeker Street, Lot 2, East Bleeker Historic Lot Split, according to the
Final Plat Book 78 at Page 5 as Reception No. 521939, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO as follows:
Section 1: Conceptual Major Development, Relocation, Setback Variations and Floor Area
Bonus.
HPC hereby approves Conceptual Major Development, Relocation, Setback Variations and Floor
Area Bonus as proposed with the following conditions:
1.) Provide a detailed Preservation Plan including existing conditions documenting
investigation of historic framing and proposed treatment, to be reviewed by staff and
monitor prior to building permit submission.
2.) Work closely with all relevant City Departments to meet all requirements regarding the
transformer, existing utility easement and parking requirements for Final Review.
3.) Lightwell curb heights to be 6” or less in height.
4.) Provide financial assurances of $30,000 for the relocation of the historic home onto a
new basement foundation, to be provided prior to building permit submission.
5.) A 250 sf floor area bonus is granted for approved design.
6.) The following setback variation for the proposed addition is granted, above and below
grade:
a. 3’-3” rear yard setback reduction for the addition above grade features as
represented in the approved application
b. 3’-3” rear yard setback reduction for the addition subgrade
7.) A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one
(1) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an
application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the
Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole
discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date for
a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written
request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date.
Section 2: Material Representations
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the
development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation
presented before the Community Development Department, the Historic Preservation
Commission, or the Aspen City Council are hereby incorporated in such plan development
approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by
other specific conditions or an authorized authority.
Section 3: Existing Litigation
This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of
any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended
as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
25
HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2020
Page 3 of 3
Section 4: Severability
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be
deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions thereof.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 9th day of December,
2020.
Approved as to Form: Approved as to Content:
________________________________ ________________________________
Katharine Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Gretchen Greenwood, Chair
ATTEST:
________________________________
Wes Graham, Deputy City Clerk
26
Page 1 of 14
Exhibit A.1
Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Criteria
Staff Findings
NOTE: Staff responses begin on page 13 of this exhibit, following the list of applicable guidelines.
26.415.070.D Major Development. No building, structure or landscape shall be erected,
constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated
historic property or a property located within a Historic District until plans or sufficient
information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved
in accordance with the procedures established for their review. An application for a building
permit cannot be submitted without a development order.
3. Conceptual Development Plan Review
b) The procedures for the review of conceptual development plans for major
development projects are as follows:
1) The Community Development Director shall review the application materials
submitted for conceptual or final development plan approval. If they are
determined to be complete, the applicant will be notified in writing of this and
a public hearing before the HPC shall be scheduled. Notice of the hearing
shall be provided pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E.3 Paragraphs a, b and c.
2) Staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a report that analyzes
the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable
Land Use Code sections. This report will be transmitted to the HPC with
relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to
continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons
for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff
analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the
project's conformance with the City Historic Preservation Design Guidelines.
3) The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the
application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to
approve or deny.
4) A resolution of the HPC action shall be forwarded to the City Council in
accordance with Section 26.415.120 - Appeals, notice to City Council, and
call-up. No applications for Final Development Plan shall be accepted by the
City and no associated permits shall be issued until the City Council takes
action as described in said section.
27
Page 2 of 14
Chapter 1: Site Planning & Landscape Design MET NOT MET
1.1 All projects shall respect the historic development pattern or context of the block,
neighborhood or district.
1.4 Design a new driveway or improve an existing driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual
impact.
1.5 Maintain the historic hierarchy of spaces.
1.6 Provide a simple walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry on residential
projects.
1.7 Provide positive open space within a project site.
1.8 Consider stormwater quality needs early in the design process.
1.10 Built-in furnishings, such as water features, fire pits, grills, and hot tubs, that could interfere
with or block views of historic structures are inappropriate.
1.11 Preserve and maintain historically significant landscaping on site, particularly landmark trees
and shrubs.
Chapter 2: Rehabilitation - Building Materials MET NOT MET
2.1 Preserve original building materials.
2.2 The finish of materials should be as it would have existed historically.
2.3 Match the original material in composition, scale and finish when replacing materials on primary
surfaces.
2.4 Do not use synthetic materials as replacements for original building materials.
2.5 Covering original building materials with new materials is inappropriate.
2.6 Remove layers that cover the original material.
Chapter 3: Rehabilitation - Windows MET NOT MET
3.1 Preserve the functional and decorative features of a historic window.
3.2 Preserve the position, number, and arrangement of historic windows in a building wall.
3.3 Match a replacement window to the original in its design.
3.4 When replacing an original window, use materials that are the same as the original.
3.5 Preserve the size and proportion of a historic window opening.
3.6 Match, as closely as possible, the profile of the sash and its components to that of the original
window.
Chapter 4: Rehabilitation - Doors MET NOT MET
4.1 Preserve historically significant doors.
4.2 Maintain the original size of a door and its opening.
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Review Criteria for 227 E. Bleeker
The applicant is requesting Conceptual Major Development review for restoring the historic resource and a new
above grade addition. The proposed design must meet applicable Historic Preservation Design Guidelines.
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
CONDITION
MET
28
Page 3 of 14
4.3 When a historic door or screen door is damaged, repair it and maintain its general historic
appearance.
4.4 When replacing a door or screen door, use a design that has an appearance similar to the
original door or a door associated with the style of the building.
4.5 Adding new doors on a historic building is generally not allowed.NOT MET
4.7 Preserve historic hardware.
Chapter 5: Rehabilitation - Porches & Balconies MET NOT MET
5.1 Preserve an original porch or balcony.
5.2 Avoid removing or covering historic materials and details.
5.3 Enclosing a porch or balcony is not appropriate.
5.4 If reconstruction is necessary, match the original in form, character and detail.
5.5 If new steps are to be added, construct them out of the same primary materials used on the
original, and design them to be in scale with the porch or balcony
5.6 Avoid adding handrails or guardrails where they did not exist historically, particularly where
visible from the street.
Chapter 6: Rehabilitation - Architectural Details MET NOT MET
6.1 Preserve significant architectural features.
6.2 When disassembly of a historic element is necessary for its restoration, use methods that
minimize damage to the original material.
6.3 Remove only the portion of the detail that is deteriorated and must be replaced.
6.4 Repair or replacement of missing or deteriorated features are required to be based on original
designs.
6.5 Do not guess at “historic” designs for replacement parts.
Chapter 7: Rehabilitation - Roofs MET NOT MET
7.1 Preserve the original form of a roof.
7.2 Preserve the original eave depth.
7.4 New vents should be minimized, carefully, placed and painted a dark color.
7.5 Preserve original chimneys, even if they are made non-functional.
7.7 Preserve original roof materials.
7.8 New or replacement roof materials should convey a scale, color and texture similar to the
original.
7.10 Design gutters so that their visibility on the structure is minimized to the extent possible.
Chapter 9: New Construction - Excavation, Building Relocation & Foundations MET NOT MET
9.1 Developing a basement by underpinning and excavating while the historic structure remains in
place may help to preserve the historic fabric.
9.3 Site a relocated structure in a position similar to its historic orientation.
9.4 Position a relocated structure at its historic elevation above grade.
9.5 A new foundation shall appear similar in design and materials to the historic foundation.
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
CONDITION
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
CONDITION
MET
CONDITION
MET
MET
CONDITION
CONDITION
29
Page 4 of 14
Relevant Historic Preservation Design Guidelines:
1.1 All projects shall respect the historic development pattern or context of the block,
neighborhood or district.
• Building footprint and location should reinforce the traditional patterns of the neighborhood.
• Allow for some porosity on a site. In a residential project, setback to setback development is
typically uncharacteristic of the historic context. Do not design a project which leaves no useful
open space visible from the street.
1.4 Design a new driveway or improve an existing driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual
impact.
• If an alley exists at the site, the new driveway must be located off it.
• Tracks, gravel, light grey concrete with minimal seams, or similar materials are appropriate for
driveways on Aspen Victorian properties.
1.5 Maintain the historic hierarchy of spaces.
• Reflect the established progression of public to private spaces from the public sidewalk to a semi-
public walkway, to a semi private entry feature, to private spaces.
1.6 Provide a simple walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry on
residential projects.
• Meandering walkways are not allowed, except where it is needed to avoid a tree or is typical of
the period of significance.
• Use paving materials that are similar to those used historically for the building style and install
them in the manner that they would have been used historically. For example on an Aspen
9.6 Minimize the visual impact of lightwells.
9.7 All relocations of designated structures shall be performed by contractors who specialize in
moving historic buildings, or can document adequate experience in successfully relocating such
buildings.
Chapter 10: New Construction - Building Additions MET NOT MET
10.2 A more recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed.
10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary
building is maintained.
10.4 The historic resource is to be the focus of the property, the entry point, and the predominant
structure as viewed from the street.NOT MET
10.6 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time.
10.8 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building.
10.9 If the addition is taller than a historic building, set it back from significant façades and use a
“connector” to link it to the historic building.
10.10 Place an addition at the rear of a primary building or set it back substantially from the front to
minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and
character to remain prominent.
10.11 Roof forms shall be compatible with the historic building.
10.12 Design an addition to a historic structure that does not destroy or obscure historically
important architectural features.
CONDITION
MET
MET
MET
MET
CONDITION
MET
MET
MET
MET
30
Page 5 of 14
Victorian landmark set flagstone pavers in sand, rather than in concrete. Light grey concrete, brick
or red sandstone are appropriate private walkway materials for most landmarks.
• The width of a new entry sidewalk should generally be three feet or less for residential properties.
A wider sidewalk may be appropriate for an AspenModern property.
1.7 Provide positive open space within a project site.
• Ensure that open space on site is meaningful and consolidated into a few large spaces rather than
many small unusable areas.
• Open space should be designed to support and complement the historic building.
1.8 Consider stormwater quality needs early in the design process.
• When included in the initial planning for a project, stormwater quality facilities can be better
integrated into the proposal. All landscape plans presented for HPC review must include at least
a preliminary representation of the stormwater design. A more detailed design must be reviewed
and approved by Planning and Engineering prior to building permit submittal.
• Site designs and stormwater management should provide positive drainage away from the historic
landmark, preserve the use of natural drainage and treatment systems of the site, reduce the
generation of additional stormwater runoff, and increase infiltration into the ground. Stormwater
facilities and conveyances located in front of a landmark should have minimal visual impact when
viewed from the public right of way.
• Refer to City Engineering for additional guidance and requirements.
1.10 Built-in furnishings, such as water features, fire pits, grills, and hot tubs, that could interfere
with or block views of historic structures are inappropriate.
• Site furnishings that are added to the historic property should not be intrusive or degrade the
integrity of the neighborhood patterns, site, or existing historic landscape.
• Consolidating and screening these elements is preferred.
1.11 Preserve and maintain historically significant landscaping on site, particularly landmark
trees and shrubs.
• Retaining historic planting beds and landscape features is encouraged.
• Protect historically significant vegetation during construction to avoid damage. Removal of
damaged, aged, or diseased trees must be approved by the Parks Department.
• If a significant tree must be removed, replace it with the same or similar species in coordination
with the Parks Department.
• The removal of non-historic planting schemes is encouraged.
• Consider restoring the original landscape if information is available, including original plant
materials.
2.1 Preserve original building materials.
• Do not remove siding that is in good condition or that can be repaired in place.
• Masonry features that define the overall historic character, such as walls, cornices, pediments,
steps and foundations, should be preserved.
• Avoid rebuilding a major portion of an exterior wall that could be repaired in place.
Reconstruction may result in a building which no longer retains its historic integrity.
• Original AspenModern materials may be replaced in kind if it has been determined that the
weathering detracts from the original design intent or philosophy.
31
Page 6 of 14
2.2 The finish of materials should be as it would have existed historically.
• Masonry naturally has a water-protective layer to protect it from the elements. Brick or stone
that was not historically painted shall not be painted.
• If masonry that was not painted historically was given a coat of paint at some more recent time,
consider removing it, using appropriate methods.
• Wood should be painted, stained or natural, as appropriate to the style and history of the building.
2.3 Match the original material in composition, scale and finish when replacing materials on
primary surfaces.
• If the original material is wood clapboard for example, then the replacement material must be wood
as well. It should match the original in size, and the amount of exposed lap and finish.
• Replace only the amount required. If a few boards are damaged beyond repair, then only those
should be replaced, not the entire wall. For AspenModern buildings, sometimes the replacement
of a larger area is required to preserve the integrity of the design intent.
2.4 Do not use synthetic materials as replacements for original building materials.
• Original building materials such as wood siding and brick should not be replaced with synthetic
materials.
2.5 Covering original building materials with new materials is inappropriate.
• Regardless of their character, new materials obscure the original, historically significant material.
• Any material that covers historic materials may also trap moisture between the two layers. This
will cause accelerated deterioration to the historic material which may go unnoticed.
2.6 Remove layers that cover the original material.
• Once the non-historic siding is removed, repair the original, underlying material.
3.1 Preserve the functional and decorative features of a historic window.
• Features important to the character of a window include its frame, sash, muntins/mullions, sills,
heads, jambs, moldings, operations, and groupings of windows.
• Repair frames and sashes rather than replacing them.
• Preserve the original glass. If original Victorian era glass is broken, consider using restoration
glass for the repair.
3.2 Preserve the position, number, and arrangement of historic windows in a building wall.
• Enclosing a historic window is inappropriate.
• Do not change the size of an original window opening.
3.3 Match a replacement window to the original in its design.
• If the original is double-hung, then the replacement window must also be double-hung. If the sash
have divided lights, match that characteristic as well.
3.4 When replacing an original window, use materials that are the same as the original.
3.5 Preserve the size and proportion of a historic window opening.
32
Page 7 of 14
• Changing the window opening is not permitted.
• Consider restoring an original window opening that was enclosed in the past.
3.6 Match, as closely as possible, the profile of the sash and its components to that of the original
window.
• A historic window often has a complex profile. Within the window’s casing, the sash steps back to
the plane of the glazing (glass) in several increments. These increments, which individually only
measure in eighths or quarters of inches, are important details. They distinguish the actual window
from the surrounding plane of the wall.
• The historic profile on AspenModern properties is typically minimal.
4.1 Preserve historically significant doors.
• Maintain features important to the character of a historic doorway. These include the door, door
frame, screen door, threshold, glass panes, paneling, hardware, detailing, transoms and flanking
sidelights.
• Do not change the position and function of original front doors and primary entrances.
• If a secondary entrance must be sealed shut, any work that is done must be reversible so that the
door can be used at a later time, if necessary. Also, keep the door in place, in its historic position.
• Previously enclosed original doors should be reopened when possible.
4.2 Maintain the original size of a door and its opening.
• Altering its size and shape is inappropriate. It should not be widened or raised in height.
4.3 When a historic door or screen door is damaged, repair it and maintain its general historic
appearance.
4.4 When replacing a door or screen door, use a design that has an appearance similar to the
original door or a door associated with the style of the building.
• A replica of the original, if evidence exists, is the preferred replacement.
• A historic door or screen door from a similar building also may be considered.
• Simple paneled doors were typical for Aspen Victorian properties.
• Very ornate doors, including stained or leaded glass, are discouraged, unless photographic
evidence can support their use.
4.5 Adding new doors on a historic building is generally not allowed.
• Place new doors in any proposed addition rather than altering the historic resource.
• Greater flexibility in installing a door in a new location may be considered on rear or secondary
walls.
• A new door in a new location should be similar in scale and style to historic openings on the
building and should be a product of its own time.
• Preserve the historic ratio of openings to solid wall on a façade. Significantly increasing the
openings on a character defining façade negatively affects the integrity of a structure.
33
Page 8 of 14
4.7 Preserve historic hardware.
• When new hardware is needed, it must be in scale with the door and appropriate to the style of
the building.
• On Aspen Victorian properties, conceal any modern elements such as entry key pads.
5.1 Preserve an original porch or balcony.
• Replace missing posts and railings when necessary. Match the original proportions, material and
spacing of balusters.
• Expanding the size of a historic porch or balcony is inappropriate.
5.2 Avoid removing or covering historic materials and details.
• Removing an original balustrade, for example, is inappropriate.
5.3 Enclosing a porch or balcony is not appropriate.
• Reopening an enclosed porch or balcony is appropriate.
5.4 If reconstruction is necessary, match the original in form, character and detail.
• Match original materials.
• When reconstructing an original porch or balcony without historic photographs, use dimensions
and characteristics found on comparable buildings. Keep style and form simple with minimal, if
any, decorative elements.
5.5 If new steps are to be added, construct them out of the same primary materials used on the
original, and design them to be in scale with the porch or balcony
• Steps should be located in the original location.
• Step width should relate to the scale of entry doors, spacing between posts, depth of deck, etc.
• Brick, red sandstone, grey concrete, or wood are appropriate materials for steps.
5.6 Avoid adding handrails or guardrails where they did not exist historically, particularly where
visible from the street.
• If handrails or guardrails are needed according to building code, keep their design simple in
character and different from the historic detailing on the porch or balcony.
6.1 Preserve significant architectural features.
• Repair only those features that are deteriorated.
• Patch, piece-in, splice, or consolidate to repair the existing materials, using recognized
preservation methods whenever possible.
• On AspenModern properties, repair is preferred, however, it may be more important to preserve
the integrity of the original design intent, such as crisp edges, rather than to retain heavily
deteriorated material.
6.2 When disassembly of a historic element is necessary for its restoration, use methods that
minimize damage to the original material.
34
Page 9 of 14
• Document its location so it may be repositioned accurately. Always devise methods of replacing
the disassembled material in its original configuration.
6.3 Remove only the portion of the detail that is deteriorated and must be replaced.
• Match the original in composition, scale, and finish when replacing materials or features.
• If the original detail was made of wood, for example, then the replacement material should be
wood, when feasible. It should match the original in size and finish.
6.4 Repair or replacement of missing or deteriorated features are required to be based on original
designs.
• The design should be substantiated by physical or pictorial evidence to avoid creating a
misrepresentation of the building’s heritage.
• When reconstruction of an element is impossible because there is no historical evidence, develop
a compatible new design that is a simplified interpretation of the original, and maintains similar
scale, proportion and material.
6.5 Do not guess at “historic” designs for replacement parts.
• Where scars on the exterior suggest that architectural features existed, but there is no other physical
or photographic evidence, then new features may be designed that are similar in character to
related buildings.
• Using ornate materials on a building or adding new conjectural detailing for which there is no
documentation is inappropriate.
7.1 Preserve the original form of a roof.
• Do not alter the angle of a historic roof. Preserve the orientation and slope of the roof as seen from
the street.
