HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20250122.amendedAGENDA
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION
COMMISSION
January 22, 2025
4:30 PM, City Council Chambers -
3rd Floor
427 Rio Grande Place
Aspen, CO 81611
I.ROLL CALL
II.MINUTES
II.A Draft Minutes - 10/23/24 & 11/13/24
III.PUBLIC COMMENTS
IV.COMMISSIONER MEMBER COMMENTS
V.DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
VI.PROJECT MONITORING
VII.STAFF COMMENTS
VII.A Information Only Memo to HPC - Response to Proposition 122
VIII.CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT ISSUED
IX.CALL UP REPORTS
X.SUBMIT PUBLIC NOTICE FOR AGENDA ITEMS
XI.SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT
XII.OLD BUSINESS
XIII.NEW BUSINESS
XIII.A Resolution #__, Series of 2025 - 337 Lake Ave Certificate of Appropriateness for
minutes.hpc.20241023_DRAFT.docx
minutes.hpc.20241113_DRAFT.docx
Proposition 122 Response Information Only Memo_HPC_1.22.2025.pdf
Exhibit A_ Map of Allowed Zone Districts and School Buffers.pdf
1
1
Major Development
XIII.B Election of Chair and Vice Chair
XIV.ADJOURN
XV.NEXT RESOLUTION NUMBER
HPC Memo.337 Lake Ave.20250122.pdf
Draft HPC Resolution # , Series of 2025.pdf
Exhibit A.337Lake.MajorCOA.HP Design Guidelines Analysis.pdf
Exhibit B_Combined Referral Comments_337 Lake Ave.pdf
Exhibit C_337 Lake Conceptual HP Application 8 23 2024.pdf
TYPICAL PROCEEDING FORMAT FOR ALL PUBLIC HEARINGS
(1 Hour, 15 Minutes for each Major Agenda Item)
1. Declaration of Conflicts of Interest (at beginning of agenda)
2. Presentation of proof of legal notice (at beginning of agenda)
3. Applicant presentation (10 minutes for minor development; 20 minutes for major
development)
4. Board questions and clarifications of applicant (5 minutes)
5. Staff presentation (5 minutes for minor development; 10 minutes for major
development)
6. Board questions and clarifications of staff (5 minutes)
7. Public comments (5 minutes total, or 3 minutes/ person or as determined by the Chair)
8. Close public comment portion of hearing
9. Applicant rebuttal/clarification (5 minutes)
10. Staff rebuttal/clarification (5 minutes)
End of fact finding. Chairperson identifies the issues to be discussed.
11. Deliberation by the commission and findings based on criteria commences. No further
input from applicant or staff unless invited by the Chair. Staff may ask to be recognized if
there is a factual error to be corrected. If the item is to be continued, the Chair may
provide a summary of areas to be restudied at their discretion, but the applicant is not to
re-start discussion of the case or the board’s direction. (20 minutes)
12. Motion. Prior to vote the chair will allow for call for clarification for the proposed
resolution.
Please note that staff and/or the applicant must vacate the dais during the opposite
presentation and board question and clarification session. Both staff and applicant team
will vacate the dais during HPC deliberation unless invited by the chair to return.
Updated: March 7, 2024
2
2
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 23RD, 2024
Vice - Chairperson Raymond opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
at 4:30pm.
Commissioners in attendance: Roger Moyer, Barb Pitchford, Kim Raymond, Dakota Severe, Jodi Surfas
and Riley Warwick. Absent were Peter Fornell and Kara Thompson.
Staff present:
Gillian White – Principal Preservation Planner
Ben Anderson, Community Development Director
Kate Johnson, AssistantCity Attorney
MINUTES: None
PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mr. Charlie Tarver thanked HPC for their service and recognized that it was not an
easy job because he felt in this town you cannot do the right thing without someone objecting. He asked
the members to do what they each thought was right.
Mr. David Scruggs echoed Mr. Tarver’s comments and asked that the members also use common sense.
He then gave the board members and Ms. Johnson a letter (entered into the record). He then moved on
to addressing the members regarding his points contained in his letter. He asked the HPC to waive their
attorney client privilege and make the contents the 10/9 executive session public and to also reverse
their decision on the 205 W. Main approvals and revoke the permission to demolish.
COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS: Ms. Pitchford addressed her fellow HPC members stating that
while she did not agree with the decision HPC made regarding the Crystal Palace, the west wall of 300 E.
Hyman is designated as a historic resource. She noted that the applicant in their presentation and
application had argued the building was not historic. She felt that four HPC members accepted those
arguments and treated the designated property as not historic. She also noted that the applicant had
not applied to delist the property and told HPC that they were not interested in delisting it. She felt the
four members did not allow City staff to guide HPC though the process of determining whether it
continued to be historic or not.
Ms. Johnson let the members know that at the previous evening’s City Council meeting, the Crystal
Palace project was asked to be noticed for call up. She then cautioned the members of engaging in ex
parte communications outside of a public meeting. She explained ex parte communications. There was
some discussion about the possibility of the item being called up and sent back to HPC and how any ex
parte communication could impact things. Ms. Johnson also went over some basics of open meetings
law as well.
Mr. Moyer spoke to his experience over the 20 years he had been on and off this commission. He felt
that he had always had competent staff advising HPC and he always deferred to their suggestions,
unless there was something he felt they missed. He felt that all HPC members should adhere to staff and
follow their guidance. He said that in his years of experience, he learned to listen to all sides, but not to
let the applicant run over you and be very persuasive. He said that they should not be dealing with any
applicant’s desires for a property, but rather they are there for the historic resource.
3
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 23RD, 2024
Ms. Raymond agreed that the City staff are amazing for all the hard work they do, but she cautioned
against having the idea that the City is on their side and the applicant is not. She felt it was not a them
versus us mentality.
DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: None
PROJECT MONITORING: None.
STAFF COMMENTS:Ms. White commented on the previous discussion. She said that City staff and the
applicant each bring evidence forward and that it was up to HPC to determine how they would like to
interpret that. She suggested members take a broad look at all evidence presented and not just put staff
above everything else.
CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: None.
CALL UP REPORTS: None.
SUBMIT PUBLIC NOTICE FOR AGENDA ITEMS: Ms. Johnson confirmed that public notice was completed
in compliance with open meetings law for the action item.
ACTION ITEMS: Consideration of Chair’s proposed letter to City Council Re: the Armory Building
project located at 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO.
Ms. Johnson passed out a paper copy of the Chair’s draft letter and introduced the item, noting that at
the last HPC meeting there were a few commissioner member comments related to the Armory Building
remodel. She said that while Ms. Thompson was not present, if the board collectively approved the
letter as to form, it would be appropriate for there to be a motion to authorize the chair to sign the
letter or that changes could be made to the letter through discussion.
Ms. Surfas felt it was a very well written letter but had some small grammatical edits. She then went
over her suggestions.
Ms. Raymond asked Mr. Anderson to refresh the members on the difference between the Public
Projects process and the Planned Development process. Mr. Anderson noted that this project as
described has uses that require a Planned Development which is one of the reviews under the Public
Projects process. He said that if this was just a Planned Development and not a Public Project, HPC
would still be just a recommending body on the first step of that review. After City Council approval it
would then come back to HPC for a final review of the details. The Public Projects process, which he
noted has been used fairly regularly, basically combines those two reviews into a single step and HPC is
a recommending body. He also noted that the Public Projects process does not take away any of the
review criteria that HPC would normally be considering. All criteria need to be submitted, discussed and
considered, both in HPC’s recommendation and City Council’s ultimate decision. He then described a
few other projects that were reviewed under the Public Projects process, including the new City Hall, the
Ambulance building at the hospital and the addition to the County administrative building.
4
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 23RD, 2024
Ms. Raymond then asked what criteria are used to deem something a Public Projects review. Mr.
Anderson said that the Land Use Code spells out three or four criteria that would qualify a project for
that type of review, including that the project is of significant public interest.
Ms. Johnson noted that in this case the City of Aspen is the applicant, and they have say in what they
seek as far as an application process.
There was then some discussion about the differences between this project and the Wheeler remodel
and their associated review processes.
Ms. Raymond wondered if there was a possibility to clarify the section of the letter asking to schedule a
work session with City Council. She wondered if they could add a specific timeframe to scheduling it.
There was discussion about the possibility of scheduling a work session before a Land use Application
was submitted.
Ms. White made the final grammatical edits to the letter.
MOTION: Mr. Moyer motioned to have the Chair to sign the letter as revised. Ms. Pitchford seconded.
Roll call vote:Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Ms. Severe, yes; Mr. Warwick, yes;
Ms. Raymond, yes. 6-0 vote, motion passes.
Realizing that Ms. Thompson was currently out of the country, Mr. Moyer motioned to have Ms.
Raymond, as Vice Chair, sign the letter. Ms. Severe seconded. Roll call vote:Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas,
yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Ms. Severe, yes; Mr. Warwick, yes; Ms. Raymond, yes. 6-0 vote, motion passes.
Ms. Johnson noted that the letter would be sent to each individual Council member and the City
Manager would be copied. She also mentioned that staff would work on the potential for a work session
and what dates might work.
After checking the Land Use Code, Mr. Anderson wanted to clarify that the determination of pursuing
the Public Projects process was up to the City Council’s discretion.
ADJOURN:Ms. Pitchford moved to adjourn the regular meeting. Mr. Moyer seconded. All in favor,
motion passes.
____________________
Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk
5
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 13TH, 2024
Chairperson Thompson opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission at
4:30pm.
Commissioners in attendance: Roger Moyer, Jodi Surfas, Barb Pitchford, Kim Raymond, Dakota Severe,
Riley Warwick and Kara Thompson. Absent was Peter Fornell.
Staff present:
Gillian White – Principal Preservation Planner
Stuart Hayden, Planner - Historic Preservation
Ben Anderson, Community Development Director
Kate Johnson, AssistantCity Attorney
Luisa Berne, Assistant City Attorney
Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk
MINUTES: Ms. Thompson moved to approve the draft minutes of 9/25/24. Ms. Pitchford seconded. Roll
call vote:Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 4-0 vote, motion
passes.
Ms. Thompson moved to approve the draft minutes from 10/2/24. Ms. Pitchford seconded. Roll call
vote:Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 4-0 vote, motion passes.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: None
COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS: Mr. Moyer commented that an aspect that he felt was holding
HPC back on making good decisions was the amount of square footage allowed on a lot. He felt that it
was a topic that should be seriously looked at by City Council.
Ms. Thompson noted that she had asked staff to look into scheduling a work session in January and she
listed some of the topics she would like to discuss, including training, the different types of applications
that come before the board, meeting attendance and times, standard draft resolution language and
other policy ideas to discuss with staff.
DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: None
Mr. Hayden requested that the staff reports and comments be moved to the end of the agenda to
respect the applicant’s time.
SUBMIT PUBLIC NOTICE FOR AGENDA ITEMS: Ms. Johnson confirmed that public notice was completed
in compliance with the Code as needed for the agenda item as it was previously noticed and continued.
She noted that she had emailed links to prior meeting materials and recordings, as a few board
members may not have been at the two previous meetings. She wanted to confirm on the record that in
order to vote on this item, members have reviewed the materials. All members confirmed that they
were either in attendance at the previous meetings and or had reviewed the materials and recordings.
OLD BUSINESS: 325 W. Hopkins Ave. - Conceptual Major Development, Relocation, and Variations
Review - Public Hearing – Continued from 9/25/24
6
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 13TH, 2024
Applicant Presentation: Sara Adams – Bendon Adams & Wheeler Clancy – DJ Architects
Ms. Adams began her presentation by stating that this was the third time before the board on this item.
She agreed with Mr. Moyer’s previous comments that when an applicant works with HPC a better
project usually is the result. She thanked the members for their feedback and noted that she would be
concentrating her presentation of the board’s direction for redesign and not the other items that the
board has already signaled support for.
Ms. Adams reviewed the conceptual major development and relocation requests. She noted that they
are still proposing to fully restore the historic landmark, they are not asking for a floor area bonus and
that the project is under the allowable floor area and allowable height limit. She reviewed the items that
had HPC support at the previous meetings. She moved on to the redesign of the new construction and
noted that for this meeting they had simplified the roof forms and materials and restudied the
fenestration to better relate to the historic landmark. She then showed and reviewed some historic
pictures of the property, and the site plans presented at the two previous meetings as well as the
redesigned current site plan. She reviewed the roof plans from each successive redesign, highlighting
the current changes. She then showed the updated elevations and renderings and reviewed the roof
form and material changes.
Ms. Adams then reviewed the design guidelines, highlighting guidelines 11.3, 11.4 and 11.6 and why
they felt they were met. She also went over the change from the proposed crawlspace under the
landmark to the currently proposed 2 bedroom / 2 bathroom basement under it. She noted the
condition of approval in the draft resolution to have the relocation of the landmark for purposes of
digging the basement to not be in the setback. She felt this was somewhat out of the ordinary as it is
easiest to just shift the landmark straight back from where it is currently located. She invited any
comments on that.
Mr. Clancy finished by stated that they really tried to reduce the massing as well as create a stronger
relationship to the landmark.
Ms. Thompson asked about the lightwell proposed for the landmark and what type of railing they would
be using. Ms. Adams said they don’t have a specific treatment just yet, but that it would be brought back
at final review.
Ms. Pitchford asked if the shed roof addition to the historic resource had been reduced in size. Ms.
Adams said it was the same size as what was presented at the last meeting which was based on the
Sanborn maps.
Ms. Severe asked about the width of the front door proposed for the new construction. There was some
discussion about the exact dimensions of the door.
Staff Presentation:Stuart Hayden – Preservation Planner - Historic Preservation
Mr. Hayden started his presentation by going over the relocation standards. He noted that the
temporary relocation is an acceptable preservation method, and he went over the relocation criteria. He
detailed staff’s thoughts about the temporary location of the resource as outlined in the recommended
conditions of approval and noted that it was out concern for the space the resource may need during
construction and that of the neighbors. He said that staff would be ok removing the condition if HPC did
7
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 13TH, 2024
not find it necessary. He moved on to the requested dimensional variations and noted that staff felt
them appropriate due to the historic setting of the resource.
He then went over the relevant historic preservation design guidelines and noted that staff had
identified several that could not be considered at this time, and they were included in the
recommended conditions in the resolution. He noted that many of these would be able to be addressed
once the selective demolition gets underway.
He continued by highlighting other design guidelines that staff found to be not met or partially not met
as outlined in the staff memo and that warranted further consideration. These included guidelines 1.1,
6.4, 6.5, 11.3 and 11.6. Mr. Hayden went over each in detail and why staff found them not to be met or
partially met. He noted that these were also addressed in the recommended conditions of approval. He
finished his presentation by stating that staff is recommending approval with conditions.
Ms. Raymond asked about the setback-to-setback issue (guideline 1.1) and wondered what staff’s
thoughts were as she felt it was a large part of the design which should have been addressed from the
very beginning. Mr. Hayden noted that it had been staff’s position from the very first meeting that the
project did not meet this guideline.
Public Comment:None
Board Discussion:Ms. Thompson thanked the applicant and staff for their revised presentations. She
was ok with the relocation of the historic resources straight back, staying in the setback as it was a single
move instead of two. A few other members agreed. She felt that they had already exhaustively
discussed the restoration of the corner element on the historic resource and given the applicant the
direction of support, so she did not have any additional comments on that.