• Retain and repair original and decorative roof detailing.
• Where the original roof form has been altered, consider restoration.
7.2 Preserve the original eave depth.
• Overhangs contribute to the scale and detailing of a historic resource.
• AspenModern properties typically have very deep or extremely minimal overhangs that are key
character defining features of the architectural style.
7.4 New vents should be minimized, carefully, placed and painted a dark color.
• Direct vents for fireplaces are generally not permitted to be added on historic structures.
• Locate vents on non-street facing facades.
• Use historic chimneys as chases for new flues when possible.
7.5 Preserve original chimneys, even if they are made non-functional.
• Reconstruct a missing chimney when documentation exists.
7.7 Preserve original roof materials.
35
Page 10 of 14
• Avoid removing historic roofing material that is in good condition. When replacement is necessary,
use a material that is similar to the original in both style as well as physical qualities and use a
color that is similar to that seen historically.
7.8 New or replacement roof materials should convey a scale, color and texture similar to the
original.
• If a substitute is used, such as composition shingle, the roof material should be earth tone and
have a matte, non-reflective finish.
• Flashing should be in scale with the roof material.
• Flashing should be tin, lead coated copper, galvanized or painted metal and have a matte, non-
reflective finish.
• Design flashing, such as drip edges, so that architectural details are not obscured.
• A metal roof is inappropriate for an Aspen Victorian primary home but may be appropriate for a
secondary structure from that time period.
• A metal roof material should have a matte, non-reflective finish and match the original seaming.
7.10 Design gutters so that their visibility on the structure is minimized to the extent possible.
• Downspouts should be placed in locations that are not visible from the street if possible, or in
locations that do not obscure architectural detailing on the building.
• The material used for the gutters should be in character with the style of the building.
9.1 Developing a basement by underpinning and excavating while the historic structure remains
in place may help to preserve the historic fabric.
• This activity will require the same level of documentation, structural assessment, and posting of
financial assurances as a building relocation.
9.3 Site a relocated structure in a position similar to its historic orientation.
• It must face the same direction and have a relatively similar setback. In general, a forward movement,
rather than a lateral movement is preferred. HPC will consider setback variations where
appropriate.
• A primary structure may not be moved to the rear of the parcel to accommodate a new building in
front of it.
• Be aware of potential restrictions against locating buildings too close to mature trees. Consult with
the City Forester early in the design process. Do not relocate a building so that it becomes obscured
by trees.
9.4 Position a relocated structure at its historic elevation above grade.
• Raising the finished floor of the building slightly above its original elevation is acceptable if needed
to address drainage issues. A substantial change in position relative to grade is inappropriate.
• Avoid making design decisions that require code related alterations which could have been avoided.
In particular, consider how the relationship to grade could result in non-historic guardrails, etc.
9.5 A new foundation shall appear similar in design and materials to the historic foundation.
36
Page 11 of 14
• On modest structures, a simple foundation is appropriate. Constructing a stone foundation on a
miner’s cottage where there is no evidence that one existed historically is out of character and is
not allowed.
• Exposed concrete or painted metal flashing are generally appropriate.
• Where a stone or brick foundation existed historically, it must be replicated, ideally using stone
salvaged from the original foundation as a veneer. The replacement must be similar in the cut of
the stone and design of the mortar joints.
• New AspenModern foundations shall be handled on a case by case basis to ensure preservation
of the design intent.
9.6 Minimize the visual impact of lightwells.
• The size of any lightwell that faces a street should be minimized.
• Lightwells must be placed so that they are not immediately adjacent to character defining features,
such as front porches.
• Lightwells must be protected with a flat grate, rather than a railing or may not be visible from a
street.
• Lightwells that face a street must abut the building foundation and generally may not “float” in the
landscape except where they are screened, or on an AspenModern site.
9.7 All relocations of designated structures shall be performed by contractors who specialize in
moving historic buildings, or can document adequate experience in successfully relocating such
buildings.
• The specific methodology to be used in relocating the structure must be approved by the HPC.
• During the relocation process, panels must be mounted on the exterior of the building to protect
existing openings and historic glass. Special care shall be taken to keep from damaging door and
window frames and sashes in the process of covering the openings. Significant architectural
details may need to be removed and securely stored until restoration.
• The structure is expected to be stored on its original site during the construction process.
Proposals for temporary storage on a different parcel will be considered on a case by case basis
and may require special conditions of approval.
• A historic resource may not be relocated outside of the City of Aspen.
10.2 A more recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed.
• For Aspen Victorian properties, HPC generally relies on the 1904 Sanborn Fire Insurance maps to
determine which portions of a building are historically significant and must be preserved.
• HPC may insist on the removal of non-historic construction that is considered to be detrimental to the
historic resource in any case when preservation benefits or variations are being approved.
10.3 Design a new addition such that one’s ability to interpret the historic character of the
primary building is maintained.
• A new addition must be compatible with the historic character of the primary building.
• An addition must be subordinate, deferential, modest, and secondary in comparison to the
architectural character of the primary building.
• An addition that imitates the primary building’s historic style is not allowed. For example, a new
faux Victorian detailed addition is inappropriate on an Aspen Victorian home.
37
Page 12 of 14
• An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate.
• Proposals on corner lots require particular attention to creating compatibility.
10.4 The historic resource is to be the focus of the property, the entry point, and the predominant
structure as viewed from the street.
• The historic resource must be visually dominant on the site and must be distinguishable against the
addition.
• The total above grade floor area of an addition may be no more than 100% of the above grade floor
area of the original historic resource. All other above grade development must be completely
detached. HPC may consider exceptions to this policy if two or more of the following are met:
o The proposed addition is all one story
o The footprint of the new addition is closely related to the footprint of the historic resource
and the proposed design is particularly sensitive to the scale and proportions of the historic
resource
o The project involves the demolition and replacement of an older addition that is considered
to have been particularly detrimental to the historic resource
o The interior of the resource is fully utilized, containing the same number of usable floors as
existed historically
o The project is on a large lot, allowing the addition to have a significant setback from the
street
o There are no variance requests in the application other than those related to historic
conditions that aren’t being changed
o The project is proposed as part of a voluntary AspenModern designation, or
o The property is affected by non-preservation related site specific constraints such as trees
that must be preserved, Environmentally Sensitive Areas review, etc.
10.6 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time.
• An addition shall be distinguishable from the historic building and still be visually compatible with
historic features.
• A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material, or a
modern interpretation of a historic style are all techniques that may be considered to help define
a change from historic construction to new construction.
• Do not reference historic styles that have no basis in Aspen.
• Consider these three aspects of an addition; form, materials, and fenestration. An addition must
relate strongly to the historic resource in at least two of these elements. Departing from the historic
resource in one of these categories allows for creativity and a contemporary design response.
• Note that on a corner lot, departing from the form of the historic resource may not be allowed.
• There is a spectrum of appropriate solutions to distinguishing new from old portions of a
development. Some resources of particularly high significance or integrity may not be the right
instance for a contrasting addition.
10.8 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building.
• An addition that is lower than, or similar to the height of the primary building, is preferred.
10.9 If the addition is taller than a historic building, set it back from significant façades and use
a “connector” to link it to the historic building.
• Only a one-story connector is allowed.
38
Page 13 of 14
• Usable space, including decks, is not allowed on top of connectors unless the connector has
limited visibility and the deck is shielded with a solid parapet wall.
• In all cases, the connector must attach to the historic resource underneath the eave.
• The connector shall be a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition and the primary building.
• Minimize the width of the connector. Ideally, it is no more than a passage between the historic
resource and addition. The connector must reveal the original building corners. The connector
may not be as wide as the historic resource.
• Any street-facing doors installed in the connector must be minimized in height and width and
accessed by a secondary pathway. See guideline 4.1 for further information.
10.10 Place an addition at the rear of a primary building or set it back substantially from the front
to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and
character to remain prominent.
• Locating an addition at the front of a primary building is inappropriate.
• Additions to the side of a primary building are handled on a case-by-case basis and are approved
based on site specific constraints that restrict rear additions.
• Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not alter the
exterior mass of a building.
10.11 Roof forms shall be compatible with the historic building.
• A simple roof form that does not compete with the historic building is appropriate.
• On Aspen Victorian properties, a flat roof may only be used on an addition to a gable roofed
structure if the addition is entirely one story in height, or if the flat roofed areas are limited, but the
addition is primarily a pitched roof.
10.12 Design an addition to a historic structure that does not destroy or obscure historically
important architectural features.
• Loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices, and eavelines must be avoided.
Staff Finding: The applicable sections of the design guidelines are as follows: site planning,
building materials, windows, doors, roofs, porches, and building additions. All relevant Design
Guidelines in Chapter 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 related to the preservation plan need to be reviewed in
detail as part of the permit submittal for further historic evidence and/or investigative demolition in
order to ensure no historic fabric is being removed. This will be a condition of Final approval.
Design Guideline 4.5 & 10.4 is about the prominence of the historic resource as it relates to the
historic entry of the home. The guidelines are very clear in trying the maintain the historic entrance
of the historic home as a key feature by maintaining its true function. The historic entry was
through a front porch at the northwest corner of the house. The porch is currently enclosed and
proposed to be re-opened, which is appropriate. The application also includes a new, non-historic
secondary entry proposed to be added to the northeast corner of the front façade of the historic
resource. This second entry point is designed to be more minimal in scale than the front porch
but still competes with the historic entry as both doors are located on the front elevation of the
historic home. Staff recommends the secondary entry door and pathway be removed and that
portion of the façade be restudied to determine if physical or photographic evidence is available
39
Page 14 of 14
for an accurate restoration. In any case, a new door and pathway in this location does not meet
Design Guidelines 4.5 and 10.4.
Design Guidelines 1.8 & 9.4 address plans for stormwater mitigation and positive drainage
related to the historic structures. The applicant has submitted preliminary plans for stormwater
management but a number of comments have come up regarding the plans related to 1.) raising
the elevation of the historic resource and the grade on the site for positive drainage, 2.) proposed
rain garden, and 3.) the use of a below grade stormwater infiltration system. The Engineering
Department has provided comments asking for more clarification regarding the preliminary
proposal and staff requests the elevation details for the anticipated elevation changes for the
historic resource in order to assess its appropriateness. It is extremely important that the details
related to storm water mitigation and drainage are clearly vetted by all relevant City Departments
in order to achieve a balance between the functional requirements and historic conditions. Staff
recommends additional information for further review.
Design Guidelines 5.6, 7.4, 7.10, 9.5, 9.6 and 9.7 address various aspects of the restoration of
historic features and the relocation of the historic resource. In addition to a detailed preservation
plan, HPC will want to address appendages to the historic resource in the form of handrails,
vents/flues, gutters, curb heights of lightwells and other similar features and the foundation detail.
All of the features listed need to be minimal in size and located in areas with the least visual impact
when viewing the historic resource. Staff recommends the listed details be provided for review
during Final.
Design Guidelines 10.6, 10.8, 10.9 and 10.10 speaks to the design expectations for the new
addition. The proposed addition is compatible in size/scale with a floor area that is less than that
of the historic home. It has a minimal footprint and utilizes forms found on the historic resource.
The two-story addition is located to the rear of the property towards the alley and distanced from
the historic resource with a 10’ long connecting element. The design strikes a good balance
between contemporary and historic features where the proposed siding of the new addition relates
to the restored historic siding material, overall form of the addition strongly relates to the historic
resource, and fenestration is the departing point for the design. Additional information regarding
materials to be reviewed during Final Review for compatibility. Staff finds the design of the new
addition to be appropriate and in compliance with relevant design guidelines.
In summary, staff recommends continuation to restudy the design to address the conditions listed
in the staff memo.
40
Page 1 of 2
Exhibit A.2
Relocation Criteria
Staff Findings
26.415.090.C Relocation:
Relocation for a building, structure or object will be approved if it is determined that it meets any one of the
following standards:
1. It is considered a noncontributing element of a historic district and its relocation will not affect the
character of the historic district; or
2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on which it is located
and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the Historic District or property; or
3. The owner has obtained a certificate of economic hardship; or
4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given the
character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not adversely affect the
integrity of the Historic District in which it was originally located or diminish the historic, architectural
or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated properties; and
Additionally, for approval to relocate all of the following criteria must be met:
1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding the
physical impacts of relocation;
2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and
3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and
preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary financial
security.
26.415.090.C - Relocation. Relocation for a building, structure or object will be approved if it is
determined that it meets any one of the following standards:MET NOT MET DOES NOT
APPLY
1. It is considered a noncontributing element of a historic district and its relocation will not affect
the character of the historic district; or N/A
2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on which it is located
and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the Historic District or property; or .N/A
3. The owner has obtained a certificate of economic hardship; or N/A
4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given the
character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not adversely affect the
integrity of the Historic District in which it was originally located or diminish the historic, architectural
or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated properties; and
Additionally, for approval to relocate all of the following criteria must be met:MET NOT MET DOES NOT
APPLY
1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding the
physical impacts of relocation;CONDITION
2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and N/A
3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and
preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary financial
security.
CONDITION
MET
Review Criteria for 227 E. Bleeker
The applicant is planning to straighten out the alignment of the historic home
on the site after it is relocate the home onto a new basement foundation.
Summary of Review Criteria for Relocation Request
41
Page 2 of 2
Staff Finding: The applicant proposes to relocate the historic resource on a new basement
foundation which results in the historic resource being within the setbacks and parallel with the
property lines. The applicant has indicated that the historic resource does not line up with the
property lines and the front overhang is in the front yard setback. The proposed relocation does
not diminish the historic integrity of the resource and the relationship to grade will remain
consistent. The necessary letter from an engineer determining the resource capable of
withstanding the relocation and the financial assurances in the amount of $30,000 will be required
prior to building permit submission. Unless masonry foundation is discovered behind the vertical
wooden skirt around the foundation, the new foundation is to be a simple concrete finish.
Staff finds the relocation criteria are met.
42
Page 1 of 2
Exhibit A.3
Setback Variations Criteria
Staff Findings
26.415.110.C Variations:
Dimensional variations are allowed for projects involving designated properties to create
development that is more consistent with the character of the historic property or district than what
would be required by the underlying zoning's dimensional standards.
1. The HPC may grant variations of the Land Use Code for designated properties to allow:
a) Development in the side, rear and front setbacks;
b) Development that does not meet the minimum distance requirements between
buildings;
c) Up to five percent (5%) additional site coverage;
d) Less public amenity than required for the on-site relocation of commercial historic
properties.
2. In granting a variation, the HPC must make a finding that such a variation:
a) Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district; and/or
b) Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural
character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic
district.
Staff Finding: The proposed design pushes the new addition towards the rear of the property
and provides alley access to the garage, which is consistent with the pattern in the area. The two-
story addition is considered a principal building including the garage portion of the addition
because there is a deck above the garage. The zone district requires a 10’ rear yard setback for
principal structures, above and below grade, and the proposed design shows the above grade
addition is within 3’-2” of the rear yard setback and 3’-3” within the rear yard setback for the
subgrade addition. This would translate to a rear yard setback of 6’-9” for the above grade addition
2. In granting a variation, the HPC must make a finding that such a variation:MET NOT MET DOES NOT
APPLY
a.) Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district; and/or
b.) Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural
character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district.
MET
Review Criteria for 227 E. Bleeker
HPC may grant dimensional variations of the Land Use Code to allow for development in the side, rear and front setbbacks.
The applicant is requesting Setback Variations for the rear addition, above and below grade.
MET
Summary of Review Criteria for Setback Variation Request
26.415.110.C - Variation. Dimensional variations are allowed for projects involving designated properties to create development that is
more consistent with the character of the historic property or district than what would be requried by the underlying zoning's dimensional
standards.
43
Page 2 of 2
and a 6’-10” for the subgrade addition. Staff supports a consolidated request for a 6’-9” rear yard
setback, above and below grade for the new addition because it is consistent with the pattern of
the area and mitigates adverse impacts to the historic resource by establishing distance between
the historic resource and the new addition without creating functional issues for activity in the
alley.
Staff finds the criteria are met with this design.
44
Page 1 of 3
Exhibit A.4
Floor Area Bonus Criteria
Staff Findings
26.415.110.F Floor Area Bonus:
1. In selected circumstances, the HPC may grant up to five hundred (500) additional square feet of
allowable floor area for projects involving designated historic properties. The potential bonus is
determined by net lot area such that a 3,000-5,999 square foot lot is eligible for a maximum of a two
hundred fifty (250) square foot floor area bonus, a 6,000-8,999 square foot lot is eligible for a
maximum of a three hundred seventy five (375) square foot floor area bonus and a 9,000 square
foot or larger lot is eligible for a maximum of a 500 square foot floor area bonus. Floor area bonuses
are cumulative. More than one bonus may be approved up to the maximum amount allowed for the
lot. If a property is subdivided, the maximum bonus will be based on the original lot size, though the
bonus may be allocated amongst the newly created parcels to the extent permitted.
On any lot where a historic property is permitted a duplex density while a non-historic property is
not, the increased allowable floor area that results from the density will be deducted from the
maximum bonus that the property may receive.
To be considered for the bonus, it must be demonstrated that the project meets all of the following
criteria:
a) The historic building is the key element of the property, and the primary entry into the
structure, and the addition is incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of
the historic building; and
b) If applicable, historically significant site and landscape features from the period of
significance of the historic building are preserved; and the applicant is undertaking multiple
significant restoration actions, including but not limited to, re-opening an enclosed porch,
re-installing doors and windows in original openings that have been enclosed, removing
paint or other nonoriginal finishes, or removing elements which are covering original
materials or features; and
c) The project retains a historic outbuilding, if one is present, as a free standing structure above
grade; and
d) The applicant is electing a preservation outcome that is a high priority for HPC, including
but not limited to, creating at least two detached structures on the site, limiting the amount
of above grade square footage added directly to a historic resource to no more than twice
the above grade square footage of the historic resource, limiting the height of an addition to
a historic resource to the height of the resource or lower, or demolishing and replacing a
significantly City of Aspen Land Use Code Part 400 – Historic Preservation Page 29
incompatible non-historic addition to a historic resource with an addition that meets current
guidelines.
2. Granting of additional allowable floor area is not a matter of right but is contingent upon the sole
discretion of the HPC and the Commission's assessments of the merits of the proposed project and
its ability to demonstrate exemplary historic preservation practices.
45
Page 2 of 3
3. The decision to grant a floor area bonus for major development projects will occur as part of the
approval of a Conceptual Development Plan, pursuant to Subsection 26.415.070.D.