Ms. Thompson then addressed Ms. Raymond’s setback-to-setback question noting that in this proposal
the historic resource and the new construction are two separate structures. She felt that is the best
restoration outcome they could have and that it provided in her mind a bit of flexibility in their
application of the guidelines for this project. She appreciated that the applicant had further revised the
roof forms and lowered them again and she was ready to make a motion of approval with some revised
conditions.
Ms. Raymond agreed with the porosity and liked the separation between the historic resource and the
new construction. She had no issues with the layout of the site and thought it was quite nice. She
acknowledged the rear addition to the historic resource had been talked about at length and was ok
with it. She commented that she liked that the front door on the new construction was slightly larger
and different than the historic resource. She was also ok with all the setback variances and noted that
having moved resources before acknowledged that it would be best to move it straight back. She
appreciated the new roof lines and massing on the new construction and felt it related nicely with the
historic resource.
There was then some discussion about the non-orthogonal window on the rear portion of the new
construction and whether it was considered to be located on the front façade and met the historic
preservation design guidelines or not. Mr. Anderson noted that the Residential Design Standards related
to non-orthogonal windows refers to all street facing façades and allows for one non-orthogonal
window.
8
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 13TH, 2024
Mr. Moyer commented that he believed the windows on the historic resource should stay the size of the
historic windows and the door should remain the same size as well. He thought that since there were no
historic pictures of the porch it should be restored to blend in with the other historic porches in the
area. He did still think the mass and scale of the new construction was enormously large, but felt there
was nothing they could do about that. He commented on window wells and offered other options for
their design versus just having a pit in the ground.
Ms. Thompson then went over staff’s recommended conditions of approval, highlighting her proposed
edit to condition #1 and removal of conditions #2 and #5a.
There was some more discussion about the non-orthogonal window and Ms. Thompson felt it could be
dealt with at Final review.
Ms. Adams noted that the resolution did not include the dimensions of the setback variations which
were important and requested some feedback on the fenestration. Ms. Thompson said that it seemed
that the non-orthogonal window on the rear portion of the new construction was generally acceptable
by the board.
Ms. Surfas noted that she had to leave to attend another meeting but agreed with Ms. Thompson’s
proposed edits to the resolution. Ms. Surfas left the meeting.
Mr. Clancy displayed the 3D model of the project, and the board further discussed the fenestration in
order to give feedback. Ms. Thompson again stated her opinion that since the new construction was
fully detached from the historic resource the applicant had more flexibility to not fully relate to every
single window proportion on the new construction. She said the only thing that bothered her was the
asymmetrical window on the rear of the structure.
MOTION:Ms. Thompson moved to approve the next resolution on the series with the removal of
condition #1, replacing it with language that states that during demolition and relocation of the historic
resource, if additional historic material is discovered that is evidence of a different original footprint, the
applicant will revise the proposal to be reviewed by staff and monitor. Her motion also included the
removal of conditions #2 and #5a and the addition of a condition to include setback dimensions as
presented in the application. Ms. Raymond seconded. Roll call vote:Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes;
Ms. Severe, yes; Mr. Warwick, yes; Ms. Raymond, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 6-0 vote, motion passes.
OLD BUSINESS: Discussion concerning rescission of Historical Preservation Commission Resolution #9,
Series of 2023, Granting Minor Development and Relocation Approval for Property Located at 205 W.
Main Street.
Ms. Johnson introduced the item by stating that she requested of the Chair that this item be added to
the agenda as it was her impression that one or more members may want to consider recission of a
prior resolution. She remined the members that her office had provided legal opinions during an
executive session regarding the legal implications of what the resolution meant and the discovery of
potential different information after the fact.
Ms. Johnson went on to note that the consideration of recission hinged on the factual question of
whether the approvals were based upon an error, regardless of how that error came to be. She said the
City Attorney’s office believes that if a majority of the commissioners wanted to consider recission that a
public hearing be set in order to allow the applicant and staff time to prepare, present information and
9
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 13TH, 2024
be heard. She noted that public comments from the applicant’s representative had been provided to
each commissioner as well as comments and a proposed resolution provided by a member of the public
(both included in the 11/13/24 HPC meeting agenda packet). She said that she had not had time to
review that resolution and that it should be considered as public comments as it was not provided with
the support of the City Attorney’s office.
Ms. Thompson wanted to confirm that members had received the public comments. All members
confirmed that they had received all comments. She invited Mr. David Scruggs to give public comment.
Mr. Scruggs began his comments by asking the HPC to address the facts. He noted that the approvals
had been based on the representation that the west addition was not historic. He also noted that staff
had subsequently discovered that the representation was probably in error. He then reviewed the HPC’s
duties as laid out in the Land Use Code and Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. He referenced the
resolution he had provided and asked the members to past the resolution and retain the entire historic
structure.
Ms. Thompson started the discussion by noting that Mr. Moyer had requested this item be added to the
agenda. She also noted that while she was working with the applicant on their administrative review,
she had no indicationthat the applicant had falsely represented any information. She understood there
was a question about the historic nature of the addition but felt that the representation was not done
with malintent. She noted that the applicant had relied on the approvals for over a year now and that
she had no appetite to rescind the approvals. She felt applicants needed to be able to rely on HPC’s
decisions and that it would be a learning experience for HPC and their resolutions.
Mr. Moyer commented that HPC’s one purpose was to save historic structures. While he realized that a
mistake was made, the only reason he wanted to make a recission was because of HPCs one and only
job, to save the historic structure. He did not feel that they should just move forward while a mistake
was made.
Ms. Thompson argued that they don’t have any definitive information on whether the addition is
historic or not, as that research had not occurred.
Ms. Severe agreed that there was no malintent on either side and that there was not enough evidence
to prove that it is historic. She did not feel it fair to the applicant if there wasn’t more proof.
Ms. Pitchford felt that there was reason to open it up for a public hearing to see if it warrants recission.
She felt there was some indication that it was historic. She agreed with Mr. Moyer in that it was not
their job to take care of the applicant, but rather to take care of the historic resource.
Ms. Thompson said that while she did not want to minimize Ms. Severe’s input here, she did not find it
appropriate for Ms. Severe to vote on this as she had not participated in the previous meetings on this
item.
Ms. Johnson noted that Robert’s Rules of Order allows anyone to vote regardless of which way they
voted or whether they were present at previous meetings. She noted that Ms. Severe was present at the
executive session and felt that she was informed enough and there wasn’t anything to prevent her from
voting.
Ms. Severe said that she understood where Ms. Pitchford and Mr. Moyer were coming from but noted
that she had done her research on this project.
10
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 13TH, 2024
Mr. Warwick felt they had this board for a reason and that was that things are not always black and
white. He said that factors come into play that cannot always be solved by strictly following the book or
just following staff’s recommendations. He said that he did not have a stance either way on this as he
understood both sides.
Ms. Raymond agreed with Mr. Warwick that it is very complicated but felt that the applicant has had
these approvals for over a year and have moved forward based on them. She said she would find it
difficult for HPC to go back a year and a half later and say no. She felt there was no malice from the
applicant and that while there was a lot of differing opinions on the Crystal Palace it should be taken out
on this applicant.
Mr. Warwick felt that the ability to rescind an approval at any point down the road takes away HPC’s
credibility. He acknowledged that they made a mistake by not gathering the correct information, but
that this should be used as a learning experience. He felt it was too far on to go back and rescind. He
wasn’t sure how future applicants could rely on HPC’s decisions if this were to be rescinded.
Ms. Thompson agreed and felt that there was not a perfect decision here.
Ms. Severe asked what the timeline was from when the approvals were given until the new information
about the west addition potentially being historic was discovered. Ms. Johnson said it was about nine
months.
Ms. Raymond agreed with Mr. Warwick’s notion about HPC’s credibility if approvals were able to be
rescinded. She felt it would be a dangerous precedent to set.
Mr. Moyer felt the applicant had as much responsibility to do the research on the structure as staff
does.
Ms. Pitchford reminded the members that there are not voting on whether to rescind or not tonight, but
rather to set a hearing in order to gather more information from both sides.
Motion:Mr. Moyer moved to set a hearing regarding 205 W. Main in order to allow both sides to
present their arguments as to the viability of the historic structure.
Ms. Johnson requested that the motion be to consider a resolution of recission. Mr. Moyer agreed with
that language. Ms. Pitchford seconded. Roll call vote:Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Ms. Severe,
yes; Mr. Warwick, no; Ms. Raymond, no; Ms. Thompson, no. 3-3 vote, motion failed.
Ms. Pitchford wanted to make a further commissioner comment and ask a procedural question. She
asked Mr. Anderson that since the Crystal Palace is designated historic was it subject to HPC guidelines
for demolition. Mr. Anderson said that it is now subject to the approvals given at the October 2nd
meeting. He said that, as has been discussed, the Crystal Palace has a complicated legacy. He noted that
it is designated historic, was redeveloped in the 1970s and that there were many assumptions of what
historic materials remained after that redevelopment. He also thought that perhaps at the time of
designation in the 1980s as well as the 2017 approvals there was a misunderstanding of what historic
materials were remaining in the west wall. He noted that at the October 2nd meeting, the applicant’s
proposal raised some questions about certain review criteria, but that the motion and approval of the
application is what now stands. He further clarified that the October 2nd approval did not consider these
criteria and that at that meeting staff did not present a resolution as they wanted to continue to work
with the applicant to craft a resolution that all parties could agree to, based on applicable review
11
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 13TH, 2024
criteria. He stated that staff and the applicant have an understanding that as this project moves forward
to a change order to the existing building permit, that there will be discussion about what the most
appropriate treatment is for the west wall.
Ms. Pitchford expressed disappointment and disillusionment that HPC members have review criteria and
guidelines that they are expected to follow, but this situation has proved to her that they do not need to
actually follow them.
Mr. Moyer had a few questions of staff related to the 2017 approvals, his recollection of them as well
and questions about the monitor on the project back then and the holes in the west wall that he
referenced in the October 2nd meeting. Ms. Johnson said that since there is no application in front of
them at the moment and for the sake of time that those be asked directly to staff outside of this
meeting.
PROJECT MONITORING: Ms. White reviewed the past approvals at 333 W. Bleeker and noted that the
main approvals she would be focusing on in this report where the removal and restoration of the
historic windows while keeping the historic window framing intact as well as the sistering in of new
framing with the historic framing. She displayed the approved wall assemblies showing the sistering of
new framing and noted that during a site visit staff found that this work was not done according to the
approved plans. She then showed images of the actual work done that was observed at the site visit.
Ms. White moved on to note that staff recently met with the applicant team to discuss their findings and
while the applicant did acknowledge that they did not build according to the approved plans, they did
not explicitly take responsibility for the violations, nor did they offer any restitutions or settlement to
avoid potential penalties. She said that staff is requiring the applicant to update their drawings to reflect
the changes that currently exist and also let them know that staff would be bringing this to HPC’s
attention.
Ms. Pitchford asked what happened to the historic window framing. Ms. White said that the historic
windows still exist, are currently stored and are going to be restored, but that the historic window
framing was gone.
Mr. Hayden noted that both historic structures on the property were relocated and that there was a
$45,000 bond submitted for their safe relocation. He said that he did an inspection to determine that
they were properly relocated back on a proper foundation and after that is when the violations
occurred. Thus, the bond had already been given back.
Ms. Thompson felt that a fine was appropriate.
Mr. Moyer wondered if the monitor did not catch this soon enough and ifthere were not enough
inspections done. Mr. Hayden admitted that he did notice some work being done when he did the
relocation inspection and that he did not check soon enough to make sure things were being done
according to the plans. He noted that they typically don’t have regularly scheduled inspections, but that
that was something they discussed with the applicant, regarding ways that staff can improve their
processes to insure this doesn’t happen.
Ms. Thompson said the wall assembly was discussed in depth with the applicant’s representative at the
original meeting and felt like a fine was appropriate.
Mr. Warwick said the applicant team should know what they are doing.
Ms. Berne went over the process to request a fine be imposed through Municipal Court.
12
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 13TH, 2024
Ms. Johnson then went over the options and penalties HPC could pursue. These included a potential fine
through Municipal Court, a recommendation that the Chief Building Official revoke the contractor’s
license, to potentially revoke any benefits or variances that were originally given and to, after a public
hearing, deed restrict the property preventing any future development on the property for up to 10
years. Ms. Johnosn noted that this report serves as notification of the violations to the HPC.
Ms. Thompson asked staff to communicate to the applicant that the HPC is considering pursuing
penalties and see if they come back with some sort of restitution.
Ms. Raymond suggested that they recommend the Chief Building Official to red tag the project. She felt
that is a strong way to get the applicant team’s attention. Ms. White said that the project had been
verbally issued a stop work order, but it had not been officially red tagged. She further noted that staff
had told the applicant to stop working on any historic portions other than protecting and securing those
portions.
Ms. Raymond said all work should stop on the project, not just the historic portions. The other board
members agreed that staff should pursue a red tag on the entire project.
Mr. Moyer thought it very important for the community to know when violations like this occur. He
suggested that in order to learn from this, they should require more regular inspections and not release
any bond until the entire project is completed. He wanted to make sure this applicant learns from this
and that other contractors learn from it as well.
Ms. Johnson suggested that HPC could also ask that the applicant provide them with a written plan on
how they would prevent the future destruction of historic materials as well as an explanation of why
and how this happened.
Ms. Thompson clarified that the HPC would like staff to pursue a formal red tag to stop work on any
portion of the project other than protecting the historic resource and that the contractor team or
applicant come back to them with a proposed plan for remediation or restitution for this.
There was further discussion of the potential penalties and options going forward for this violation as
well as ways that staff and HPC can learn from this and put steps in place to hopefully avoid something
like this happening again.
STAFF COMMENTS: None
CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: None
CALL UP REPORTS:Mr. Hayden noted that Notice of Call Up was provided to City Council for the project
at 300 – 312 W. Hyman and no action was taken to call it up.
ADJOURN: Ms. Thompson motioned to adjourn the regular meeting. Mr. Warwick seconded. All in
favor; motion passes.
____________________
Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk
13
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 13TH, 2024
14
Page 1 of 3
Information Only Memo – HPC
Response to Proposition 122
INFORMATION ONLY MEMORANDUM
TO: Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Ben Anderson, Director, Community Development
Luisa Berne, Assistant City Attorney
Haley Hart, Long-Range Planner
MEMO DATE: January 10, 2025
MEETING DATE: January 22, 2025
RE: Code Amendment: Response to Proposition 122
_____________________________________
This memo is providing the Historic Preservation Commission with information on staff’s
response to City Council direction to create a regulatory response in the Land Use Code
(LUC) to Proposition 122. Colorado Senate Bill 23-290 - Proposition 122, titled Natural
Medicine Regulation And Legalization (the Act), was signed by Governor Polis May 23,
2023. As of January 1, 2025, the state of Colorado offers regulated psychedelic-assisted
therapies with State-wide established guidelines (‘Natural Medicine Businesses’).
Per Senate Bill 23-290 “Natural Medicine” is defined to include psilocybin/psilocyn, as
well as, if approved for use by the state at a later time, each of the following:
dimethyltryptamine; ibogaine; and mescaline. The definition does not include synthetic or
synthetic analogs of these substances. Nor does it include peyote. “Natural Medicine
Product” means products infused with natural medicine that is intended for consumption.