4. Floor area bonuses are only available for single-family, duplex or 100% affordable housing
development. A property shall receive no more than 500 square feet total. The award of a bonus is
project specific. At such time that more than 40% of an addition to a historic resource that was
constructed as part of a project which previously received a floor area bonus is demolished, the
bonus may be retained only if the proposed redevelopment is found to meet the requirements of this
Section.
5. Separate from the floor area bonus described above, on a lot that contains a historic resource, HPC
may exempt wall exposed by a light well that is larger than the minimum required for egress from
the calculation of subgrade floor area only if the light well is internalized such that it is entirely
recessed behind the vertical plane established by the portion of the building façade(s) closest to any
street(s), the light well is screened from view from the street by building walls or fences, and any
addition that is made to the affected resource simultaneous or after the construction of the light well
is entirely one story.
LOT SIZE MAXIMUM
FLOOR AREA
BONUS
REQUESTED
FLOOR AREA
BONUS
4,500 SF 250 SF 250 SF
To be considered for the bonus, it must be demonstrated that the project meets all of the following
criteria: MET NOT MET DOES NOT
APPLY
a) The historic building is the key element of the property, and the primary entry into the structure,
and the addition is incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic
building; and
NOT MET
b) If applicable, historically significant site and landscape features from the period of significance of
the historic building are preserved; and the applicant is undertaking multiple significant restoration
actions, including but not limited to, re-opening an enclosed porch, re-installing doors and windows
in original openings that have been enclosed, removing paint or other nonoriginal finishes, or
removing elements which are covering original materials or features; and
c) The project retains a historic outbuilding, if one is present, as a free standing structure above
grade; and N/A
d) The applicant is electing a preservation outcome that is a high priority for HPC, including but not
limited to, creating at least two detached structures on the site, limiting the amount of above grade
square footage added directly to a historic resource to no more than twice the above grade square
footage of the historic resource, limiting the height of an addition to a historic resource to the height
of the resource or lower, or demolishing and replacing a significantly City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 400 – Historic Preservation Page 29 incompatible non-historic addition to a historic resource
with an addition that meets current guidelines.
Review Criteria for 227 E. Bleeker
The applicant is requesting for a 250 sf Floor Area Bonus for significant restoration efforts that include
re-opening the front porch and other enclosed areas, restored siding and historic openings. According to
intent of Ordinace No. 34, Series of 2005, the applicant may request up to a 250 sf floor area bonus.
Summary of Review Criteria for Floor Area Bonus Request
26.415.110.F - Floor Area Bonus.
In selected circumstances, the HPC may grant up to five hundred (500) additional square feet of
allowable floor area for projects involving designated historic properties. The potential bonus is
determined by net lot area such that a 3,000-5,999 square foot lot is eligible for a maximum of a two
hundred fifty (250) square foot floor area bonus, a 6,000-8,999 square foot lot is eligible for a
maximum of a three hundred seventy five (375) square foot floor area bonus and a 9,000 square
foot or larger lot is eligible for a maximum of a 500 square foot floor area bonus. Floor area bonuses
are cumulative.
MET
CONDITION
46
Page 3 of 3
Staff Finding: The applicant proposes to completely restore the entire historic resource that has
been altered over the years by utilizing historic documents and photographs. According to the
1904 Sanborn Map, it is evident that certain areas of the original floor plan have been enclosed
and used as interior space. Photographs reveal the addition of new siding and fenestration, but
outside of these changes it appears that no significant changes were made to the overall mass
and scale of the historic resource. Staff is in agreement with the applicant that the proposed
restoration will be a significant undertaking that will greatly benefit the historic resource. A detailed
preservation plan to document the existing conditions and the proposed treatments ensuring
compliance with the rehabilitation guidelines found in the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines,
Chapters 2-7, will be required.
The proposed addition shows the historic resource to be approximately 1,100 sf in total floor area
with an addition equal to approximately 950 sf of floor area. The floor area numbers will need to
be verified again after taking into account the referral comments provided by the Zoning
Department regarding the calculation of floor area but the overall mass and scale of the new
addition is respectful and does not overwhelm the historic resource on site.
One of the criteria for granting a floor area bonus speaks to the importance of the historic entry
and the visual integrity of the resource. Staff finds this criteria is not met due to the proposed
secondary door and entrance which challenges the preservation efforts of reinstating the historic
front porch entry. The proposed design does place emphasis on the historic porch entry as the
main entrance to the home but the secondary entrance and pathway is located on the same front
façade resulting in what appears like two front doors when viewed from East Bleeker Street. Staff
recommends the removal of this secondary entrance to meet all necessary criteria for the floor
area bonus.
According to the historic lot split ordinance from 2005, the applicant for this historic property may
request for a floor area bonus that totals 50% of the available bonus for the lot. The intent of this
ordinance language was to divide the 500 sf bonus between the two lots that were created
because each lot contains a historic structure. The maximum floor area bonus of 250 sf is also
consistent with the maximum allowed floor area bonus for a 4,500 sf lot as stated in the code.
If the final design amends to remove the proposed secondary entry, staff finds all relevant
criteria would be met and fully supports granting the applicant the full 250 sf bonus for this
project.
47
From:Hailey Guglielmo
To:Sarah Yoon
Cc:Wyatt Young
Subject:RE: HPC Referral Project: 227 E. Bleeker Street
Date:Tuesday, November 17, 2020 4:27:38 PM
Attachments:image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
image001.png
Sarah,
Below are Engineering’s comments.
Prior to HPC approval the following comments need to be addressed:
1.There is an existing transformer on the property that is shown on the survey but not in the
proposed drawings. Please show this transformer on the drawings or explain where it is being
relocated. Does the existing transformer have capacity for the addition and increased use?
Work with the City Electric Department to determine available capacity.
2.The electric/communication utility easement bk 524 pg 835 needs to be updated to provide
current clearance distance standards. 3’ must be clear on the sides of the transformer vault
and 10’ clear at the front. If it is a 5’ vault this means the easement must be 11’ wide by 8’
deep with the 10’ in the front remaining clear in the alley ROW.
3.If the permeable pavers shown on the landscape plan in the SE corner is meant to be a
parking spot, the existing transformer prevents that from happening. Is that a required parking
spot or a patio?
The following is a heads up for requirements at building permit:
1.Applicant will be required to follow the requirements of a major development within the
Urban Runoff Management Plan. The conceptual HPC plan shows the installation of a
raingarden to account for stormwater requirements which demonstrates there is a path
forward to meet stormwater requirements.
2.All utilities will need to be shown at building permit. If fire suppression is provided calculations
or a memo needs to be submitted verifying water service line size. There does not appear to
be major utility/tree conflicts so the project can move forward through HPC approval.
EXHIBIT B - REFERRAL COMMENTS
48
From:Hailey Guglielmo
To:Sarah Yoon
Cc:Wyatt Young
Subject:RE: HPC Referral Project: 227 E. Bleeker Street
Date:Monday, November 30, 2020 12:39:48 PM
Attachments:image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image006.png
image007.png
Sarah,
Two additional comments to add based on this information.
1.The drainage letter states they intend to raise the existing first floor elevation to get positive
drainage. If I recall correctly there was an HPC issue with 203 N Monarch that due to it’s
historic nature the house could not be raised. I will defer to HPC on if altering the floor
elevation is permitted.
2.StormTech is not an approved BMP in the URMP. It does not meet the ten foot depth
requirement to get below frost depth. At building permit the applicability of this particular
BMP will need to be further vetted.
Thanks.
Hailey
49
MEMORANDUM
TO: Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner
FROM: Sophie Varga, Zoning Enforcement Officer
DATE: 11/17/2020
RE: 227 E Bleeker Referral Comments
Floor area calculations:
1. Allowed deck exemption: the deck exemption is calculated off of the
prescribed floor area by the specific approval (1,800 SF); the Floor area
bonus is not included. The deck exemption is 270 SF.
a. Plan Sheet: A.1.05
b. Code Section: 26.575.020.D.4(b)
2. Front porches: if the front porches are more than 30” above finished
grade they are attributed to floor area as deck. Both front porches need
to be included in floor area calculations.
a. Plan Sheet: A.1.05
b. Code Section: 26.575.020.D.5
3. Subgrade wall calculations: The percentage of exposed wall area should
be rounded up to 3.5 (from 3.46). It is preferable to be consistent with the
number of decimal places; two are used in all other calculations. Provide
sections that clearly depict the interior wall being projected outward,
especially for Walls 2 and 6. If finished grade and natural grade are the
same, note this.
a. Plan Sheet: A.1.05
b. Code Section: 26.575.020.D.8
Setback Variations: please be sure to dimension all projections into the setback.
A variation needs to be requested for the rear yard setback for all three levels
(this portion of the building is not used solely as a garage – there is a deck above
it). A variation request should also be made to legalize the existing overhang into
the front yard setback.
This memorandum summarizes major items. A variety of other requirements will
be necessary for building permit submittal and zoning review.
50
51
52
53
PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PLANNER: Amy Simon, amy.simon@cityofaspen.com
DATE: September 22, 2020
PROJECT LOCATION: 227 E. Bleeker Street
REQUEST: Major Development, Relocation and Variations
DESCRIPTION: 227 E. Bleeker Street is a Victorian era miner’s cottage, on a 4,500 square foot lot in the
R-6 residential zone district. The property is landmarked and is the product of a historic landmark lot split
approved in 2005. The terms of the lot split established the maximum allowed floor area for this lot as
1,800, with the potential for the owner to request a floor area bonus of up to 250 square feet.
The applicant plans a full rehabilitation of the home, which is very deteriorated. Non-historic additions are
proposed to be removed and the house will be placed on a new basement, with an addition proposed for
the rear of the site.
The work requires Historic Preservation Commission review of Major Development, a two-step process.
Conceptual Design review will consider mass, scale and site plan. At this meeting, HPC will evaluate the on-
site relocation of the historic resource as well as any dimensional variations requested by the applicant.
Following Conceptual, staff will inform City Council of the HPC decision, allowing them the opportunity to
uphold HPC’s decision or to “Call Up” aspects of the approval for further discussion. This is a standard
practice for all significant projects. Following the Notice of Call Up, HPC will conduct Final Design review
to consider landscape, lighting and materials.
HPC will use the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines and the Land Use Code Sections that are
applicable to this project to assist with their determinations.
RELEVANT LAND USE CODE SECTIONS:
Section Number Section Title
26.304 Common Development Review Procedures
26.415.070.D Historic Preservation – Major Development
26.415.090 Relocation of Historic Properties
26.415.110 Historic Preservation – Benefits
26.575.020 Calculations and Measurements
26.710.040 Medium-Density Residential (R-6)
For your convenience – links to the Land Use Application and Land Use Code are below:
Land Use Application Land Use Code Historic Preservation Design Guidelines
54
Review by: Staff for completeness and recommendations
HPC for decisions
City Council for notice of the HPC Conceptual decision
Public Hearing: Yes, at Conceptual and Final
Neighborhood Outreach: No
Referrals: Staff will seek referral comments from the Building Department, Zoning,
Engineering and Parks regarding any relevant code requirements or
considerations. There will be no Development Review Committee
meeting or referral fees.
Planning Fees: $1,950 for 6 billable hours of staff time. (Additional/ lesser hours will be
billed/ refunded at a rate of $325 per hour.) This fee will be due at
Conceptual and Final submittal.
Referral Agencies Fee: $0.
Total Deposit: $1,950 at each review step
APPLICATION CHECKLIST:
Below is a list of submittal requirements for HPC Conceptual and Final reviews. At each review step,
please email the entire application as one pdf to amy.simon@cityofaspen.com. The fee will be requested
after the application is determined to be complete.
Completed Land Use Application and signed Fee Agreement.
Pre-application Conference Summary (this document).
Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur,
consisting of a current (no older than 6 months) certificate from a title insurance company, an
ownership and encumbrance report, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado,
listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements,
contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner’s right to apply for
the Development Application.
Applicant’s name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant that states
the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of
the applicant.
HOA Compliance form (Attached).
List of adjacent property owners for both properties within 300’ for public hearing.
An 8 1/2” by 11” vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen.
55
Site improvement survey including topography and vegetation showing the current status,
certified by a registered land surveyor, licensed in the state of Colorado.
A written description of the proposal (scope of work) and written explanation of how the
proposed development and any requests for variations or benefits complies with the review
standards and design guidelines relevant to the application.
A proposed site plan.
Scaled drawings of all proposed structure(s) or addition(s) depicting their form, including their
height, massing, scale, proportions and roof plan; and the primary features of all elevations.
Supplemental materials to provide a visual description of the context surrounding the
designated historic property including photographs and other exhibits, as needed, to
accurately depict location and extent of proposed work.
For Conceptual, the following items will need to be submitted in addition to the items listed above:
Graphics identifying preliminary selection of primary exterior building materials.
A preliminary stormwater design.
For Final Review, the following items will need to be submitted in addition to the items listed above:
Drawings of the street facing facades must be provided at ¼” scale.
Final selection of all exterior materials, and samples or clearly illustrated photographs. Samples
are preferred for the presentation to HPC.
A lighting plan and landscape plan, including any visible stormwater mitigation features.
Disclaimer:
The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based
on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may
or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right.
56
This page is only a part of a 2016 ALTA® Commitment for Title Insurance issued by First American Title Insurance Company. This Commitment is not
valid without the Notice; the Commitment to Issue Policy; the Commitment Conditions; Schedule A; Schedule B, Part I—Requirements; Schedule B,
Part II—Exceptions; and a counter-signature by the Company or its issuing agent that may be in electronic form.
Copyright 2006-2016 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved.
The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and
ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are
prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association.
Form 5030000 (1-31-17)Page 1 of 16 ALTA Commitment for Title Insurance (8-1-16)
ALTA Commitment for Title Insurance
ISSUED BY
First American Title Insurance Company
Commitment
COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE
Issued By
FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
NOTICE
IMPORTANT—READ CAREFULLY: THIS COMMITMENT IS AN OFFER TO ISSUE ONE OR MORE TITLE
INSURANCE POLICIES. ALL CLAIMS OR REMEDIES SOUGHT AGAINST THE COMPANY INVOLVING THE
CONTENT OF THIS COMMITMENT OR THE POLICY MUST BE BASED SOLELY IN CONTRACT.
THIS COMMITMENT IS NOT AN ABSTRACT OF TITLE, REPORT OF THE CONDITION OF TITLE, LEGAL OPINION,
OPINION OF TITLE, OR OTHER REPRESENTATION OF THE STATUS OF TITLE. THE PROCEDURES USED BY
THE COMPANY TO DETERMINE INSURABILITY OF THE TITLE, INCLUDING ANY SEARCH AND EXAMINATION,
ARE PROPRIETARY TO THE COMPANY, WERE PERFORMED SOLELY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE COMPANY,
AND CREATE NO EXTRACONTRACTUAL LIABILITY TO ANY PERSON, INCLUDING A PROPOSED INSURED.
THE COMPANY’S OBLIGATION UNDER THIS COMMITMENT IS TO ISSUE A POLICY TO A PROPOSED INSURED
IDENTIFIED IN SCHEDULE A IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS AND PROVISIONS OF THIS COMMITMENT.
THE COMPANY HAS NO LIABILITY OR OBLIGATION INVOLVING THE CONTENT OF THIS COMMITMENT TO ANY
OTHER PERSON.
COMMITMENT TO ISSUE POLICY
Subject to the Notice; Schedule B, Part I—Requirements; Schedule B, Part II—Exceptions; and the Commitment
Conditions,First American Title Insurance Company, a Colorado Corporation (the "Company"), commits to issue the
Policy according to the terms and provisions of this Commitment. This Commitment is effective as of the Commitment
Date shown in Schedule A for each Policy described in Schedule A, only when the Company has entered in Schedule A
both the specified dollar amount as the Proposed Policy Amount and the name of the Proposed Insured.
If all of the Schedule B, Part I—Requirements have not been met within six months after the Commitment Date, this
Commitment terminates and the Company’s liability and obligation end.
First American Title Insurance Company
If this jacket was created electronically, it constitutes an original document.
57
This page is only a part of a 2016 ALTA® Commitment for Title Insurance issued by First American Title Insurance Company. This Commitment is not
valid without the Notice; the Commitment to Issue Policy; the Commitment Conditions; Schedule A; Schedule B, Part I—Requirements; Schedule B,
Part II—Exceptions; and a counter-signature by the Company or its issuing agent that may be in electronic form.
Copyright 2006-2016 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved.
The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and
ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are
prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association.
Form 5030000 (1-31-17)Page 2 of 16 ALTA Commitment for Title Insurance (8-1-16)
COMMITMENT CONDITIONS
1. DEFINITIONS
(a) "Knowledge" or "Known": Actual or imputed knowledge, but not constructive notice imparted by the Public
Records.
(b) "Land": The land described in Schedule A and affixed improvements that by law constitute real property. The
term "Land" does not include any property beyond the lines of the area described in Schedule A, nor any right, title,
interest, estate, or easement in abutting streets, roads, avenues, alleys, lanes, ways, or waterways, but this does
not modify or limit the extent that a right of access to and from the Land is to be insured by the Policy.
(c) "Mortgage": A mortgage, deed of trust, or other security instrument, including one evidenced by electronic means
authorized by law.
(d) "Policy": Each contract of title insurance, in a form adopted by the American Land Title Association, issued or to
be issued by the Company pursuant to this Commitment.
(e) "Proposed Insured": Each person identified in Schedule A as the Proposed Insured of each Policy to be issued
pursuant to this Commitment.
(f) "Proposed Policy Amount": Each dollar amount specified in Schedule A as the Proposed Policy Amount of each
Policy to be issued pursuant to this Commitment.
(g) "Public Records": Records established under state statutes at the Commitment Date for the purpose of imparting
constructive notice of matters relating to real property to purchasers for value and without Knowledge.
(h) "Title": The estate or interest described in Schedule A.
2. If all of the Schedule B, Part I—Requirements have not been met within the time period specified in the Commitment
to Issue Policy, this Commitment terminates and the Company’s liability and obligation end.
3. The Company’s liability and obligation is limited by and this Commitment is not valid without:
(a) the Notice;
(b) the Commitment to Issue Policy;
(c) the Commitment Conditions;
(d) Schedule A;
(e) Schedule B, Part I—Requirements;
(f) Schedule B, Part II—Exceptions; and
(g) a counter-signature by the Company or its issuing agent that may be in electronic form.