This legislation allows persons over 21 years old to possess, share, cultivate (limited sq.
ft.), and manufacture certain regulated natural medicine for personal use without
payment. It creates a state licensing program for natural medicine licensed facilities with
certification, permitting and registration requirements and advisory board for five license
types. The State will begin to issue licenses on January 1, 2025. The adopted rules restrict
any Natural Medicine facility holding a state license to be at least 1,000 feet distance from
childcare centers, preschools, elementary, middle and junior high schools and residential
childcare facilities. The rules create specific regulations for cultivation, manufacturing,
testing, storing, distribution, transportation, and dispensation of regulated Natural
Medicine and related products.
Per the bill, local governments may regulate the time, place, and manner of operation of
Natural Medicine Businesses but cannot ban or prohibit the Natural Medicine Business
or the personal use of allowed substances in their communities. During a City Council
Work Session on November 18, 2024, Council gave staff direction to amend the LUC to
15
Page 2 of 3
Information Only Memo – HPC
Response to Proposition 122
regulate the allowance of place within the Commercial Core. Staff has responded to City
Council’s request by proposing amendments to Section 26.104.110 – Use Category,
which now includes ‘Natural Medicine Business’ as an allowed use within the ‘Offices
uses’ section. Staff finds the request of Council is consistent with the Office use category
which is defined by the following characteristics: “A type of land use, or any building or
portion thereof, involving the establishment, transaction and delivery of business,
medical, or professional activities or services to the general public.”
Additionally, staff has introduced a new definition for ‘Natural Medicine’, ‘Natural Medicine
Product’, and ‘Natural Medicine Business’ which is verbatim from the Act within Section
26.104.100 – Definitions. To further define and clarify the allowed use as defined by state
statue the definitions are proposed as follows:
,
Natural Medicine. As defined by State Statute to include psilocybin/psilocyn, as well
as, if approved for use by the state at a later time, each of the following:
dimethyltryptamine; ibogaine; and mescaline. The definition does not include
synthetic or synthetic analogs of these substances. Nor does it include peyote.
Natural Medicine Product. As defined by State Statute means products infused with
natural medicine that is intended for consumption.
Natural Medicine Business. As defined by State Statute, “Natural Medicine Business”
means any of the following businesses licensed pursuant to the Natural Medicine
Code:
i. A Natural Medicine Healing Center;
ii. A Natural Medicine Cultivation Facility;
iii. A Natural Medicine Products Manufacturer;
iv. A Natural Medicine Testing Facility.
Through these proposed amendments which regulate the place as allowed by Proposition
122, Natural Medicine Businesses will be allowed in the following Zone Districts: CC
(Commercial Core), C1 (Commercial), SCI (Service/Commercial/Industrial), NC
(Neighborhood Commercial), MU (Mixed Use), L (Lodge), CL (Commercial Lodge).
This regulatory power by the City of Aspen is in addition to the state’s regulations of time,
place and manner which includes a 1,000-foot buffer to any childcare facility or school. A
map detailing the allowed zone districts with a 1,000-foot overlay buffer from childcare
facilities and schools within the City is included in Exhibit A.
Staff brought a Policy Resolution to Council 1/14/2025 to formally open the Land Use
Code for amendments. Pursuant to Section 26.310.020.B.1, the Community
Development Department, following approval of the Policy Resolution, will now conduct
a limited public outreach effort to inform the public of this proposed amendment.
16
Page 3 of 3
Information Only Memo – HPC
Response to Proposition 122
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A – Map of Allowed Zone Districts and School Buffers
17
W
ill
o
w
-
Herrick
W i l l o w -Herrick
Maroon
C
r
e
ek Cas
t
l
e
Creek
C
e
m
etery
R
e
d
B
utte
Asp en Golf
Red Butte
BarX Ranch -
St age R oad
PUD
Ag ricultural
La nd
K
e
n
o
G
u
l
c
h
SternerG ulch
Willow-Herrick M a r o o n Creek
C a stle C reek
G
l
e
n
Eagles
Tieha
c
k
82MooreOpen
Space
Thomas Ra nch
Moore Family
PUD Ak a Five
Trees
Reds
Reds
Draw
Wrights
Hunter Creek -
Esta ma r
Rubey
Meadows Lot 4
Vallejo
G ulch
P
i
o
n
ee
r
Gulch
Hallam
Mill
Aspen
Hyman
Bleeker
4th
S
i
l
v
e
r
lode
5th
Gi
b
s
o
n
U
t
e
Durant
Smuggler
Main
Cooper
82
82 SM OS -Robert
Emmet t USM S#
6044
R ubey
A s p e n
MU
MU MU
MU MU MUMU MUMUMU
CC
MU
CC
MU
MU
MU
CLCL
NC
L
NC
L
SCI
LL
L
LL
CL CC
L
L
C-1
SCI
SCI
L
L
L
L
0 0.35 0.70.17
Miles
FCity of Aspen GIS, Pitkin County, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc,
METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA,
USFWS
Legend
Schools Within City Limits
Schools1000ftbuffer
L
CL
CC
C-1
SCI
NC
MU
LP
Aspen City Limits
Source: City of Aspen GIS
Proposition 122 Map 18
19
Page 1 of 5
427 Rio Grande Place, Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5000 | cityofaspen.com
Memorandum
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission (HPC)
FROM: Gillian White, Historic Preservation Officer, Principal Planner
THROUGH: Ben Anderson, Community Development Director
MEETING DATE: January 22, 2025
RE: 337 Lake Ave. – Certificate of Appropriateness for Major Development,
Conceptual Review
APPLICANT/OWNER:
Aspen West AJ,
LLC
Representative:
Sara Adams,
BendonAdams,
LLC
Location:
337 Lake Ave.
Aspen, CO 81611
Legal Description:
Lot B, Daggs
Historic Landmark
Lot Split, Aspen,
Pitkin County,
Colorado
Parcel
Identification
Number:
2735-121-35-002
Current Zoning &
Use:
R-6 – Residential
Proposed Use:
Residential
SUMMARY:
The applicant requests a Certificate of Appropriateness for Major
Development at 337 Lake Avenue for the purpose of constructing a new,
detached, one-story, single-family residence on the vacant parcel created
out of a Historic Landmark Lot Split per Ordinance #47, Series of 2005.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Historic Preservation Staff recommend Approval of Resolution #XX, of
Series 2025, for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Major Development,
Conceptual Review, for 337 Lake Avenue.
Figure 1. 337 Lake Ave. – Site Location Aerial Image
20
Page 2 of 5
427 Rio Grande Place, Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5000 | cityofaspen.com
BACKGROUND:
Located in the Medium Density Residential (R-6) Zone District between Hallam Lake and Aspen
Meadows on the north side of Aspen’s West End neighborhood, the property referred to as 337
Lake Ave. is a 6,000-square-foot parcel that is currently vacant. 337 Lake Ave. and 335 Lake
Ave. were included in the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmarks as a single parcel in 2001,
under the address of 640 N. Third St, per Ordinance #18, Series of 2001. HPC Resolution #45,
Series of 2005, and Ordinance #47, Series of 2005, created the Daggs Historic Landmark Lot
Split Subdivision Exemption (Book 80, Page 97, Reception #427631). The Historic Landmark
Lot Split resulted in Lot A (335 Lake Ave.), which contains a circa 1889 AspenVictorian Miner’s
Cottage, and Lot B (337 Lake Ave.) the subject property of this request.
Pursuant to Ordinance #47, Series of 2005, both lots created as part of the Daggs Historic
Landmark Lot Split must conform to the requirements of their underlying zone district. The
Ordinance and associated plat states that Lot B has an allowed floor area of 1,700 sq. ft.
Variations provided for in Section 26.415.110(c)(1)a-c are not applicable to Lot B, as it does not
contain the historic structure. The maximum potential buildout for the two parcels created by the
lot split is not to exceed three units, which may be composed of a duplex and a single-family
home. The Ordinance also states that any lot for which development is proposed shall be subject
to affordable housing mitigation, which in the City of Aspen Municipal Land Use Code includes
Growth Management Residential Development review per Section 26.470.090(a).
Figure 2. 337 Lake Ave. on the 1896
Willits Map Figure 3. Northeast corner of Block 102, City and Township of
Aspen (Poley, H. S., 1990-1899)
21
Page 3 of 5
427 Rio Grande Place, Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5000 | cityofaspen.com
REQUEST OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
The Applicant is requesting the following land use approval(s):
• Certificate of Appropriateness for Major Development (Section 26.415.070(d)): for the
construction of a new structure within a historic property, the extent of which exceeds the
parameters set forth for minor development per the City of Aspen Land Use Code Section
26.415.070(c).
• Residential Design Standards (RDS) (Section 26.410)
The HPC is the final review authority for Certificate of Appropriateness for Major Development.
PROJECT SUMMARY:
The applicant proposes to construct a one-story, stand-alone, single-family dwelling with a
basement on a vacant lot. In addition to the detached dwelling, the proposed project includes a
patio, side-yard fencing, new vehicular paving, and landscaping.
Fig. 4. Existing lot as seen from Lake Ave. Figure 5. Rendering of proposed dwelling.
22
Page 4 of 5
427 Rio Grande Place, Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5000 | cityofaspen.com
STAFF EVALUATION
The application (LPA-24-106) for Certificate of Appropriateness Major Development at 337 Lake
Ave. deserves commendation for its general approach to satisfying the City’s intent to “draw a
reasonable balance between private property rights and the public interest in preserving the
City's cultural, historic, and architectural heritage” as set forth in Aspen Land Use Code Chapter
26.415.
Major Development:
As detailed in Exhibit A, the application satisfies most of the applicable Historic Preservation
Design Guidelines. The previously determined maximum floor area condition, as a result of the
historic lot split, has aided in the satisfactory review of many of the Guidelines. This was
particularly the case for Guidelines 1.7 and 1.11, where the limited floor area allowed for more
open space and the preservation of specific trees.
The proposed new building remains subordinate to the neighboring historic resource in both size
and scale, while still relating to the historic context by way of materiality and form. Although
Guideline 11.3 calls for new construction to appear similar in scale with the existing historic
resource, the allowable floor area demands the proposed structure be smaller in scale. Staff find
the proposal to be acceptable for this project and appreciate the refined nature of the design.
While the majority of the Guidelines have been met for the submitted conceptual review, there
are Guidelines that have not been met at this time. This includes Guideline 1.10, 1.14, 1.19,
1.20, and 12.3, which deal with site elements such as fencing and lighting. Please refer to
Exhibit A for more details on each Guideline. These Guidelines will be assessed for compliance
at the time of Final Review.
Residential Design Standards:
Applicant meets all Residential Design Standards at the time of this conceptual review.
Figure 6. East elevation showing Lot A (left, existing historic resource) and Lot B (right, proposed structure)
23
Page 5 of 5
427 Rio Grande Place, Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5000 | cityofaspen.com
REFERRAL COMMENTS
The application was referred out to other City departments who have requirements that will affect
the permit review. As this project qualifies as a Major Engineering Review, the Engineering
Department provided several comments that are to be responded to/met at the time of permit.
The Building, Parks, and Zoning reviewers did not have any comments or concerns related to
this proposal.
The combined referral comments are included as Exhibit B.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommend that the HPC approve Resolution #XX, Series of 2025 for the Conceptual Major
Development Review for 337 Lake Ave.
NEXT STEPS:
Per Section 26.415.070(d), 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.
ATTACHMENTS
Resolution #__, Series of 2025
Exhibit A – Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Staff Findings
Exhibit B – Referral Comments
Exhibit C – Application
24
HPC Resolution # , Series of 2025
Page 1 of 3
RESOLUTION #__,
(SERIES OF 2025)
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
GRANTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR MAJOR
DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTUAL REVIEW FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 337
LAKE AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT B, DAGGS HISTORIC
LANDMARK LOT SPLIT ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
PARCEL ID: 2735-121-35-002
WHEREAS, the applicant, Aspen West AJ, LLC, represented by Sara Adams, BendonAdams
LLC, has requested HPC approval for Certificate of Appropriateness Major Development,
Conceptual Review for the property located at 337 Lake Avenue, Lot B, Daggs Historic Landmark
Lot Split, Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado; and
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that “no building or structure shall
be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated
historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the
Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established
for their review;” and
WHEREAS, for approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness for Major Development, the HPC
must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to
determine the project’s conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design
Guidelines per Section 26.415.070(D) 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, this property is subject to Residential Design Standards, of which the conceptual
plans comply; and
WHEREAS, Community Development Department staff reviewed the application for compliance
with the applicable review standards and recommended approval of a Certificate of
Appropriateness for Major Development Conceptual Review; and
WHEREAS, the HPC reviewed the project on January 22, 2025. The HPC considered the
application, the staff memo and public comments, and found the proposal consistent with the
review standards and granted approval by a vote of ___ to ___.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That HPC hereby approves a Certificate of Appropriateness for Major Development Conceptual
Review for 337 Lake Avenue, Lot B, Daggs Historic Landmark Lot Split, Aspen, Pitkin County,
Colorado as follows:
Section 2: Material Representations
25
HPC Resolution # , Series of 2025
Page 2 of 3
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development
proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented
before the Community Development Department, the Historic Preservation Commission, or the
Aspen City Council are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same
shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions or
an authorized authority.
Section 3: Existing Litigation
This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any
action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as
herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 4: Severability
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed
a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions thereof.
Section 5: Vested Rights
The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development plan vested
for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order. However, any
failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the
forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise exempted or extended, failure to
properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded, as specified herein, within 180
days of the effective date of the development order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested
property rights and shall render the development order void within the meaning of Section
26.104.050 (Void permits). Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan
shall not result in the creation of a vested property right.
No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to
obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be published
in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a
notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation
of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following
form:
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site-specific development plan,
and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years, pursuant to the
Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining
to the following described property: 337 Lake Avenue.
Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews and
approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City of
Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this approval.
The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; the
period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the date
26
HPC Resolution # , Series of 2025
Page 3 of 3
of publication of the notice of final development approval as required under Section
26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the Colorado Constitution
and the Aspen Home Rule Charter.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 22th day of January
2025.
Approved as to Form: Approved as to Content:
__________________________________ ____________________________________
Katharine Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Kara Thompson, Chair
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk
27
Page 1 of 8
Exhibit A
Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Criteria
Staff Findings
26.415.070.D – Certificate of Appropriateness for Major Development
1) The review and decision on the issuance of a certificate of appropriateness for major
development shall begin with a determination by the Community Development
Director that the proposed project constitutes a major development. A major
development includes one or more of the following activities:
a. The construction of a new structure within a historic district; and/or
b. Alterations to more than three (3) elements of a building façade including its
windows, doors, roof planes or materials, exterior wall material, dormers,
porches, exterior staircase, balcony or ornamental trim; and/or
c. The expansion of a building increasing the floor area by more than two
hundred and fifty (250) square feet; and/or
d. Any new development that has not been determined to be minor
development.
28
Page 2 of 8
Relevant Historic Preservation Design Guidelines & Findings
The applicant requests a Certificate of Appropriateness for Major Development at 337 Lake Avenue
for the purposes of constructing a new one-story, single family detached dwelling.
Chapter 1: Site Planning and Landscape Finding
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.
Met
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.
Met
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.
Met
1.6 Provide a simple walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front
entry on residential projects.
• Meandering walkways are not allowed, except where it is needed to avoid a tree
or is typical of the period of significance.
• Use paving materials that are similar to those used historically for the building
style and install them in the manner that they would have been used historically.
For example on an Aspen Victorian landmark set flagstone pavers in sand, rather
than in concrete. Light grey concrete, brick or red sandstone are appropriate
private walkway materials for most landmarks.
• The width of a new entry sidewalk should generally be three feet or less for
residential properties. A wider sidewalk may be appropriate for an AspenModern
property.