4. COMPANY’S RIGHT TO AMEND
The Company may amend this Commitment at any time. If the Company amends this Commitment to add a defect,
lien, encumbrance, adverse claim, or other matter recorded in the Public Records prior to the Commitment Date, any
liability of the Company is limited by Commitment Condition 5. The Company shall not be liable for any other
amendment to this Commitment.
5. LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY
(a) The Company’s liability under Commitment Condition 4 is limited to the Proposed Insured’s actual expense
incurred in the interval between the Company’s delivery to the Proposed Insured of the Commitment and the
delivery of the amended Commitment, resulting from the Proposed Insured’s good faith reliance to:
(i) comply with the Schedule B, Part I—Requirements;
(ii) eliminate, with the Company’s written consent, any Schedule B, Part II—Exceptions; or
(iii) acquire the Title or create the Mortgage covered by this Commitment.
(b) The Company shall not be liable under Commitment Condition 5(a) if the Proposed Insured requested the
amendment or had Knowledge of the matter and did not notify the Company about it in writing.
(c) The Company will only have liability under Commitment Condition 4 if the Proposed Insured would not have
incurred the expense had the Commitment included the added matter when the Commitment was first delivered to
the Proposed Insured.
58
This page is only a part of a 2016 ALTA® Commitment for Title Insurance issued by First American Title Insurance Company. This Commitment is not
valid without the Notice; the Commitment to Issue Policy; the Commitment Conditions; Schedule A; Schedule B, Part I—Requirements; Schedule B,
Part II—Exceptions; and a counter-signature by the Company or its issuing agent that may be in electronic form.
Copyright 2006-2016 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved.
The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and
ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are
prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association.
Form 5030000 (1-31-17)Page 3 of 16 ALTA Commitment for Title Insurance (8-1-16)
(d) The Company’s liability shall not exceed the lesser of the Proposed Insured’s actual expense incurred in good faith
and described in Commitment Conditions 5(a)(i) through 5(a)(iii) or the Proposed Policy Amount.
(e) The Company shall not be liable for the content of the Transaction Identification Data, if any.
(f) In no event shall the Company be obligated to issue the Policy referred to in this Commitment unless all of the
Schedule B, Part I—Requirements have been met to the satisfaction of the Company.
(g) In any event, the Company’s liability is limited by the terms and provisions of the Policy.
6. LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY MUST BE BASED ON THIS COMMITMENT
(a) Only a Proposed Insured identified in Schedule A, and no other person, may make a claim under this
Commitment.
(b) Any claim must be based in contract and must be restricted solely to the terms and provisions of this Commitment.
(c) Until the Policy is issued, this Commitment, as last revised, is the exclusive and entire agreement between the
parties with respect to the subject matter of this Commitment and supersedes all prior commitment negotiations,
representations, and proposals of any kind, whether written or oral, express or implied, relating to the subject
matter of this Commitment.
(d) The deletion or modification of any Schedule B, Part II—Exception does not constitute an agreement or obligation
to provide coverage beyond the terms and provisions of this Commitment or the Policy.
(e) Any amendment or endorsement to this Commitment must be in writing and authenticated by a person authorized
by the Company.
(f) When the Policy is issued, all liability and obligation under this Commitment will end and the Company’s only
liability will be under the Policy.
7. IF THIS COMMITMENT HAS BEEN ISSUED BY AN ISSUING AGENT
The issuing agent is the Company’s agent only for the limited purpose of issuing title insurance commitments and
policies. The issuing agent is not the Company’s agent for the purpose of providing closing or settlement services.
8. PRO-FORMA POLICY
The Company may provide, at the request of a Proposed Insured, a pro-forma policy illustrating the coverage that the
Company may provide. A pro-forma policy neither reflects the status of Title at the time that the pro-forma policy is
delivered to a Proposed Insured, nor is it a commitment to insure.
9. ARBITRATION
The Policy contains an arbitration clause. All arbitrable matters when the Proposed Policy Amount is $2,000,000 or
less shall be arbitrated at the option of either the Company or the Proposed Insured as the exclusive remedy of the
parties. A Proposed Insured may review a copy of the arbitration rules at http://www.alta.org/arbitration.
59
This page is only a part of a 2016 ALTA® Commitment for Title Insurance issued by First American Title Insurance Company. This Commitment is not
valid without the Notice; the Commitment to Issue Policy; the Commitment Conditions; Schedule A; Schedule B, Part I—Requirements; Schedule B,
Part II—Exceptions; and a counter-signature by the Company or its issuing agent that may be in electronic form.
Copyright 2006-2016 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved.
The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and
ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited.
Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association.
Form 5033708-A (4-9-18)Page 4 of 16 ALTA Commitment for Title Insurance (8-1-16)
Colorado - Schedule A
ALTA Commitment for Title Insurance
ISSUED BY
First American Title Insurance Company
Schedule A
Transaction Identification Data for reference only:
Issuing Agent: Winter VanAlstine Issuing Office: Attorneys Title Insurance Agency
of Aspen, LLC
Issuing Office's ALTA® Registry ID: 1019587 Loan ID No.:
Commitment No.: 20004528 Issuing Office File No.: 20004528
Property Address: 227 East Bleeker Street, Aspen, CO 81611
SCHEDULE A
1. Commitment Date: September 1, 2020 at 07:45 AM
2. Policy or Policies to be issued: Amount Premium
A. ALTA Owners Policy (06/17/06)$3,600,000.00 $6,650.00
Proposed Insured: 227 East Bleeker LLC, a Colorado limited liability company
Certificate of Taxes Due $25.00
Endorsements:
CO-110.1 (Delete 1, 2, 3, 4)$75.00
Additional Charges:$0
Total $6,750.00
3. The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment is Fee simple.
4. The Title is, at the Commitment Date, vested in:
Rosa H. Gettman Family Trust, dated November 19, 2007
5. The land referred to in the Commitment is described as follows:
SEE EXHIBIT A ATTACHED HERETO
For informational purposes only, the property address is: 227 East Bleeker Street, Aspen, CO 81611.
60
SCHEDULE A
(Continued)
This page is only a part of a 2016 ALTA® Commitment for Title Insurance issued by First American Title Insurance Company. This Commitment is not
valid without the Notice; the Commitment to Issue Policy; the Commitment Conditions; Schedule A; Schedule B, Part I—Requirements; Schedule B,
Part II—Exceptions; and a counter-signature by the Company or its issuing agent that may be in electronic form.
Copyright 2006-2016 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved.
The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and
ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited.
Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association.
Form 5033708-A (4-9-18)Page 5 of 16 ALTA Commitment for Title Insurance (8-1-16)
Colorado - Schedule A
Attorneys Title Insurance Agency of Aspen, LLC
By:
Winter VanAlstine
Authorized Officer or Agent
FOR INFORMATION PURPOSED OR SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH THIS COMMITMENT, CONTACT: Attorneys
Title Insurance Agency of Aspen, LLC, 715 West Main Street, Suite 202, Aspen, CO 81611, Phone: 970 925-7328, Fax:
970 925-7348.
61
This page is only a part of a 2016 ALTA® Commitment for Title Insurance issued by First American Title Insurance Company. This Commitment is not
valid without the Notice; the Commitment to Issue Policy; the Commitment Conditions; Schedule A; Schedule B, Part I—Requirements; Schedule B,
Part II—Exceptions; and a counter-signature by the Company or its issuing agent that may be in electronic form.
Copyright 2006-2016 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved.
The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and
ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited.
Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association.
Form 5030008-BI&BII (5-18-17)Page 6 of 16 ALTA Commitment for Title Insurance (8-1-16)
Colorado - Schedule BI & BII
ALTA Commitment for Title Insurance
ISSUED BY
First American Title Insurance Company
Schedule BI & BII
Commitment No: 20004528
SCHEDULE B, PART I
Requirements
All of the following Requirements must be met:
1. The Proposed Insured must notify the Company in writing of the name of any party not referred to in this
Commitment who will obtain an interest in the Land or who will make a loan on the Land. The Company may then
make additional Requirements or Exceptions.
2. Pay the agreed amount for the estate or interest to be insured.
3. Pay the premiums, fees, and charges for the Policy to the Company.
4. Documents satisfactory to the Company that convey the Title or create the Mortgage to be insured, or both, must
be properly authorized, executed, delivered, and recorded in the Public Records.
5. Payment of all taxes and assessments now due and payable as shown on a certificate of taxes due from the
County Treasurer or the County Treasurer's Authorized Agent.
6. Evidence that all assessments for common expenses, if any, have been paid.
7. Final Affidavit and Agreement executed by Owners and/or Purchasers must be provided to the Company
8. Special Warranty Deed must be sufficient to convey the fee simple estate or interest in the land described or
referred to herein, from the Rosa H. Gettman Family Trust, dated November 19, 2007 to 227 East Bleeker LLC, a
Colorado limited liability company, the proposed insured, Schedule A, item 2A. NOTE: C.R.S. Section
38-35-109(2) requires that a notation of the purchaser's legal address, (not necessarily the same as the property
address) be included on the face of the Deed to be recorded.
9. Full disclosure from Seller, of any monetary liens and open Deeds of Trust of record. If you have any knowledge of
an outstanding obligation secured by the subject property, you must contact us immediately for further review prior
to closing.
10. A true and correct copy of the Trust Agreement which creates the Rosa H. Gettman Family Trust, dated
November 19, 2007 providing, among other things, the designation of the trustee(s) and specification of the
trustee(s) powers under that trust.
62
ALTA Commitment for Title Insurance
ISSUED BY
First American Title Insurance Company
Schedule BI & BII (Cont.)
Form 50-CO-Disclosure (4-1-16)Page 7 of 16 Disclosure Statement (5-1-15)
Colorado
11. Record a Statement of Authority to provide prima facie evidence of existence of the Rosa H. Gettman Family
Trust, dated November 19, 2007, an entity capable of holding property, and the name of the person authorized to
execute instruments affecting title to real property as authorized by C.R.S. Section 38-30-172 and C.R.S. Section
38-30-108.5.
12. Certificate of Good Standing from the Colorado Secretary of State for 227 East Bleeker LLC, a Colorado limited
liability company.
13. Record a Statement of Authority to provide prima facie evidence of existence of 227 East Bleeker LLC, a Colorado
limited liability company, an entity capable of holding property, and the name of the person authorized to execute
instruments affecting title to real property as authorized by C.R.S. Section 38-30-172.
14. A copy of the properly signed and executed Operating Agreement if written, for 227 East Bleeker LLC, a Colorado
limited liability company, to be submitted to the Company for review.
15. Evidence furnished by the Office of the Director of Finance, City of Aspen, that the following real estate taxes have
been paid, or that conveyance is exempt from said taxes:
(1) The "Wheeler Real Estate Transfer Tax" pursuant to Ordinance No. 20 (Series of 1979) and;
(2) The "Housing Real Estate Transfer Tax" pursuant to Ordinance No. 13 (Series of 1990);
pursuant to the Warranty Deed dated November 19, 2007, and recorded November 21, 2007, as Reception No.
544296.
16. Improvement Survey Plat sufficient in form, content and certification acceptable to the Company. Exception will be
taken to adverse matters disclosed thereby.
17. Receipt by the Company of the appropriate Lease Affidavit indemnifying the Company against any existing leases
or tenancies, and any and all parties claiming by, through or under said lessees.
18. This Title Commitment is subject to underwriter approval.
63
This page is only a part of a 2016 ALTA® Commitment for Title Insurance issued by First American Title Insurance Company. This Commitment is not
valid without the Notice; the Commitment to Issue Policy; the Commitment Conditions; Schedule A; Schedule B, Part I—Requirements; Schedule B,
Part II—Exceptions; and a counter-signature by the Company or its issuing agent that may be in electronic form.
Copyright 2006-2016 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved.
The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and
ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited.
Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association.
Form 5030008-BI&BII (5-18-17)Page 8 of 16 ALTA Commitment for Title Insurance (8-1-16)
Colorado - Schedule BI & BII
ALTA Commitment for Title Insurance
ISSUED BY
First American Title Insurance Company
Schedule BI & BII (Cont.)
Commitment No.: 20004528
SCHEDULE B, PART II
Exceptions
THIS COMMITMENT DOES NOT REPUBLISH ANY COVENANT, CONDITION, RESTRICTION, OR LIMITATION
CONTAINED IN ANY DOCUMENT REFERRED TO IN THIS COMMITMENT TO THE EXTENT THAT THE SPECIFIC
COVENANT, CONDITION, RESTRICTION, OR LIMITATION VIOLATES STATE OR FEDERAL LAW BASED ON RACE,
COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY, HANDICAP, FAMILIAL STATUS, OR
NATIONAL ORIGIN.
The Policy will not insure against loss or damage resulting from the terms and provisions of any lease or easement
identified in Schedule A, and will include the following Exceptions unless cleared to the satisfaction of the Company:
1. Any facts, rights, interests or claims which are not shown by the Public Records, but which could be ascertained
by an inspection of the Land or by making inquiry of persons in possession thereof.
2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the Public Records.
3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, and any facts which a correct land
survey and inspection of the Land would disclose, and which are not shown by the Public Records.
4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material theretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not
shown in the Public Records.
5. Any defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim, or other matter that appears for the first time in the Public Records
or is created, attaches, or is disclosed between the Commitment Date and the date on which all of the Schedule B,
Part I—Requirements are met.
Note: Exception number 5. will be removed from the policy provided the Company conducts the closing and
settlement service for the transaction identified in the commitment
6. Any and all unpaid taxes, assessments and unredeemed tax sales.
7. Unpatented mining claims; reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof.
8. Any water rights, claims of title to water, in, on or under the Land.
9. Taxes and assessments for the year 2020, and subsequent years, a lien not yet due or payable.
64
ALTA Commitment for Title Insurance
ISSUED BY
First American Title Insurance Company
Schedule BI & BII (Cont.)
Form 50-CO-Disclosure (4-1-16)Page 9 of 16 Disclosure Statement (5-1-15)
Colorado
10. Terms, conditions, provisions, agreements and obligations specified under the Act authorizing the issuance of the
Patent for the City and Townsite of Aspen, recorded March 1, 1897, in Book 139 at Page 216 as Reception No.
060156.
11. Terms, conditions, provisions, agreements and obligations specified under Ordinance No. 6 (series of 1959, An
Ordinance Accepting a Map Entitled "Official Map of the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, State of Colorado," as the
Official Map of the City of Aspen: Providing for Dedication of all Streets and Alleys, Except Such Streets and
Alleys Heretofore Vacated; And Providing for the Filing of Said Map, Field Notes, and Supplemental Plats with the
Clerk and Recorder for Pitkin County, dated November 2, 1959, and recorded December 18, 1959, in Book 189 at
Page 354 as Reception No. 109043; and any and all notes, easements and recitals as disclosed on the Willets
Map recorded November 12, 1969 in Plat Book 4 at Page 27 as Reception No. 137902.
12. Terms, conditions, provisions, agreements and obligations specified under the Easement Agerement with the City
of Aspen dated August 14, 1986, and recorded December 11, 1986, in Book 524 at Page 835 as Reception No.
283966.
13. Terms, conditions, provisions, agreements and obligations specified under Resolution No. 26, Series of 2005, a
Resolution of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission Reommending Approval of an Application for a Historic
Landmark Lot Split, Including Subdivision Exemption and GMQS Exemption, and Granting an Approval for
Setback Variances at 227 East Bleeker Street, Lots E, F and G, Block 73, City and Townsite of Aspen, dated July
13, 2005, and recorded August 11, 2005, as Recepiton No. 513429.
14. Terms, conditions, provisions, agreements and obligations specified under the Revocable Encroachment License
dated November 11, 2005, and recorded December 2, 2005, as Reception No. 518031.
15. Terms, conditions, provisions, agreements and obligations specified under Ordinance No. 34 (Series of 2005), an
Ordinance of the Aspen City Council Approving a Subdivision Exemption for a Historic Landmark Lot Split at 227
E. Bleeker Street, Lots E, F and G, Block 73, City and Twonsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado, dated August
22, 2005, and recorded January 17, 2006, as Reception No. 519805.
16. Terms, conditions, provisions, agreements and obligations specified under the Subdivision Exemption Agreement
for the Historic Landmark Lot Split at 227 East Bleeker Street, dated February 15, 2006, and recorded March 17,
2006, as Reception No. 521938.
17. Any and all notes, easements and recitals as disclosed on the Final Plat of East Bleeker Historic Landmark Lot
Split, Lots E, F & G, Block 73, City & Townsite of Aspen, recorded on March 17, 2006, in Plat Book 78 at Page 5
as Reception No. 521939.
18. Any loss or damage due to the fence lines not corresponding to the lot lines, as disclosed on the Improvement
Survey Plat provided by Aspen Survey, dated August 28, 2020, as File No. 2008193.
19. Any existing leases or tenancies, and any and all parties claiming by, through or under said lessees.
NOTE: Upon receipt of a Lease Affidavit from Seller, this exception will not appear on the final title policy.
65
Form 5000000-EX (7-1-14)Page 10 of 16 Exhibit A
ALTA Commitment for Title Insurance
ISSUED BY
First American Title Insurance Company
Exhibit A
File No.: 20004528
The Land referred to herein below is situated in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, and is described as follows:
Lot 2, EAST BLEEKER HISTORIC LOT SPLIT, according to the Final Plat thereof filed on record in Plat Book 78 at Page
5 as Reception No. 521939, Pitkin County, Colorado.
66
Form 50-CO-Disclosure (4-1-16)Page 11 of 16 Disclosure Statement (5-1-15)
Colorado
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Pursuant to C.R.S. 30-10-406(3)(a) all documents received for recording or filing in the Clerk and Recorder’s office shall contain
a top margin of at least one inch and a left, right and bottom margin of at least one-half of an inch. The Clerk and Recorder will
refuse to record or file any document that does not conform to the requirements of this section.
NOTE: If this transaction includes a sale of the property and the price exceeds $100,000.00, the seller must comply with the
disclosure/withholding provisions of C.R.S. 39-22-604.5 (Nonresident withholding).
NOTE: Colorado Division of Insurance Regulations 8-1-2 requires that “Every title insurance company shall be responsible to
the proposed insured(s) subject to the terms and conditions of the title commitment, other than the effective date of the title
commitment, for all matters which appear of record prior to the time of recording whenever the title insurance company, or its
agent, conducts the closing and settlement service that is in conjunction with its issuance of an owner’s policy of title insurance
and is responsible for the recording and filing of legal documents resulting from the transaction which was closed.
Pursuant to C.R.S. 10-11-122, the company will not issue its owner’s policy or owner’s policies of title insurance contemplated
by this commitment until it has been provided a Certificate of Taxes due or other equivalent documentation from the County
Treasurer or the County Treasurer’s authorized agent; or until the Proposed Insured has notified or instructed the company in
writing to the contrary.