Met
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.
Met
29
Page 3 of 8
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.
Met
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.
TBD
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.
Met
30
Page 4 of 8
1.12 Provide an appropriate context for historic structures. See diagram.
• Simplicity and restraint are required. Do not overplant a site, or install a
landscape which is overtextured or overly complex in relationship to the historic
resource, particularly in Zone A. In Zone A, new planting shall be species that
were used historically or species of similar attributes.
• In areas immediately adjacent to the landmark, Zone A and Zone B, plants up
42” in height, sod, and low shrubs are often appropriate.
• Contemporary planting, walls and other features are not appropriate in Zone A.
A more contemporary landscape may surround new development or be located
in the rear of the property, in Zone C.
• Do not cover areas which were historically unpaved with hard surfaces, except
for a limited patio where appropriate.
• Where residential structures are being adapted to commercial use, proposals to
alter the landscape will be considered on a case-by-case basis. The residential
nature of the building must be honored.
• In the case of a historic landmark lot split, careful consideration should be given
so as not to over plant either property, or remove all evidence of the landscape
characteristics from before the property was divided.
• Contemporary landscapes that highlight an AspenModern architectural style are
encouraged.
Met
1.13 Additions of plant material to the landscape that could interfere with or block
views of historic structures are inappropriate.
• Low plantings and ground covers are preferred.
• Do not place trees, shrubs, or hedgerows in locations that will obscure, damage,
or block significant architectural features or views to the building. Hedgerows are
not allowed as fences.
• Consider mature canopy size when planting new trees adjacent to historic
resources. Planting trees too close to a landmark may result in building
deteriorate or blocked views and is inappropriate.
Climbing vines can damage historic structures and are not allowed.
Met
1.14 Minimize the visual impacts of landscape lighting.
• Landscape and pathway lighting is not permitted in Zone A (refer to diagram) on
Aspen Victorian properties unless an exception is approved by HPC based on
safety considerations.
• Landscape, driveway, and pathway lighting on AspenModern properties is
addressed on a case-by-case basis.
• Landscape light fixtures should be carefully selected so that they are compatible
with the building, yet recognizable as a product of their own time.
• Driveway lighting is not permitted on Aspen Victorian properties.
• Landscape uplighting is not allowed.
TBD
31
Page 5 of 8
1.18 When building an entirely new fence, use materials that are appropriate to
the building type and style.
• The new fence should use materials that were used on similar properties during
the period of significance.
• A wood fence is the appropriate solution in most locations.
• Ornate fences, including wrought iron, may create a false history are not
appropriate for Aspen Victorian landmarks unless there is evidence that a
decorative fence historically existed on the site.
• A modest wire fence was common locally in the early 1900s and is appropriate
for Aspen Victorian properties. This fence type has many desirable
characteristics including transparency, a low height, and a simple design. When
this material is used, posts should be simply detailed and not oversized.
Met
1.19 A new fence should have a transparent quality, allowing views into the yard
from the street.
• A fence that defines a front yard must be low in height and transparent in nature.
• For a picket fence, spacing between the pickets must be a minimum of 1/2 the
width of the picket.
• For Post-WWII properties where a more solid type of fence may be historically
appropriate, proposals will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
• Fence columns or piers should be proportional to the fence segment.
TBD
1.20 Any fence taller than 42” should be designed so that it avoids blocking
public views of important features of a designated building.
• A privacy fence should incorporate transparent elements to minimize the possible
visual impacts. Consider staggering the fence boards on either side of the fence
rail. This will give the appearance of a solid plank fence when seen head on. Also
consider using lattice, or other transparent detailing on the upper portions of the
fence.
• A privacy fence should allow the building corners and any important architectural
features that are visible from the street to continue to be viewed.
• All hedgerows (trees, shrub bushes, etc.) are prohibited in Zones A and B.
TBD
1.22 When a new retaining wall is necessary, its height and visibility should be
minimized.
• All wall materials, including veneer and mortar, will be reviewed on a case by case
basis and should be compatible with the palette used on the historic structure.
Met
1.24 Preserve historically significant landscapes with few or no alterations.
• An analysis of the historic landscape and an assessment of the current condition
of the landscape should be done before the beginning of any project.
• The key features of the historic landscape and its overall design intent must be
preserved.
Met
32
Page 6 of 8
1.25 New development on these sites should respect the historic design of the
landscape and its built features.
• Do not add features that damage the integrity of the historic landscape.
• Maintain the existing pattern of setbacks and siting of structures.
• Maintain the historic relationship of the built landscape to natural features on the
site.
• All additions to these landscapes must be clearly identifiable as recent work.
• New artwork must be subordinate to the designed landscape in terms of
placement, height, material, and overall appearance. Place new art away from
significant landscape features.
• Avoid installing utility trenches in cultural landscapes if possible.
Met
1.26 Preserve the historic circulation system.
• Minimize the impact of new vehicular circulation.
• Minimize the visual impact of new parking.
• Maintain the separation of pedestrian and vehicle which occurred historically.
Met
1.27 Preserve and maintain significant landscaping on site.
• Protect established vegetation during any construction.
• If any tree or shrub needs to be removed, replace it with the same or similar
species.
• New planting should be of a species used historically or a similar species.
• Maintain and preserve any gardens and/or ornamental planting on the site.
• Maintain and preserve any historic landscape elements.
Met
• Chapter 11: New Buildings on Landmarked Properties Finding
11.1 Orient the new building to the street.
• Aspen Victorian buildings should be arranged parallel to the lot lines, maintaining
the traditional grid pattern.
• AspenModern alignments shall be handled case-by-case.
• Generally, do not set the new structure forward of the historic resource. Alignment
of their front setbacks is preferred. An exception may be made on a corner lot or
where a recessed siting for the new structure is a better preservation outcome.
Met
11.2 In a residential context, clearly define the primary entrance to a new
building by using a front porch.
• The front porch shall be functional, and used as the means of access to the
front door.
• A new porch must be similar in size and shape to those seen traditionally.
Met
33
Page 7 of 8
11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale and proportion with the
historic buildings on a parcel.
• Subdivide larger masses into smaller “modules” that are similar in size to the
historic buildings on the original site.
• Reflect the heights and proportions that characterize the historic resource.
Met/Not
Met
11.4 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building.
• The primary plane of the front shall not appear taller than the historic structure. Met
11.5 The intent of the historic landmark lot split is to remove most of the
development potential from the historic resource and place it in the new
structure(s).
• This should be kept in mind when determining how floor area will be allocated
between structures proposed as part of a lot split.
Met
11.6 Design a new structure to be recognized as a product of its time.
• Consider these three aspects of a new building; form, materials, and
fenestration. A project 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.
• When choosing to relate to building form, use forms that are similar to the historic
resource.
• When choosing to relate to materials, use materials that appear similar in scale
and finish to those used historically on the site and use building materials that
contribute to a traditional sense of human scale.
• When choosing to relate to fenestration, use windows and doors that are similar
in size and shape to those of the historic resource.
Met
11.7 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged.
• This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings.
• Overall, details shall be modest in character.
Met
Chapter 12: Accessibility, Architectural lighting, Mechanical Equipment, Service
Areas, and Signage Finding
12.3 Exterior light fixtures should be simple in character.
• The design of a new fixture should be appropriate in form, finish, and scale with
the structure.
• New fixtures should not reflect a different period of history than that of the affected
building, or be associated with a different architectural style.
• Lighting should be placed in a manner that is consistent with the period of the
building, and should not provide a level of illumination that is out of character.
• One light adjacent to each entry is appropriate on an Aspen Victorian residential
structure. A recessed fixture, surface mounted light, pendant or sconce will be
considered if suited to the building type or style.
• On commercial structures and AspenModern properties, recessed lights and
concealed lights are often most appropriate.