The subject property may be located in a special taxing district. A Certificate of Taxes due listing each taxing jurisdiction shall be
obtained from the County Treasurer or the County Treasurer’s authorized agent. Information regarding special districts and the
boundaries of such districts may be obtained from the Board of County Commissioners, the County Clerk and Recorder, or the
County Assessor.
NOTE: Pursuant to CRS 10-11-123, notice is hereby given:
This notice applies to owner’s policy commitments containing a mineral severance instrument exception, or
exceptions, in Schedule B, Section 2.
A. That there is recorded evidence that a mineral estate has been severed, leased, or otherwise conveyed from the
surface estate and that there is a substantial likelihood that a third party holds some or all interest in oil, gas,
other minerals, or geothermal energy in the property; and
B. That such mineral estate may include the right to enter and use the property without the surface owner’s
permission.
NOTE: Pursuant to Colorado Division of Insurance Regulations 8-1-2, Affirmative mechanic’s lien protection for the
Owner may be available (typically by deletion of Exception no. 4 of Schedule B, Section 2 of the Commitment from the
Owner’s Policy to be issued) upon compliance with the following conditions:
A. The land described in Schedule A of this commitment must be a single family residence which includes a
condominium or townhouse unit.
B. No labor or materials have been furnished by mechanics or material-men for purposes of construction on the
land described in Schedule A of this Commitment within the past 6 months.
C. The Company must receive an appropriate affidavit indemnifying the Company against un-filed mechanic’s and
material-men’s liens.
D. The Company must receive payment of the appropriate premium.
E. If there has been construction, improvements or major repairs undertaken on the property to be purchased
within six months prior to the Date of the Commitment, the requirements to obtain coverage for unrecorded
liens will include: disclosure of certain construction information; financial information as to the seller, the
builder and or the contractor; payment of the appropriate premium, fully executed Indemnity Agreements
satisfactory to the company, and, any additional requirements as may be necessary after an examination of the
aforesaid information by the Company.
No coverage will be given under any circumstances for labor or material for which the insured has contracted for or
agreed to pay.
67
Form 50-CO-Disclosure (4-1-16)Page 12 of 16 Disclosure Statement (5-1-15)
Colorado
NOTE: Pursuant to C.R.S. 38-35-125(2) no person or entity that provides closing and settlement services for a real estate
transaction shall disburse funds as a part of such services until those funds have been received and are available for immediate
withdrawal as a matter of right.
NOTE: C.R.S. 39-14-102 requires that a real property transfer declaration accompany any conveyance document presented for
recordation in the State of Colorado. Said declaration shall be completed and signed by either the grantor or grantee.
NOTE: Pursuant to CRS 10-1-128(6)(a), It is unlawful to knowingly provide false, incomplete, or misleading facts or
information to an insurance company for the purpose of defrauding or attempting to defraud the company. Penalties
may include imprisonment, fines, denial of insurance and civil damages. Any insurance company or agent of an
insurance company who knowingly provides false, incomplete, or misleading facts or information to a policyholder or
claimant for the purpose of defrauding or attempting to defraud the policyholder or claimant with regard to a settlement
or award payable from insurance proceeds shall be reported to the Colorado division of insurance within the
department of regulatory agencies.
NOTE: Pursuant to Colorado Division of Insurance Regulations 8-1-3, notice is hereby given of the availability of an ALTA
Closing Protection Letter which may, upon request, be provided to certain parties to the transaction identified in the commitment.
Nothing herein contained will be deemed to obligate the company to provide any of the coverages referred to herein unless the
above conditions are fully satisfied.
68
TELEPHONE 970 925-7328 FACSIMILE 970 925-7348
ATTORNEYS TITLE INSURANCE AGENCY OF ASPEN, LLC
715 West Main Street, Suite 202
Aspen, CO 81611
Attorneys Title Insurance Agency of Aspen, LLC
Privacy Policy Notice
PURPOSE OF THIS NOTICE
Title V. of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) generally prohibits any financial institution, directly or through it affiliates,
from sharing non-public personal information about you with a nonaffiliated third party unless the institution provides you
with a notice of its privacy policies and practices, such as the type of information that it collects about you and the
categories of persons or entities to whom it may be disclosed. In compliance with the GLBA, we are providing you with
this document, which notifies you of the privacy policies and practices of Attorneys Title Insurance Agency of Aspen,
LLC.
We may collect nonpublic personal information about you from the following sources:
Information we receive from you, such as on application or other forms.
Information about your transactions we secure from out files, or from our affiliates or others.
Information we receive from a consumer reporting agency.
Information that we receive from others involved in your transaction, such as the real estate agent or lender.
Unless it is specifically stated otherwise in an amended Privacy Policy Notice, no additional nonpublic personal information
will be collected about you.
We may disclose any of the above information that we collect about our customers or former customer to our affiliates or
to nonaffiliated third parties as permitted by law.
We also may disclose this information about our customers or former customers to the following types of nonaffiliated
companies that perform marketing services on our behalf or with whom we have joint marketing agreements:
Financial service providers such as companies engaged in banking, consumer finance, securities and insurance.
Non-financial companies such as envelope stuffers and other fulfillment service providers.
WE DO NOT DISCLOSE ANY NONPUBLIC PERSONAL INFORMATION ABOUT YOU WITH ANYONE FOR ANY
PURPOSE THAT IS NOT SPECIFICALLY PERMITTED BY LAW.
We restrict access to nonpublic personal information about you to those employees who need to know that information in
order to provide products or services to you. We maintain physical, electronic, and procedural safeguards that comply with
federal regulations to guard your nonpublic personal information.
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
Pitkin County Mailing List of 300 Feet Radius
Pitkin County GIS presents the information and data on this web
site as a service to the public. Every effort has been made to
ensure that the information and data contained in this electronic
system is accurate, but the accuracy may change. Mineral
estate ownership is not included in this mailing list. Pitkin County
does not maintain a database of mineral estate owners.
Pitkin County GIS makes no warranty or guarantee concerning
the completeness, accuracy, or reliability of the content at this
site or at other sites to which we link. Assessing accuracy and
reliability of information and data is the sole responsibility of the
user. The user understands he or she is solely responsible and
liable for use, modification, or distribution of any information or
data obtained on this web site.
This document contains a Mailing List formatted to be
printed on Avery 5160 Labels. If printing, DO NOT "fit to
page" or "shrink oversized pages." This will manipulate the
margins such that they no longer line up on the labels
sheet. Print actual size.
From Parcel: 273707320014 on 10/26/2020
Instructions:
Disclaimer:
http://www.pitkinmapsandmore.com
76
MONARCH BUILDING LLC
WOODY CREEK, CO 81656
PO BOX 126
HODGSON PATRICIA H FAMILY TRUST
ASPEN, CO 81611
212 N MONARCH ST
CRMX-236 LLC
DILLON, MT 59725
PO BOX 1031
JBC PREFERRED PROPERTIES LLC
DELRAY BEACH, FL 33483
1005 BROOKS LN
232 EAST MAIN STREET LLC
CHICAGO, IL 60614
2001 N HALSTED #304
KRIBS KAREN REV LIV TRUST
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 9994
EAST BLEEKER DUPLEX CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
232 E BLEEKER ST
ROCKING LAZY J PROPS LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
202 E MAIN ST
ASPEN MILL HOLDINGS II LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
730 E DURANT AVE #200
223 HALLAM LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
1315 MOUNTAIN VIEW DR
203 E HALLAM LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
101 S MILL ST # 200
BERKO STUDIO LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
215 E HALLAM ST #1
208 MAIN LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
623 E HOPKINS AVE
BERKO STUDIO DUPLEX CONDO OWNER ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
E HALLAM
227 EAST MAIN LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
312 AABC #D
WHITMAN RANDALL A
MIAMI BEACH, FL 331404230
2817 LAKE AVE
MTK TRUST
AUSTIN, TX 78703
1 NILES RD
201 N MILL ASSOCIATES LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
730 E DURANT AVE #200
WOLKE LAUREN B
TARZANA, CA 91356
4109 GREENBRIAR LN
LE VOTAUX II CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
COMMON AREA
117 N MONARCH ST
PEARCE BERNARD D
ASPEN, CO 81611
216 E MAIN ST
CHAFFEY DUAN
ASPEN, CO 81611
201 N MILL ST # 1A
SOUTHWEST JLK CORP
FORT WORTH, TX 761024116
301 COMMERCE ST #1600
JBC PREFERRED PROPERTIES LLC
DELRAY BEACH, FL 33483
1005 BROOKS LN
BLEEKER MILL DEVELOPMENT LLC
NEW YORK, NY 10154
345 PARK AVE 33RD FL
MC2 PARTNERS LLC
CHICAGO, IL 60610
30 W OAK ST #7B
WHITMAN RANDALL A
MIAMI BEACH, FL 331404230
2817 LAKE AVE
201 EAST MAIN STREET LLC
CHICAGO, IL 60614
2001 N HALSTED ST #304
ASPEN COMM UNITED METHODIST CHURCH
ASPEN, CO 81611
200 E BLEEKER ST
303 EAST MAIN LLLP
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 8016
77
HODES ALAN & DEBORAH
AVENTURA , FLA 33180
19951 NE 39TH PLACE
ICONIC PROPERTIES JEROME LLC
HOUSTON, TX 77077
1375 ENCLAVE PKWY
HODGSON PHILIP R
ASPEN, CO 81611
212 N MONARCH ST
BERKO NORA
ASPEN, CO 81611
211 E HALLAM ST #2
ASPEN MILL HOLDINGS II LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
730 E DURANT AVE #200
MALLORY I HOWELL
ASPEN, CO 81611
211 E HALLAM ST #2
OTIS REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
602 W HALLAM
WOLKE LAUREN B
TARZANA, CA 91356
4109 GREENBRIAR LN
CARLS REAL ESTATE LLC
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 1365
BLU VIC CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
202 N MONARCH ST
MILL BUILDING CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
201 N MILL ST
BLEEKER MILL DEVELOPMENT LLC
NEW YORK, NY 10154
345 PARK AVE 33RD FL
BLEEKER MILL DEVELOPMENT LLC
NEW YORK, NY 10154
345 PARK AVE 33RD FL
PEARCE RICHARD B
ASPEN, CO 81611
216 E MAIN ST
ICONIC PROPERTIES JEROME LLC
HOUSTON, TX 77077
1375 ENCLAVE PKWY
MILL BUILDING ASSOCIATION INC
ASPEN, CO 81611
730 E DURANT AVE #200
RODNEY JOHN W
BASALT , CO 81621
20 RIVER OAKS LANE
CJB REALTY INVESTORS LLC
MISSION HILLS, KS 66208
6544 WENONGA CIR
MONARCH HOUSE LLC
MIAMI, FL 33130
120 SW 8TH ST
WOLKE LAUREN B TRUST #1
TARZANA, CA 91356
4109 GREENBRIAR LN
WOLKE LAUREN B TRUST #1
TARZANA, CA 91356
4109 GREENBRIAR LN
PEGOLOTTI DELLA
ASPEN, CO 81611
202 E MAIN ST
BROWN KIM
ASPEN, CO 816111557
201 N MILL ST #102
SHORT DIANA & CAMERON
ASPEN, CO 81611
201 N MILL ST #2C
SCHIRATO JASON P
ASPEN, CO 816111557
201 N MILL ST #102
MINERS REAL ESTATE LLC
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 1365
1543 LLC
DENVER, CO 80202
1543 WAZEE ST #400
ASPEN MILL HOLDINGS LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
400 E MAIN ST #2
AJAX/COMET LLC
NEW YORK, NY 10128
170 E END AVE PH2A
ASPEN CORNER OFFICE LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
200 E MAIN ST
78
LAYNE MATTHEW & KRISTIN
ASPEN, CO 81611
201 NORTH MILL ST #2A
HANEY DEVELOPMENT CO LLC
DENVER, CO 802061327
PO BOX 6680
209 EAST BLEEKER LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
625 E HYMAN AVE #201
MADDEN WALTER ROSS
ASPEN, CO 81611
218 N MONARCH ST
HANEY DEVELOPMENT CO LLC
DENVER, CO 802061327
PO BOX 6680
BTRSARDY LLC
PALO ALTO , CA 94306
PO BOX 61239
MYRIN CUTHBERT L JR
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 12365
225 NORTH MILL ST LLC
NEW YORK, NY 10036
1530 BROADWAY 4TH FL
79
227 E. BLEEKER STREET
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Subdivision: EAST BLEEKER HISTORIC LANDMARK
Block: 73
Lot 2, East Bleeker Historic Lot Split.
VICINITY MAP
80
81
418 E. Cooper Ave, Suite 201 | Aspen, Colorado | 81611 | 970.925.2252
October 26, 2020
Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer
City of Aspen Community Development Department
130 S Galena Street, 3rd Floor
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: 227 E. Bleeker Street
Parcel ID: 2737 07 32 0014
Dear Amy,
Thank you for your time and assistance with this application to seek HPC approval
for the restoration, renovation and addition to the small home located on 227 East
Bleeker Street. This property is in the R-6 zone district; and was part of a Lot Split
in 2005 that allows it 1800 sq. ft. of Floor Area.
This little home has been suffering demolition by neglect for a very long time. It will be
completely restored to its historic appearance; squared up and made structurally sound
again with a modest addition to the rear. We are keeping it in the same location on the
lot as it was historically; with a basement under it now.
We look forward to working with you and the Historic Preservation Commission on the
restoration of this little home.
RELEVANT LAND USE CODE SECTIONS
SECTION 26.304
1. Please see attached letter of authorization from Mark Friedland, the manager of the
227 East Bleeker Street, LLC; granting Kim Raymond Architecture + Interiors, authority
to act on their behalf throughout this process.
82
418 E. Cooper Ave, Suite 201 | Aspen, Colorado | 81611 | 970.925.2252
2. Please see the attached Vicinity Map with a legal description and directions to the
property.
3. Please see the attached Title Insurance, Schedule A & B for proof of ownership.
4. Please see attached Site Plan
5. Please see the current survey of the property located at 227 E Bleeker Street.
6. Please also find attached all the forms for this Land Use Application.
7. Please see below, the description and summary of all requested information pertaining
to the Land Use Code sections in regard to the proposed development.
Additionally, please find a copy of the Pre-application Conference Summary sheet,
attached at the end of this packet of information. This application package includes all
requested documents as outlined by Amy Simon in the letter dated 9.22.20.
SECTION 26.310.60
We will provide the posting and mailing to all the property owners within the 300’
radius of this parcel. The posting and mailing will happen at least 15 days prior to the
hearing. The list of property owners is attached.
SECTION 26.415.070D Historic Preservation – Major Development
Certificate of Appropriateness for major development
1. This project is a major development as we are altering/repairing more
than three elements of the historic building; and expanding the building
by more than 250 sq. ft.
2. We will be presenting to just the HPC with this application.
3.a This application for Conceptual Review will include the following:
1. General application information and forms
2. Site plan and survey, showing existing and proposed conditions.
3. Scaled drawings showing the structure; existing and proposed
addition; massing, height, scale, etc; floor and roof plans and
elevations.
4. Primary materials; samples or photos at final review
5. Supplemental material to show context surrounding the historic
resource: photos and 3D computer model.
6. Confirmation that the proposed building meets the RDS; per
Section 26.410. The proposed building is a small historic miner’s
cabin. By virtue of the size and location, and the fact that it is
being restored to its original appearance, it meets the RDS by strict
compliance with all standards or by flexible “intent”.
Please see attached RDS checklist:
83
418 E. Cooper Ave, Suite 201 | Aspen, Colorado | 81611 | 970.925.2252
B1. Building Orientation: House sits on lot, parallel to street,
with front door facing street
B2/3. Garage is accessed from the alley, has one garage door
and garage element is less wide than the historic cabin.
B4. Cabin has a front porch open on two sides on front facade
which is more than 50 sq. ft. The front of the home is only one
story.
B5. The historic cabin has an original, primary window that is
7’-3” wide x 7’-0 tall.
It is proportionately large for the size of the cabin.
-Window wells are set back from the front facade
-Materials are compliant, with “heavier” materials lower on the
elevations, and lighter materials above them. Materials are
simple and minimal.
- There is a connecting link that is 10’ long, less than 10’ tall
and it is less than 10’ wide
We meet the RDS as outlined in this section.
3.b/c All procedures of this section shall be followed for final approval.
4. Final development plan review: All procedures for this section shall be
followed and addressed. Samples of materials will be presented.
SECTION 26.415.090 Relocation of Designated Historic Properties
This application is not seeking to re-locate the historic resource. The proposed
plan leaves the historic house in its original location; but we are straightening it out on
the site when we place it back on the new foundation . The elevation of the main level
floor will be the same as the historic. We are proposing the addition of a full basement
under the resource and the new addition.
SECTION 26.415.110 Historic Preservation – Benefits
Section 26.415.110.C Variations
This project is seeking the following variations from the HPC, as provided for in
this section.
1. development in the side, rear or front setbacks:
a. We are only seeking setback variations for the rear yard
setback. For below grade space and the deck above the garage.
These setback variances are for 3’-2” and 3’-3” respectively.
The garage itself, which can be to the 5’ setback line is held back to
6’-9” from the rear property line and a small portion of a deck above is
thus in the setback for living space. The two story element at the rear
of the property, the interior living space is 10’ from the rear property
line. The roof overhang and the west side privacy wall are beyond the
setback, also needing the 3’-3” variance.
84
418 E. Cooper Ave, Suite 201 | Aspen, Colorado | 81611 | 970.925.2252
The historic home, in its original/historic location is well within the setbacks for the side
and rear yards. The building is within the front yard setbacks, with the histori c eave
being just beyond, which meets current zoning codes.
To grant a variation the HPC must find that the proposed development is similar in
pattern, features and character of the historic property and/or Enhances or mitigates an
adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character of the historic
property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district.
The garage is well within the rear yard setback allowed for garages on an alley, 6’-9”
from the property line. The foundation wall below it, is beyond the rear yard setback
for living space. This below grade area will not be visible to the public and will
not add additional impact to the neighbors. Factors to consider:
1. The historic cabin is remaining in it’s historic location, within the 10’ front
yard setback.
2. The proposed addition is behind a 10’ long, less than 10’ wide linking
element, which is more than 5’ from both corners of the rear of the cabin.
3. The addition is 8 feet more narrow than what would be allowed by the
side yard setbacks, leaving more open space on the rear of the property;
creating a smaller mass.
4. The garage is held back more than the required 5’ from the rear property
line, providing a more open feel.
5. The roof overhang at the portion of the d eck that is within the 10’ setback
is beyond the 18” allowed for overhangs, so we can provide some solar
protection for the interior space and add an interesting architectural
element. This provides privacy from and for the large home to the West that
is much larger in scale and also has a large deck at the rear.
We are proposing to renovate and restore this little cabin that is decades into “demolition
by neglect” to it’s historic, original appearance. We have historic photos and the physical
structure to guide us in this complete renovation. This will completely enhance this
historic cabin and mitigate the neglect and unsightly additions.
For these reasons, we believe that this project meets the criteria to receive the setback
variances for the rear yard setback and the allowable floor area bonus of 250 Sq. Ft.
The exact variations and bonus are as follows:
Rear yard setback of 10’-0” at the basement is reduced to 6’-10” setback; a variation of
3’-2”
A portion of the deck above the garage and the roof overhang and side wall are 6’-9”
from the rear property line; a variation of 3’-3”.
The full extent of the 250 sq. ft. of an available bonus for exceptional renovation.
85
418 E. Cooper Ave, Suite 201 | Aspen, Colorado | 81611 | 970.925.2252
SECTION 26.575.020 Calculations and Measurements
The proposed development meets all of the requirements and restrictions of the
calculations and measurements section of this code; except for the variances that are
being sought with this application for the rear yard setback. Please see the attached Site
plan, floor plans, elevations and FAR calculations.
SECTION 26.710.040 R-6 Medium Density Residential Zone District
R6 typically allows for 2820 Sq. Ft. on a 4500 Sq. Ft. lot; But due to a Lot Split
agreement, this parcel is allowed only 1800 Sq. Ft. of FAR. with a bonus option
of an additional 250 Sq. Ft from HPC approvals.
The building is below the required 25’ Height limit; has the required 4500 Sq. Ft. of lot
area; and is exempt from the pedestrian amenity.
The proposed building complies with all requirements and restrictions for R-6.
Section 10.4 of the Historic Preservation Guidelines
The historic resource is the focus of the property, the entry point, and the
predominant structure as viewed from the street. The addition to this miner’s cabin is
very sensitive to the little cabin. The link at the rear of the cabin, covering a very small
portion of the rear of the cabin, putting the addition well behind the cabin. The height of
the addition is minimal, and the form and fenestration are similar to the cabin.
This project complies with more than 2 of the requirements for allowing the
addition to a historic resource to be larger than 100% of the size of the resource:
1. The cabin is visually dominant on the lot, extending almost to the extent
of the side yard setbacks on the lot, and is distinguishable against the addition.
The materials of the cabin will be restored to the original wood siding; the
new wood and metal siding will be more modern in detail.
2. The foot print of the addition is very closely related to the size of the
cabin and is sensitive to its scale and proportions. The foot print of the
historic cabin 1100 sq. ft., including the front porch is 1232 sq. ft. The
foot print of the addition is 725 sq. ft; 41% smaller than the footprint of
the cabin.
The proposed roof is the same pitch as the main gable of the cabin.
3. The interior of the historic resource is fully utilized; the entry door is
remaining the entry to the home; the cabin will contain the public spaces
for this new home. The proposed home uses the same number of usable
floors in the cabin as in the historic use.
4. We are demolishing 2 small additions that were added at some point to
the front of the cabin or enclosing the porch, and an addition to the rear,
exposing the historic rear wall except for the small attachment of the
linking element; which is 9’-3” wide where it connects to the historic
86
418 E. Cooper Ave, Suite 201 | Aspen, Colorado | 81611 | 970.925.2252
In summary, we believe that this project meets the criteria for the granting of approval of
the addition to the historic cabin and the variances as described above due to the sensitive
design of the addition; keeping it discreetly behind the renovated/restored cabin. We are
meeting all of the Residential Design Standards that are applicable to this project and
have met all of the Historic Preservation guidelines.
We look forward to working with the HPC on this project and keeping this unique little
home from further demolition by neglect. Thank you for your consideration of this
project.
Respectfully yours,
Kim Raymond
Kim Raymond AIA
Kim Raymond Architecture + Interiors
87
88
Scale: AS NOTED
ISSUE
HPC SET #1
1" ACTUAL
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL
HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR
REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL
LABELED SCALES.
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS
AND PLANS INDICATED BY THESE
DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE
THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KIM
RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND
SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER
WORK NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER
PERSON FOR ANY USE WHATSOEVER
WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE
P R E C E D E N C E O V E R S C A L E D
DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT
THE SITE . ANY DIMENSIONAL
DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO
THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT
PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
A 0.1
10/26/20
GENERAL
INFORMATION
DATE KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.418 E. HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 201 www.kimraymondarchitects.com 970-925-2252227 E. BLEEKER227 E. BLEEKER STREETASPEN, COLORADO 8161110/26/20
CONTRACTOR
- -
STRUCTURAL ENGINEER
- -
CIVIL ENGINEER
- -
MECHANICAL ENGINEER
G.1.01 GENERAL INFORMATION
A.1.01 EXISTING: SITE PLAN
A.1.02 PROPOSED: SITE PLAN
A.1.03 PROPOSED: LANDSCAPE PLAN
A.1.04 EXISTING: FAR CALCULATIONS
A.1.05 PROPOSED: FAR CALCULATIONS
A.2.00 EXISTING: MAIN LEVEL PLAN
A.2.01 EXISTING: ROOF PLAN
A.2.02 PROPOSED: LOWER LEVEL PLAN
A.2.03 PROPOSED: MAIN LEVEL PLAN
A.2.04 PROPOSED: UPPER LEVEL PLAN
A.2.05 PROPOSED: ROOF PLAN
A.3.01 EXISTING ELEVATIONS: NORTH & EAST
A.3.02 EXISTING ELEVATIONS: SOUTH & WEST
A.3.03 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS: NORTH & EAST
A.3.04 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS: SOUTH & WEST
A.4.01 EXISTING BUILDING SECTIONS
A.4.02 EXISTING BUILDING SECTIONS
A.4.03 EXISTING BUILDING SECTIONS
A.4.04 PROPOSED BUILDING SECTIONS
A.4.05 PROPOSED BUILDING SECTIONS
A.4.06 PROPOSED BUILDING SECTIONS
- -
13
4
2
1
A7.1
LOCATION
KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.
802 EAST COOPER AVE #4
ASPEN, CO 81611
970-925-2252
ARCHITECT
227 E. BLEEKER
ABBREVIATIONS
MATERIAL LEGEND
VICINITY MAP
PROJECT TEAMAPPLICABLE CODES PROJECT DATA
SHEET INDEX (CONTINUED)
SHEET INDEXSYMBOL LEGEND
Subdivision: CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN Block: 120 Lot: F & G
PARCEL ID NUMBER:
ZONING:
LOT SIZE:
BLDG USE:
OCC. GROUP:
CONST. TYPE:
CLIMATE ZONE:
FIRE SPRINKLERS:
LAND USE CATEGORY:
TOWNSHIP:
RANGE:
SECTION:
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
PLT.
S.T.D.SLOPE TO DRAIN
A
A.B.
A.F.F.
A.F.G.
A/C
ABC
ABS
ABV.
ACB
ACOU.
ACT
ADD.
AG
AHU
AL. or ALUM.
ALT.
ANL
ASPH.
AVG
AWG
B.M.
B.N.
B.O.
B.O.F.
B.U.
B/C
BD.
BLDG
BLK.
BLKG.
BM.
BR
BRG.
BRZ
C.A.P.
C.D.
C.I.P.
C.J.
C.O.
C.T.
CAB
CAM.
CCTV
CEM.
CER
CFM
CH
CKT. BKR.
CL or C.L.
CLG.
CLKG.
CLO.
CLR.
CMU
CNTRD.
COL.
COMB.
CONC.
CONST.
CONT.
CONTR.
CU
d
D.F.
D.G.
D.S.
D/W
DBL.
DEMO
DIA. or Ø
DIAG.
DIM.
DL
DN.
DR
E.A.
E.F.
E.J.
E.N.
E.W.
EA.
EL
ELECT.
ELEV.
EMC
EMT
ENT
EQ.
EQUIP.
EST.
EVAP.
EWC
EXC
EXH.
EXIST. or E
EXT.
F.A.
F.C.
F.C.O.
F.D.
F.E.
F.N.
F.O.
F.S.
F/G
FAB.
FACP
FDC
FDN.
FHC
FIN.
FL
FLG.
FLUOR.
FP
FTG.
FURN.
G.I.
GA.
GALV.
GAR.
GFCI
GFI
GL
GLB
GM
GM
GRC
GYP.
GYP. BD.
H.B.
H.C.
H.M.
H/C
HDBD.
HDW
HGT.
HOR.
HTR
HVAC
HW
HYD.
I.C.
I.D.
I.F.
ID
IG
IMC
IMPG
INCL.
INSUL.
INT.
J-BOX
JCT
JT.
K-D
KD
KO
L.E.D.
L.FT.
LAM
LAT.
LAV
LD.
LIN.
LINO.
LT.
LTG.
LVL
M.B.
M.H.
M.I.
M.O.
MAR.
MAS.
MAT'L
MAX.
MECH.
MED.
MFG.
MFR.
MIN.
MISC.
MOD
MTL.
MUL
N.I.C.
N.T.S.
NCM
NFC
NLR.
NO.
NOM.
O.C.
O.D.
O.H.
O.I.
O.R.
OAI
OH
OPNG.
OPPO.
P.C.
P.L.
P.LAM.
P.O.C.
PERP. or
PH or Ø
PL.
PLAS.
PLUMB.
PLYWD.
PORC.
PERF.
PREFAB.
PSF
PSI
PTN.
PVC
PWR.
Q.T.
QTY.
R
R.D.L.
R.D.O.
R.O.
R.O.W. or R/W
REF
REF.
REINF.
REQ'D.
RET.
REV.
RM
RMV.
S.C.
S.D.
S.O.V.
S/L
S/S
SC
SCHED.
SECT.
SES
SH
SHT'G.
SIM.
SPA.
SPECS
SPKR.
SQ. FT.
SQ. IN.
STC
STD.
STL.
SUSP.
SW
SYM
SYS.
T & G
T.B.
T.M.B.
T.O.
T.O.B.
T.O.C.
T.O.F.
T.O.J.
T.O.M.
T.O.S.
T.O.W.
T.S.
T.V.
TEL.
TH.
THD.
THK.
THRU
TLT.
TRANS.
TYP.
UNF.
UR
V.B.
V.I.F.
VA
VERT.
WC
WDW
WCT
WP
WT.
W/
W/O
WD.
W.I.
YD.
AMPERES
ANCHOR BOLT
ABOVE FINISHED FLOOR
ABOVE FINISHED GRADE
AIR CONDITIONING
AGGREGATE BASE COURSE
ACRYLONITRILE-BUTADIENE-STYRENE
ABOVE
ASBESTOS-CEMENT BOARD
ACOUSTIC
ACOUSTICAL CEILING TILE
ADDITION or ADDENDUM
ABOVE GRADE
AIR HANDLER UNIT
ALUMINUM
ALTERNATE
ANNEALED
ASPHALT
AVERAGE
AMERICAN WIRE GAUGE
ANGLE
BENCH MARK
BOUNDARY NAILING
BOTTOM OF
BOTTOM OF FOOTING
BUILT UP
BACK OF CURB
BOARD
BUILDING
BLOCK
BLOCKING
BEAM
BRASS
BEARING
BRONZE
CONCRETE ASBESTOS PIPE
CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS
CAST IN PLACE
CONTROL JOINT
CLEAN OUT
CERAMIC TILE
CABINET
CAMBER
CLOSED CIRCUIT TELEVISION
CEMENT
CERAMIC
CUBIC FEET PER MINUTE
CHANNEL
CIRCUIT BREAKER
CENTERLINE
CEILING
CAULKING
CLOSET
CLEAR
CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT
CENTERED
COLUMN
COMBINATION
CONCRETE
CONSTRUCTION
CONTINUOUS
CONTRACTOR
COPPER
PENNY
DRINKING FOUNTAIN
DECOMPOSED GRANITE
DOWN SPOUT
DISHWASHER
DOUBLE
DEMOLITION
DIAMETER
DIAGONAL
DIMENSION
DEAD LOAD
DOWN
DOOR
EXPANSION ANCHOR
EXHAUST FAN
EXPANSION JOINT
END NAILING
EACH WAY
EACH
ELEVATION
"ELECTRIC, ELECTRICAL"
ELEVATOR
ELECTRICAL METALLIC CONDUIT
ELECTRICAL METALLIC TUBING
ELECTRICAL NON-METALLIC TUBING
EQUAL
EQUIPMENT
ESTIMATE
EVAPORATIVE COOLER
ELECTRIC DRINKING COOLER
EXCAVATE
EXHAUST
EXISTING
EXTERIOR
FIRE ALARM
FAN COIL
FLOOR CLEAN OUT
FLOOR DRAIN
FIRE EXTINGUISHER
FIELD NAILING
FACE OF
FLOOR SINK
FIBERGLASS
FABRICATE
FIRE ALARM CONTROL PANEL
FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION
FOUNDATION
FIRE HOSE CABINET
FINISH
FLOOR
FLOORING
FLUORESCENT
FIRE PROOF
FOOTING
FURNISH
GALVANIZED IRON
GAUGE
GALVANIZED
GARAGE
GROUND FAULT CIRCUIT INTERRUPTER
GROUND FAULT INTERRUPTER
GLASS
GLUE LAMINATED BEAM
GRADE MARK
GATE VALVE
GALVANIZED RIGID TUBING
GYPSUM
GYPSUM BOARD
HOSE BIBB
HOLLOW CORE
HOLLOW METAL
HANDICAPPED
HARDBOARD
HARDWARE
HEIGHT
HORIZONTAL
HEATER
HEATING, VENTILATING & AIR CONDITIONING
HOT WATER
HYDRAULIC
INTERCOM OUTLET
INSIDE DIAMETER
INSIDE FACE
IDENTIFICATION
ISOLATED GROUND
INTERMEDIATE METALLIC CONDUIT
IMPREGNATED
INCLUDE, INCLUSIVE
INSULATION
INTERIOR
JUNCTION BOX
JUNCTION
JOINT
KNOCK DOWN
KILN DRIED
KNOCK OUT
LIGHT EMITTING DIODE
LINEAR FEET
LAMINATE
LATERAL
LAVATORY
LEAD
LINEAR
LINOLEUM
LIGHT
LIGHTING
LAMINATED VENEER LUMBER
MACHINE BOLT
MANHOLE
MALLEABLE IRON
MASONRY OPENING
MARBLE
MASONRY
MATERIAL
MAXIMUM
MECHANICAL
MEDIUM
MANUFACTURING
MANUFACTURER
MINIMUM
MISCELLANEOUS
MODULAR
METAL
MULLION
NOT IN CONTRACT
NOT TO SCALE
NON-CORROSIVE METAL
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
NAILER
NUMBER
NOMINAL
ON CENTER
OUTSIDE DIAMETER
OVER HANG
ORNAMENTAL IRON
OUTSIDE RADIUS
OUTSIDE AIR INTAKE
OVER HEAD
OPENING
OPPOSITE
PRECAST CONCRETE
PROPERTY LINE
PLASTIC LAMINATE
POINT OF CONNECTION
PERPENDICULAR
PHASE
PLASTER
PLATE
PLASTIC
PLUMBING
PLYWOOD
PORCELAIN
PERFORATED
PREFABRICATED
POUNDS PER SQUARE FOOT
POUNDS PER SQUARE INCH
PARTITION
POLYVINYLCLORIDE
POWER
QUARRY TILE
QUANTITY
RADIUS
ROOF DRAIN LEADER
ROOF DRAIN OVERFLOW
ROUGH OPENING
RIGHT OF WAY
REFRIGERATOR
REFERENCE
REINFORCED
REQUIRED
RETURN
REVISION
ROOM
REMOVE
SOLID CORE
SMOKE DETECTOR
SHUT OFF VALVE
SKYLIGHT
STAINLESS STEEL
SELF CLOSING
SCHEDULE
SECTION
SERVICE ENTRANCE SECTION
SHEET
SHEATHING
SIMILAR
SPACE
SPECIFICATIONS
SPEAKER
SQUARE FEET
SQUARE INCHES
SOUND TRANSMISSION CLASS
STANDARD
STEEL
SUSPENDED
SWITCH
SYMMETRICAL
SYSTEM
TONGUE AND GROOVE
THROUGH BOLT
TELEPHONE MOUNTING BOARD
TOP OF
TOP OF BEAM
TOP OF CURB
TOP OF FOOTING
TOP OF JOIST
TOP OF MASONRY
TOP OF SLAB
TOP OF WALL
TUBE STEEL
TELEVISION OUTLET
TELEPHONE
THRESHOLD
THREADED
THICK
THROUGH
TOILET
TRANSFORMER
TYPICAL
UNFINISHED
URINAL
VAPOR BARRIER
VERIFY IN FIELD
VOLT AMPERE
VERTICAL
WATER CLOSET
WINDOW
WAINSCOT
WEATHER PROOF
WEIGHT
WITH
WITHOUT
WOOD
WROUGHT IRON
YARD
VCT VINYL COMPOSITION TILE
JOISTJST.
ALL CODES REFERENCED ARE TO BE USED AS
AMENDED BY THE STATE OF COLORADO AND
LOCAL JURISDICTION.
NOTE: CODES BELOW ARE APPLICABLE ONLY IN AREAS.
BECAUSE THE SCOPE OF WORK IS LESS THAN 40%, THE
PROJECT IS NOT SUBJECT TO UPDATE TO CURRENT CODE
-2015 INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE
-2015 INTERNATION MECHANICAL CODE
-2015 INTERNATIONAL PLUMBING CODE
-2015 INTERNATIONAL FUEL & GAS CODE
-2015 IECC (INTERNATIONAL ENERGY CONSERVATION CODE)
- PITKIN COUNTY EFFICIENT BUILDING CODE
-2014 NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE
FINISH WOOD
WOOD STUD
BLOCKING
STEEL
STEEL STUD
FRAMED WALL
BATT INSULATION
PLYWOOD
CONCRETE
STONE
CMU
SAND
GRAVEL
GWB
COMPACTED SOIL
SPRAY-FOAM INSULATION
RIGID INSULATION
GRID LINE
BREAK LINE
MATCH LINE
REVISION
A-701
ELEVATION MARKER
SECTION MARKER
DETAIL CUT
DETAIL
1
A-501
ELEVATION
D01
W01
ROOM NAME
101
INTERIOR ELEVATION MARKER
ELEVATION NUMBER
SHEET NUMBER
SECTION NUMBER
SHEET NUMBER
DETAIL NUMBER
SHEET NUMBER
SHEET NUMBER
ELEVATION NUMBER
SPOT ELEVATION
DOOR MARK
WINDOW MARK
ROOM NAME AND NUMBER
1
A-301
1
A-201
11
MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA: - - SQ FT
ALLOWABLE DECK (15% OF MAX FLOOR AREA): - - SQ FT
FRONT SETBACK: 10'-0"
SIDE SETBACKS: 5'-0"
REAR SETBACK: 10'/5''-0"
MAXIMUM HEIGHT (PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE) (FT.): 25'-0"
227 E. BLEEKER STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
89
Scale: AS NOTED
ISSUE
HPC SET #1227 E. BLEEKER227 E. BLEEKER STREETASPEN, COLORADO 816111" ACTUAL
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL
HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR
REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL
LABELED SCALES.
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS
AND PLANS INDICATED BY THESE
DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE
THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KIM
RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND
SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER
WORK NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER
PERSON FOR ANY USE WHATSOEVER
WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE
P R E C E D E N C E O V E R S C A L E D
DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT
THE SITE . ANY DIMENSIONAL
DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO
THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT
PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
A 1.01
10/26/20
EXISTING:
SITE PLAN
DATE
10/26/20 KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.418 E. HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 201 www.kimraymondarchitects.com 970-925-2252789778987899FF=7898.97CONCRETE SIDEWALKEDGE OF PAVEMENTCONC WALK5'-0"SETBACK10'-0"SETBACK10'-0"SETBACK5'-0"SETBACK1°E. BLEEKER STREETSETBACK LINEPROPERTY LINESETBACK LINEPROPERTY LINEN
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
90
Scale: AS NOTED
ISSUE
HPC SET #1227 E. BLEEKER227 E. BLEEKER STREETASPEN, COLORADO 816111" ACTUAL
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL
HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR
REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL
LABELED SCALES.
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS
AND PLANS INDICATED BY THESE
DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE
THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KIM
RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND
SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER
WORK NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER
PERSON FOR ANY USE WHATSOEVER
WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE
P R E C E D E N C E O V E R S C A L E D
DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT
THE SITE . ANY DIMENSIONAL
DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO
THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT
PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
A.1.02
10/26/20
PROPOSED:
SITE PLAN
DATE
10/26/20 KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.418 E. HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 201 www.kimraymondarchitects.com 970-925-2252789778987899CONCRETE SIDEWALKEDGE OF PAVEMENTEECCBBAA2FFGG13DDHH2A 3.12A 3.12A 3.12A 3.16'-8 3/4"5'-0"5'-0"13'-1"5'-0"5'-1 7/8"7'-1 1/4"6'-7 1/8"6'-10"82'-8 3/4"10'-5 1/4"3'-7"22'-0"10'-0"14'-1 3/4"14'-5 1/4"14'-4 3/4"4'-2"25'-7"10'-0"47'-1 3/4"5'-3 1/8"26'-8 1/4"13'-2 1/4"5'-0"5'-0"FLOWERS?E. BLEEKER STREET4PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINESETBACK LINESETBACK LINENSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
91
Scale: AS NOTED
ISSUE
HPC SET #1
1" ACTUAL
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL
HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR
REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL
LABELED SCALES.
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS
AND PLANS INDICATED BY THESE
DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE
THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KIM
RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND
SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER
WORK NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER
PERSON FOR ANY USE WHATSOEVER
WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE
P R E C E D E N C E O V E R S C A L E D
DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT
THE SITE . ANY DIMENSIONAL
DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO
THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT
PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
A.1.03
10/26/20
PROPOSED:
LANDSCAPE
PLAN
DATE KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.418 E. HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 201 www.kimraymondarchitects.com 970-925-2252227 E. BLEEKER227 E. BLEEKER STREETASPEN, COLORADO 8161110/26/20CONCRETE SIDEWALKEDGE OF PAVEMENTCONCRETEPAVERSGLASS FLOORPATIOE. BLEEKER STREETSETBACK LINEPROPERTY LINESETBACK LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPOSEDADDITIONPROPOSEDATTACHEDGARAGEPROPOSEDLINKPROPOSEDHISTORICBUILDINGPERMEABLEPAVERSCONCRETEWALKCERAMICTILERAISEDRAINGARDENCONCRETEGARAGE APRONANNUALFLOWERGARDENANNUAL FLOWER GARDENANNUALFLOWER GARDENWOODDECKINGANNUAL FLOWER GARDEN
GRAVEL OR MULCH
SOD
PROPOSED BUILDING
WOOD DECK
CONCRETE WALKWAY
PERMEABLE PAVER
CERAMIC TILE
GLASS FLOOR
LANDSCAPE PLAN KEY
NSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
92
Scale: AS NOTED
ISSUE
HPC SET #1
1" ACTUAL
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL
HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR
REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL
LABELED SCALES.
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS
AND PLANS INDICATED BY THESE
DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE
THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KIM
RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND
SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER
WORK NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER
PERSON FOR ANY USE WHATSOEVER
WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE
P R E C E D E N C E O V E R S C A L E D
DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT
THE SITE . ANY DIMENSIONAL
DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO
THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT
PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
A.1.04
10/26/20
EXISTING FAR
CALCULATIONS
DATE KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.418 E. HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 201 www.kimraymondarchitects.com 970-925-2252227 E. BLEEKER227 E. BLEEKER STREETASPEN, COLORADO 8161110/26/20
RGF1,538 sq ft
SETBACK LINEPROPERTY LINESETBACK LINE
PROPERTY LINE
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 EXISTING MAIN LEVEL FAR
93
Scale: AS NOTED
ISSUE
HPC SET #1
1" ACTUAL
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL
HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR
REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL
LABELED SCALES.
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS
AND PLANS INDICATED BY THESE
DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE
THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KIM
RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND
SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER
WORK NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER
PERSON FOR ANY USE WHATSOEVER
WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE
P R E C E D E N C E O V E R S C A L E D
DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT
THE SITE . ANY DIMENSIONAL
DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO
THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT
PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
A.1.05
10/26/20
PROPOSED FAR
CALCULATIONS
DATE KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.418 E. HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 201 www.kimraymondarchitects.com 970-925-2252227 E. BLEEKER227 E. BLEEKER STREETASPEN, COLORADO 8161110/26/20
W/DW/D
1
2
4
3
5
6
GLASS FLOOR
ABOVE
2,635 sq ft
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINESETBACK LINEPROPERTY LINEPORCH:
132 sq ft
PATIO:101 sq ft
FF: 100'-2 1/4" = 7899.97'(100'-0" = 7898.78')
GARAGE FLOOR AREA 350 SQ FT
TALL
CABINET
(BOOT WARMERS)
BENCH W/
CUBBIES ABOVETALL
CABINET
(BOOT WARMERS)
TRASH)SKI STORAGE RACKBIKE STORAGEDNSTORAGESTORAGEHANGINGWET
BAR
WINE
CABINET
1,461 sq ft
364 sq ft= 57.0 sq ft
SETBACK LINEPROPERTY LINESETBACK LINE
PROPERTY LINE
PARKING SPACE
UP DN
442 sq ft
182 sq ft
SETBACK LINEPROPERTY LINE308 sq ft
647 sq ft
11 sq ft 3 sq ft
392 sq ft970 sq ft
2 sq ft
355 sq ft
1 sq ft 2.3.1.
5.4.6.
14 sq ft
26 sq ft
27 sq ft23 sq ft
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"0 PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL FAR
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL FAR
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"2 PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL FAR
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"0 PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL FAR - ELEVATIONS
N
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
94
Scale: AS NOTED
ISSUE
HPC SET #1227 E. BLEEKER227 E. BLEEKER STREETASPEN, COLORADO 816111" ACTUAL
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL
HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR
REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL
LABELED SCALES.
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS
AND PLANS INDICATED BY THESE
DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE
THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KIM
RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND
SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER
WORK NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER
PERSON FOR ANY USE WHATSOEVER
WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE
P R E C E D E N C E O V E R S C A L E D
DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT
THE SITE . ANY DIMENSIONAL
DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO
THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT
PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
A.2.00
10/26/20
EXISTING:
MAIN LEVEL
PLAN
DATE
10/26/20 KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.418 E. HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 201 www.kimraymondarchitects.com 970-925-2252789778987899FF=7898.97CONCRETE SIDEWALKEDGE OF PAVEMENTCONC WALKE.5E.5EECCBBAA213DDRG
F
5'-7 7/8"11'-7 1/4"5'-0"SETBACK10'-0"SETBACK10'-0"SETBACK5'-0"SETBACK1°BEDROOMKITCHENBEDROOMBATHPANTRYSTORAGEHALLENTRYSTORAGELIVING ROOMDINING ROOME. BLEEKER STREET4SETBACK LINEPROPERTY LINESETBACK LINEPROPERTY LINENSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
95
Scale: AS NOTED
ISSUE
HPC SET #1
1" ACTUAL
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL
HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR
REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL
LABELED SCALES.
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS
AND PLANS INDICATED BY THESE
DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE
THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KIM
RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND
SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER
WORK NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER
PERSON FOR ANY USE WHATSOEVER
WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE
P R E C E D E N C E O V E R S C A L E D
DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT
THE SITE . ANY DIMENSIONAL
DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO
THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT
PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
A.2.01
10/26/20
EXISTING: ROOF
PLAN
DATE KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.418 E. HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 201 www.kimraymondarchitects.com 970-925-2252227 E. BLEEKER227 E. BLEEKER STREETASPEN, COLORADO 8161110/26/20CONCRETE SIDEWALKEDGE OF PAVEMENTCONC WALKE.5E.5EECCBBAA213DDE. BLEEKER STREETALLEY4SETBACK LINEPROPERTY LINESETBACK LINEPROPERTY LINENSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
96
Scale: AS NOTED
ISSUE
HPC SET #1227 E. BLEEKER227 E. BLEEKER STREETASPEN, COLORADO 816111" ACTUAL
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL
HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR
REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL
LABELED SCALES.
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS
AND PLANS INDICATED BY THESE
DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE
THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KIM
RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND
SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER
WORK NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER
PERSON FOR ANY USE WHATSOEVER
WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE
P R E C E D E N C E O V E R S C A L E D
DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT
THE SITE . ANY DIMENSIONAL
DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO
THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT
PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
A.2.02
10/26/20
PROPOSED:
LOWER
LEVEL PLAN
DATE
10/26/20 KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.418 E. HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 201 www.kimraymondarchitects.com 970-925-2252EECCBBAA2FFGG2.51.5113.53DD0HHW/DW/D1'-10"3'-2"82'-8 3/4"3'-7"22'-0"10'-0"14'-1 3/4"14'-5 1/4"14'-4 3/4"4'-2"10'-5 1/4"6'-7 1/8"31'-5 1/4"7'-1 1/4"10'-0 1/2"14'-3"7'-1 3/4"6'-10"LAUNDRYW.I.C.W.I.C.BATH 3BATH 2GLASS FLOORABOVEGYMFAMILY ROOMBEDROOM 3BEDROOM 2BEDROOM 1BATH 1W.I.C.linenlinenTV / FP?2A 3.12A 3.12A 3.12A 3.11A 5.11A 5.12A 5.12A 5.11A 5.21A 5.21A 5.21A 5.2PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINESETBACK LINEPROPERTY LINEMECHANICAL ANDSTORAGE41A 5.31A 5.31A 5.31A 5.31A 5.31A 5.3NSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
97
Scale: AS NOTED
ISSUE
HPC SET #1227 E. BLEEKER227 E. BLEEKER STREETASPEN, COLORADO 816111" ACTUAL
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL
HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR
REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL
LABELED SCALES.
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS
AND PLANS INDICATED BY THESE
DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE
THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KIM
RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND
SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER
WORK NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER
PERSON FOR ANY USE WHATSOEVER
WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE
P R E C E D E N C E O V E R S C A L E D
DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT
THE SITE . ANY DIMENSIONAL
DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO
THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT
PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
A.2.03
10/26/20
PROPOSED:
MAIN LEVEL
PLAN
DATE
10/26/20 KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.418 E. HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 201 www.kimraymondarchitects.com 970-925-2252CONCRETE SIDEWALKEECCBBAA2FFGG2.51.5113.53DD0HH6'-10"82'-8 3/4"3'-7"22'-0"10'-0"14'-1 3/4"14'-5 1/4"14'-4 3/4"3'-5 1/4"8 3/4"10'-5 1/4"6'-7 1/8"31'-5 1/4"7'-1 1/4"10'-0 1/2"14'-3"7'-1 3/4"25'-7"10'-0"47'-1 3/4"5'-3 1/8"26'-8 1/4"13'-4"FF: 100'-2 1/4" = 7899.97'(100'-0" = 7898.78')2A 3.12A 3.12A 3.12A 3.1GARAGEPORCHDININGROOMGARAGE FLOOR AREA 350 SQ FTBIG OPENFIREPLACEARTISTICFEATUREKITCHENLIVING ROOMPATIOMUDROOMTOMASTERTOLOWERWETBARWINECABINETPANTRYTALLCABINET(BOOT WARMERS)BENCH W/CUBBIES ABOVETALLCABINET(BOOT WARMERS)TRASH)SKI STORAGE RACKBIKE STORAGEDNSTORAGESTORAGEHANGINGWETBARWINECABINET1A 5.11A 5.12A 5.12A 5.11A 5.21A 5.21A 5.21A 5.241A 5.31A 5.31A 5.31A 5.31A 5.31A 5.3SETBACK LINEPROPERTY LINESETBACK LINEPROPERTY LINEPARKING SPACEUPN
NSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
98
Scale: AS NOTED
ISSUE
HPC SET #1227 E. BLEEKER227 E. BLEEKER STREETASPEN, COLORADO 816111" ACTUAL
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL
HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR
REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL
LABELED SCALES.
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS
AND PLANS INDICATED BY THESE
DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE
THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KIM
RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND
SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER
WORK NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER
PERSON FOR ANY USE WHATSOEVER
WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE
P R E C E D E N C E O V E R S C A L E D
DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT
THE SITE . ANY DIMENSIONAL
DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO
THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT
PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
A.2.04
10/26/20
PROPOSED:
UPPER LEVEL
PLAN
DATE
10/26/20 KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.418 E. HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 201 www.kimraymondarchitects.com 970-925-2252EECCBBAA2FFGG2.51.5113.53DD0HH2A 3.12A 3.12A 3.12A 3.13'-3"5'-3 1/4"26'-8 1/4"13'-2 1/4"8'-2 1/4"5'-0"6'-10"82'-8 3/4"10'-5 1/4"3'-7"22'-0"10'-0"14'-1 3/4"14'-5 1/4"14'-4 3/4"4'-2"6'-7 1/4"31'-5 1/4"7'-1 1/4"10'-0 1/2"14'-3"7'-1 3/4"6'-10"25'-7"10'-0"47'-1 3/4"10'-5 1/4"MASTERBEDROOMW.I.C.DECKDNMASTER BATH2012022031A 5.11A 5.12A 5.12A 5.11A 5.21A 5.21A 5.21A 5.241A 5.31A 5.31A 5.31A 5.31A 5.31A 5.3SETBACK LINEPROPERTY LINENSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
99
Scale: AS NOTED
ISSUE
HPC SET #1227 E. BLEEKER227 E. BLEEKER STREETASPEN, COLORADO 816111" ACTUAL
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL
HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR
REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL
LABELED SCALES.
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS
AND PLANS INDICATED BY THESE
DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE
THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KIM
RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND
SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER
WORK NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER
PERSON FOR ANY USE WHATSOEVER
WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE
P R E C E D E N C E O V E R S C A L E D
DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT
THE SITE . ANY DIMENSIONAL
DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO
THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT
PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
A.2.05
10/26/20
PROPOSED:
ROOF PLAN
DATE
10/26/20 KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.418 E. HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 201 www.kimraymondarchitects.com 970-925-2252CONCRETE SIDEWALKEECCBBAA2FFGG2.51.5113.53DD0HH2A 3.12A 3.12A 3.12A 3.16'-8 3/4"5'-0"5'-0"13'-1"5'-0"5'-1 7/8"7'-1 1/4"6'-7 1/8"6'-10"82'-8 3/4"10'-5 1/4"3'-7"22'-0"10'-0"14'-1 3/4"14'-5 1/4"14'-4 3/4"4'-2"25'-7"10'-0"47'-1 3/4"5'-3 1/8"26'-8 1/4"13'-2 1/4"5'-0"5'-0"FLOWERS?1A 5.11A 5.12A 5.12A 5.11A 5.21A 5.21A 5.21A 5.241A 5.31A 5.31A 5.31A 5.31A 5.31A 5.3PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINESETBACK LINESETBACK LINENSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
100
Scale: AS NOTED
ISSUE
HPC SET #1
1" ACTUAL
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL
HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR
REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL
LABELED SCALES.
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS
AND PLANS INDICATED BY THESE
DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE
THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KIM
RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND
SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER
WORK NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER
PERSON FOR ANY USE WHATSOEVER
WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE
P R E C E D E N C E O V E R S C A L E D
DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT
THE SITE . ANY DIMENSIONAL
DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO
THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT
PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
A.3.01
10/26/20
EXISTING
ELEVATIONS:
NORTH &
EAST
DATE KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.418 E. HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 201 www.kimraymondarchitects.com 970-925-2252227 E. BLEEKER227 E. BLEEKER STREETASPEN, COLORADO 8161110/26/20
243 1
T.O. MAIN LEVEL PLY
100'-0"
T.O. MAIN LEVEL PLY
100'-0"
T.O. BASEMENT SLAB
86'-6"
T.O. BASEMENT SLAB
86'-6"
E.5 E C B AD
T.O. MAIN LEVEL PLY
100'-0"
T.O. MAIN LEVEL PLY
100'-0"
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 EXISTING EAST ELEVATION
101
Scale: AS NOTED
ISSUE
HPC SET #1
1" ACTUAL
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL
HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR
REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL
LABELED SCALES.
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS
AND PLANS INDICATED BY THESE
DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE
THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KIM
RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND
SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER
WORK NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER
PERSON FOR ANY USE WHATSOEVER
WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE
P R E C E D E N C E O V E R S C A L E D
DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT
THE SITE . ANY DIMENSIONAL
DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO
THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT
PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
A.3.02
10/26/20
EXISTING
ELEVATIONS:
SOUTH &
WEST
DATE KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.418 E. HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 201 www.kimraymondarchitects.com 970-925-2252227 E. BLEEKER227 E. BLEEKER STREETASPEN, COLORADO 8161110/26/20
E.5ABCED
T.O. MAIN LEVEL PLY
100'-0"
T.O. MAIN LEVEL PLY
100'-0"
21 3 4
T.O. MAIN LEVEL PLY
100'-0"
T.O. MAIN LEVEL PLY
100'-0"
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 EXISTING WEST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION
102
Scale: AS NOTED
ISSUE
HPC SET #1
1" ACTUAL
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL
HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR
REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL
LABELED SCALES.
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS
AND PLANS INDICATED BY THESE
DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE
THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KIM
RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND
SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER
WORK NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER
PERSON FOR ANY USE WHATSOEVER
WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE
P R E C E D E N C E O V E R S C A L E D
DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT
THE SITE . ANY DIMENSIONAL
DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO
THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT
PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
A.3.03
10/26/20
PROPOSED
ELEVATIONS:
NORTH &
EAST
DATE KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.418 E. HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 201 www.kimraymondarchitects.com 970-925-2252227 E. BLEEKER227 E. BLEEKER STREETASPEN, COLORADO 8161110/26/20
23.5 2.5 1.543 11 0
T.O. MAIN LEVEL PLY
100'-0"
T.O. MAIN LEVEL PLY
100'-0"
T.O. BASEMENT SLAB
86'-6"
T.O. BASEMENT SLAB
86'-6"
FG E C B ADH
T.O. MAIN LEVEL PLY
100'-0"
T.O. UPPER LEVEL PLY
110'-0"
T.O. LOWER LEVEL SLAB
86'-6"
T.O. MAIN LEVEL PLY
100'-0"
T.O. LOWER LEVEL SLAB
86'-6"
T.O. UPPER LEVEL PLY
110'-0"
TOP PLATE @ GABLE ROOFS
119'-2 1/4"
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION
103
Scale: AS NOTED
ISSUE
HPC SET #1
1" ACTUAL
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL
HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR
REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL
LABELED SCALES.
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS
AND PLANS INDICATED BY THESE
DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE
THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KIM
RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND
SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER
WORK NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER
PERSON FOR ANY USE WHATSOEVER
WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE
P R E C E D E N C E O V E R S C A L E D
DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT
THE SITE . ANY DIMENSIONAL
DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO
THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT
PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
A.3.03
10/26/20
PROPOSED
ELEVATIONS:
SOUTH &
WEST
DATE KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.418 E. HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 201 www.kimraymondarchitects.com 970-925-2252227 E. BLEEKER227 E. BLEEKER STREETASPEN, COLORADO 8161110/26/20
A B C ED F G H
T.O. MAIN LEVEL PLY
100'-0"
T.O. LOWER LEVEL SLAB
86'-6"
T.O. MAIN LEVEL PLY
100'-0"
T.O. LOWER LEVEL SLAB
86'-6"
T.O. UPPER LEVEL PLY
110'-0"
T.O. UPPER LEVEL PLY
110'-0"
TOP PLATE @ GABLE ROOFS
119'-2 1/4"
1.5 2.521 3.513 40
T.O. LOWER LEVEL SLAB
88'-0"
T.O. MAIN LEVEL PLY
100'-0"
T.O. UPPER LEVEL PLY
110'-0"
T.O. LOWER LEVEL SLAB
88'-0"
T.O. MAIN LEVEL PLY
100'-0"
T.O. UPPER LEVEL PLY
110'-0"
TOP PLATE @ GABLE ROOFS
119'-2 1/4"
TOP PLATE @ GABLE ROOFS
119'-2 1/4"
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION
104
Scale: AS NOTED
ISSUE
HPC SET #1227 E. BLEEKER227 E. BLEEKER STREETASPEN, COLORADO 816111" ACTUAL
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL
HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR
REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL
LABELED SCALES.
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS
AND PLANS INDICATED BY THESE
DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE
THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KIM
RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND
SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER
WORK NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER
PERSON FOR ANY USE WHATSOEVER
WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE
P R E C E D E N C E O V E R S C A L E D
DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT
THE SITE . ANY DIMENSIONAL
DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO
THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT
PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
A.4.01
10/26/20
EXISTING
BUILDING
SECTIONS
DATE
10/26/20 KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.418 E. HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 201 www.kimraymondarchitects.com 970-925-22522 413
T.O. MAIN LEVEL PLY
100'-0"
T.O. MAIN LEVEL PLY
100'-0"
24 13
T.O. MAIN LEVEL PLY
100'-0"
T.O. MAIN LEVEL PLY
100'-0"
7898.00'
FF:7898.97'
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 EXISTING BUILDING SECTION
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 EXISTING BUILDING SECTION
105
Scale: AS NOTED
ISSUE
HPC SET #1227 E. BLEEKER227 E. BLEEKER STREETASPEN, COLORADO 816111" ACTUAL
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL
HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR
REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL
LABELED SCALES.
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS
AND PLANS INDICATED BY THESE
DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE
THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KIM
RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND
SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER
WORK NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER
PERSON FOR ANY USE WHATSOEVER
WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE
P R E C E D E N C E O V E R S C A L E D
DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT
THE SITE . ANY DIMENSIONAL
DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO
THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT
PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
A.4.02
10/26/20
EXISTING
BUILDING
SECTIONS
DATE
10/26/20 KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.418 E. HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 201 www.kimraymondarchitects.com 970-925-22522 413
T.O. MAIN LEVEL PLY
100'-0"
T.O. MAIN LEVEL PLY
100'-0"
2 413
T.O. MAIN LEVEL PLY
100'-0"
T.O. MAIN LEVEL PLY
100'-0"
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"3 EXISTING BUILDING SECTION
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"4 EXISTING BUILDING SECTION
106
Scale: AS NOTED
ISSUE
HPC SET #1227 E. BLEEKER227 E. BLEEKER STREETASPEN, COLORADO 816111" ACTUAL
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL
HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR
REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL
LABELED SCALES.
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS
AND PLANS INDICATED BY THESE
DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE
THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KIM
RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND
SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER
WORK NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER
PERSON FOR ANY USE WHATSOEVER
WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE
P R E C E D E N C E O V E R S C A L E D
DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT
THE SITE . ANY DIMENSIONAL
DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO
THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT
PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
A.4.03
10/26/20
EXISTING
BUILDING
SECTIONS
DATE
10/26/20 KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.418 E. HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 201 www.kimraymondarchitects.com 970-925-2252E.5 BCE AD
T.O. MAIN LEVEL PLY
100'-0"
T.O. MAIN LEVEL PLY
100'-0"
E.5ABCED
T.O. MAIN LEVEL PLY
100'-0"
T.O. MAIN LEVEL PLY
100'-0"
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"5 EXISTING BUILDING SECTION
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"6 EXISTING BUILDING SECTION
107
Scale: AS NOTED
ISSUE
HPC SET #1227 E. BLEEKER227 E. BLEEKER STREETASPEN, COLORADO 816111" ACTUAL
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL
HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR
REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL
LABELED SCALES.
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS
AND PLANS INDICATED BY THESE
DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE
THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KIM
RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND
SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER
WORK NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER
PERSON FOR ANY USE WHATSOEVER
WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE
P R E C E D E N C E O V E R S C A L E D
DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT
THE SITE . ANY DIMENSIONAL
DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO
THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT
PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
A.4.04
10/26/20
PROPOSED
BUILDING
SECTIONS
DATE
10/26/20 KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.418 E. HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 201 www.kimraymondarchitects.com 970-925-22522 413
T.O. BASEMENT SLAB
86'-6"
T.O. MAIN LEVEL PLY
100'-0"
T.O. UPPER LEVEL PLY
110'-0"
T.O. BASEMENT SLAB
86'-06"
T.O. MAIN LEVEL PLY
100'-0"
T.O. UPPER LEVEL PLY
109'-5"
24 133.5 2.5 1.5 1 0
T.O. BASEMENT SLAB
86'-6"
T.O. MAIN LEVEL PLY
100'-0"
T.O. UPPER LEVEL PLY
109'-5"
T.O. BASEMENT SLAB
86'-6"
T.O. MAIN LEVEL PLY
100'-0"
T.O. UPPER LEVEL PLY
109'-5"
7898.00'
FF:7898.97'
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 PROPOSED BUILDING SECTION
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED BUILDING SECTION
108
Scale: AS NOTED
ISSUE
HPC SET #1227 E. BLEEKER227 E. BLEEKER STREETASPEN, COLORADO 816111" ACTUAL
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL
HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR
REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL
LABELED SCALES.
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS
AND PLANS INDICATED BY THESE
DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE
THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KIM
RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND
SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER
WORK NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER
PERSON FOR ANY USE WHATSOEVER
WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE
P R E C E D E N C E O V E R S C A L E D
DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT
THE SITE . ANY DIMENSIONAL
DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO
THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT
PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
A.4.05
10/26/20
PROPOSED
BUILDING
SECTIONS
DATE
10/26/20 KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.418 E. HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 201 www.kimraymondarchitects.com 970-925-22522 413
T.O. MAIN LEVEL PLY
100'-0"
T.O. UPPER LEVEL PLY
110'-0"
T.O. MAIN LEVEL PLY
100'-0"
T.O. UPPER LEVEL PLY
110'-0"
T.O. BASEMENT SLAB
86'-6"
T.O. BASEMENT SLAB
86'-6"
1.5 2 2.5 41133.50
T.O. MAIN LEVEL PLY
100'-0"
T.O. UPPER LEVEL PLY
110'-0"
T.O. MAIN LEVEL PLY
100'-0"
T.O. UPPER LEVEL PLY
109'-5"
T.O. BASEMENT SLAB
86'-6"
T.O. BASEMENT SLAB
86'-6"
TOP PLATE @ GABLE ROOFS
119'-2 1/4"
TOP PLATE @ GABLE ROOFS
119'-2 1/4"
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"3 PROPOSED BUILDING SECTION
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"4 PROPOSED BUILDING SECTION
109
Scale: AS NOTED
ISSUE
HPC SET #1227 E. BLEEKER227 E. BLEEKER STREETASPEN, COLORADO 816111" ACTUAL
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL
HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR
REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL
LABELED SCALES.
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS
AND PLANS INDICATED BY THESE
DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE
THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KIM
RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND
SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER
WORK NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER
PERSON FOR ANY USE WHATSOEVER
WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE
P R E C E D E N C E O V E R S C A L E D
DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT
THE SITE . ANY DIMENSIONAL
DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO
THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT
PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
A.4.06
10/26/20
PROPOSED
BUILDING
SECTIONS
DATE
10/26/20 KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.418 E. HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 201 www.kimraymondarchitects.com 970-925-2252BCEFG ADH
T.O. MAIN LEVEL PLY
100'-0"
T.O. MAIN LEVEL PLY
100'-0"
T.O. UPPER LEVEL PLY
110'-0"
T.O. BASEMENT SLAB
86'-6"
T.O. BASEMENT SLAB
86'-6"
TOP PLATE @ GABLE ROOFS
119'-2 1/4"
T.O. UPPER LEVEL PLY
110'-0"
A B C E F GD H
T.O. MAIN LEVEL PLY
100'-0"
T.O. MAIN LEVEL PLY
100'-0"
T.O. UPPER LEVEL PLY
110'-0"
T.O. BASEMENT SLAB
86'-6"
T.O. BASEMENT SLAB
86'-6"
TOP PLATE @ GABLE ROOFS
119'-2 1/4"
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"5 PROPOSED BUILDING SECTION
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"6 PROPOSED BUILDING SECTION
110
227 E. Bleeker St.
418 E. Cooper Ave. Suite 201-Aspen, CO 81611
www.kimraymondarchitects.com
OCTOBER 26, 2020
KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTURE+INTERIORS
227 E. BLEEKER ST.
HPC:SUPPLEMENTAL VISUAL REPRESENTATION
111
www.kimraymondarchitects.com
HISTORIC REFERENCE:
WEST SIDE VIEW
227 E. Bleeker St.
209 E.
BLEEKER
227 E. BLEEKER
112
www.kimraymondarchitects.com
EXISTING:
FRONT VIEW
227 E. Bleeker St.
113
www.kimraymondarchitects.com
EXISTING:
BACK VIEW
227 E. Bleeker St.
114
www.kimraymondarchitects.com
PROPOSED VIEW 1:
AERIAL
227 E. Bleeker St.
115
www.kimraymondarchitects.com
PROPOSED VIEW 2:
FRONT (NORTH ELEVATION)
227 E. Bleeker St.
116
www.kimraymondarchitects.com
PROPOSED VIEW 3:
BACK (SOUTH ELEVATION)
227 E. Bleeker St.
117
www.kimraymondarchitects.com
PROPOSED VIEW 4:
WEST
227 E. Bleeker St.
118
www.kimraymondarchitects.com
PROPOSED VIEW 5:
EAST
227 E. Bleeker St.
119
P.O. Box 3901
Eagle, Colorado 81631
YARNELL CONSULTING &
CIVIL DESIGN, LLC
(970) 323-7008 11/19/2020
229 Midland Ave.
Basalt, Colorado 81621
227 E. Bleeker Street, Aspen, Colorado Page 1 of 2
Patricia Weber
Kim Raymond Architects
418 East Cooper Avenue, Suite 201
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Patricia@KRAI.us
Subject: 227 E. Bleeker Street, Aspen, Colorado
Historic Preservation Committee Stormwater Management Review
Patricia:
I understand Aspen Starwood, LLC is pursuing the restoration of the historic miner’s cabin located
on the subject property. Due to it being designated a historic monument within the city, work
associated with the cabin requires review and approval by the Aspen Historic Preservation
Committee (HPC). HPC requested that stormwater design be considered at Conceptual review. The
intent of this letter is to accompany updates to the architectural site plan to fulfill said requirement.
Based on the topographic data from Aspen Survey, the existing site is low relative to the alley, East
Bleeker Street and both the easterly adjacent property. To improve the drainage condition and
meet current engineering code, it is desired to raise the floor of the existing structure and fill the
site to provide adequate positive drainage into East Bleeker Street and the alley. Without this
approach, runoff from the rights-of-way will flow onto the property and flood the home in a future
large storm event.
Redevelopment of the subject property to the extent desired falls under the requirements of a
“Major Redevelopment” as defined within Chapter 1 of the City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management
Plan (URMP). The primary component of this for the subject property will be providing the
requisite water quality capture volume. While the architectural site plan currently shows
incorporation of a rain garden into the project, it is unlikely to be viable to route the drainage from
all the impervious areas on-site to this feature. Alternatively, it will likely just be able to capture
runoff from roofs that are immediately adjacent and whose downspouts can drop to the rain
garden. HPC regulations prohibit the construction of rain gardens in front of the historic building
which further limits opportunities for on-grade water quality management. While deemed a “last
resort” option, it is likely the project will need to incorporate a below-grade storage and infiltration
system similar to StormTech. This will be further coordinated with the city’s Engineering
Department.
Per the URMP, no on-site detention or off-site drainage analysis will be required for this project
since it is located in the Aspen Mountain drainage basin. As such, the below-grade system will be
designed for small storm events with means of overflow into the rights-of-way for large storms.
Please let me know if you have any further questions that I can answer regarding the anticipated
stormwater management strategies for the redevelopment of the subject property.
120
P.O. Box 3901
Eagle, Colorado 81631
YARNELL CONSULTING &
CIVIL DESIGN, LLC
(970) 323-7008 11/19/2020
229 Midland Ave.
Basalt, Colorado 81621
227 E. Bleeker Street, Aspen, Colorado Page 2 of 2
Sincerely,
Justin J. Yarnell, PE
Colorado PE Number 47241
121
Scale: AS NOTED
ISSUE
HPC SET #1227 E. BLEEKER227 E. BLEEKER STREETASPEN, COLORADO 816111" ACTUAL
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL
HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR
REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL
LABELED SCALES.
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS
A N D P L A N S I N D I C AT E D BY T H E S E
DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE
THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KIM
R AY M O N D A R C HIT E C T S, IN C . A N D
SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER
WORK NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER
PERSON FOR ANY USE WHATSOEVER
W I T H O U T W R I T T E N P E R M I S S I O N .
W R I T T EN D I M E NS I ON S S HA L L TAK E
P R E C E D E N C E O V E R S C A L E D
DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT
T H E S I T E . A N Y D I M E N S I O N A L
DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO
THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT
PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
A .1.06
11/23/20
PROPOSED:
SCHEMATIC
DRAINAGE
PL AN
DATE
10/26/20 KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.418 E. HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 201 www.kimraymondarchitects.com 970-925-2252CONCRETE SIDEWALKEDGE OF PAVEMENTFCONCRETEPAVERSGLASS FLOORPATIOBELOW-GRADE STORMWATERAND INFILTRATION SYSTEM(STORMTECH OR SIMILAR).SIZE IS APPROXIMATE AND WILLULTIMATELY BE BASED UPON THEREQUIRED QUALITY CAPTUREVOLUME FOR THE SITE.STORM PIPE WITH INTERMITTENTINLETS TO COLLECT DRAINAGEFROM THE SIDE YARD. DOWNSPOUTSALONG THE SIDE OF THE HOMEWILL BE ROUTED TO THIS PIPE.E. BLEEKER STREETSTORM PIPE WITH INTERMITTENTINLETS TO COLLECT DRAINAGEFROM THE SIDE YARD. DOWNSPOUTSALONG THE SIDE OF THE HOMEWILL BE ROUTED TO THIS PIPE.TRENCH DRAIN TOINTERCPET RUNOFFFROM DRIVEWAY.SETBACK LINEPROPERTY LINESETBACK LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPOSEDADDITIONPROPOSEDATTACHEDGARAGEPROPOSEDLINKPROPOSEDHISTORICBUILDINGPERMEABLEPAVERSCONCRETEWALKCERAMICTILERAISEDRAINGARDENCONCRETEGARAGE APRONANNUALFLOWERGARDENANNUAL FLOWER GARDENANNUALFLOWER GARDENWOODDECKINGSTORMWATER STORAGE
SCHEMATIC DRAINAGE PLAN KEY
PERFORATED STORM PIPE
TRENCH DRAIN
122