TBD
34
Page 8 of 8
12.4 Minimize the visual impacts of utilitarian areas, such as mechanical
equipment and trash storage.
• Place mechanical equipment on the ground where it can be screened.
• Mechanical equipment may only be mounted on a building on an alley façade.
• Rooftop mechanical equipment or vents must be grouped together to minimize
their visual impact. Where rooftop units are visible, it may be appropriate to
provide screening with materials that are compatible with those of the building
itself. Use the smallest, low profile units available for the purpose.
• Window air conditioning units are not allowed.
• Minimize the visual impacts of utility connections and service boxes. Group them
in a discrete location. Use pedestals when possible, rather than mounting on a
historic building.
• Paint mechanical equipment in a neutral color to minimize their appearance by
blending with their backgrounds.
• In general, mechanical equipment should be vented through the roof, rather than
a wall, in a manner that has the least visual impact possible.
• Avoid surface mounted conduit on historic structures.
Met
Staff Findings:
Chapters 1 and 11 of the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines are particularly relevant to the
application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Major Development, Conceptual Review for
337 Lake Ave. Staff finds that the application meets all the applicable Guidelines, with the
exception of Guidelines 1.19, 1.14, 1.19, 1.20, and 12.3. These Guidelines that have not yet been
met deal with elements such as site lighting, fences, and built-in site features. As this is the
conceptual review phase, staff recommends approval of the application at conceptual review with
regards to the location, form, height, scale, massing, and proportions. The Guidelines referenced
above that have not yet been met are details that will be considered further at the time of final
review.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the application for Certificate of Appropriateness for Major
Development, Conceptual Review.
35
Memorandum
TO: Sara Adams, BendonAdams
FROM: Gillian White, Historic Preservation Officer
DATE: November 12, 2024
PROJECT: LPA-24-106, Major Development - Conceptual HPC Review, Development of
New House on Vacant Lot at 337 Lake Avenue
COMMENTS:
These comments are not intended to be exhaustive, but an initial response to the Land Use
application submitted for review. Other requirements may be requested at time of permit.
Engineering:
1. This project will qualify as a major level Engineering Review. A full drainage report and
civil plans will be required at the time of permit.
a. Ensure all utility crossing minimums are maintained.
2. A Permanent Revocable Encroachment License will be required prior to Certificate of
Occupancy for the retaining wall and stairs in the Right of Way.
3. The fence should not block the curb stop and should always be accessible.
4. This appears to be shown as two separate units, each unit needs its own service lines for
utilities.
5. Show routing of green roof to storm system in permit documents.
6. Mech room should be located in the rear to reduce distance between the potable water
entry to the structure and the meter and backflow prevention assembly. Water Distribution
Standard 5.8.1 require all meters to set as close as possible to the point where the service
enters the building.
7. Curb cuts should be a minimum of 25ft away from an adjacent curb cut. There is currently
only approximately 22ft. Amend the driveway location.
8. If any snowmelt is proposed, it is not permitted over the water main.
Historic Preservation:
1. Preliminary material representations are requested when available.
2. Sheet LX-01 shows the retaining wall partially on 335 Lake Ave property – are you only
demolishing to the property line?
3. Please include photo of the existing retaining wall.
Building: No Comments.
Parks: No Comments.
Zoning: No Comments.
36
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
Stuart Hayden
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
August 23, 2024
Re: 337 Lake Avenue – HP Major Development Conceptual Application
Dear Stuart, and HPC,
Please accept this application for Major Development Conceptual Review of the vacant property
located at 337 Lake Avenue, Lot B of the Daggs Historic Landmark Lot Split. This 6,001 sf property
is under the purview of the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). The owners, Abby and Jon,
propose to construct a small studio residence with a basement. The project conforms to both the
R-6 zone district and the specifications in the lot split subdivision agreement (Exhibit J.2).
Background
337 Lake Avenue was created in 2005 through the historic landmark lot split incentive – Lot A
(335 Lake Avenue) contains the 1880s historic landmark and is 5,706 sf; and Lot B (subject
property) is vacant and 6,001 sf. The total allowable floor area plus the 500 sf floor area bonus for
historic restoration was allocated to the newly created lots through the lot split process – Lot A is
permitted 2,542 sf of floor area plus a 500 sf bonus for a total of 3,042 sf; and Lot B is permitted
1,700 sf of floor area. The allocation of floor area between the lots clearly indicates a desire for
Lot B to be developed with a small residence.
335 Lake Avenue recently received Minor Development approval from HPC for a remodel of the
existing home.
Proposal
A one story studio
residence with basement
is proposed on the vacant
lot. The home complies
with the underlying R-6
zone district, Residential
Design Standards, and is
about 600 sf below the
maximum floor area of
1,700 sf and about 10 ft
below the maximum
height of 25 ft. The
primary roof form is a Figures 1 & 2: Historic 335 Lake (left) and proposed 337 Lake (right).
37
Page 2 of 3
gable and horizontal siding is proposed. The house sits on its own fee simple lot, but clearly pulls
inspiration from the adjacent historic landmark through the prominent front porch, simple forms,
and material application. Modern architectural details, front porch, and fenestration, and a flat
green roof distinguish the new building as a product of its own time. Historic preservation design
guidelines are addressed in Exhibit A.
The project team worked closely with the City Forester early in the design process to identify trees
to preserve and trees to remove. Coordination with the Forester to establish a tree setback
informed the site plan. A conceptual storm water management plan and conceptual landscape
plan are included in the design set for initial review with the understanding that final plans will be
provided in the Final Review application. Residential Design Standards are addressed in Exhibit K.
A physical model will be presented at the public hearing.
Kind Regards,
Sara Adams, AICP
BendonAdams, LLC
Exhibits
A Review Criteria - Historic Preservation Design Guidelines
B. Land Use Application
C. Pre-application summary
D. Authorization to represent
E. Proof of ownership
E.1 Title commitment
E.2 Statement of authority
F. Agreement to Pay
G. HOA form
H. Vicinity Map
I. Mailing list
J. Past approvals
J.1 Ordinance 47-2005 approving the historic lot split
J.2 Subdivision agreement
J.3 Subdivision plat
K. Residential Design Standard Checklist
L. Drawing set including survey
38
Page 3 of 3
39
Exhibit A
HP Review
Sec. 26.415.060.A Approvals Required
Any development involving properties designated on the aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and
Structures, as an individual property or located within the boundaries of a Historic District, unless
determined exempt, requires the approval of a development order and either a certificate of no negative
effect or a certificate of appropriateness before a building permit or any other work authorization will be
issued by the City. HPC shall provide referral comments for major projects to rights of way located within
the boundaries of a Historic District.
Response: Applicable Design Guidelines are addressed below:
Streetscape
1.1 All projects shall respect the historic development pattern or context of the block, neighborhood or
district.
• Building footprint and location should reinforce the traditional patterns of the neighborhood.
• Allow for some porosity on a site. In a residential project, setback to setback development is
typically uncharacteristic of the historic context. Do not design a project which leaves no useful
open space visible from the street.
Response – The building faces Lake Avenue similar to the adjacent landmark. Open space and porosity are
maximized in the site plan – the proposed site coverage is 15% where 50% is the maximum allowed.
1.2 Preserve the system and character of
historic streets, alleys, and ditches.
When HPC input is requested, the
following bullet points may be applicable.
• Retain and preserve the variety and
character found in historic alleys,
including retaining historic ancillary
buildings or constructing new ones.
• Retain and preserve the simple
character of historic ditches. Do not
plant flowers or add landscape.
• Abandoning or re-routing a street in a
historic area is generally discouraged.
• Consider the value of unpaved alleys in
residential areas.
• Opening a platted right of way which
was abandoned or never graded may
be encouraged on a case by case basis.
Response – No change to historic streets is proposed.
Figure 1: Site plan comparison – 337 Lake (top) and 335 Lake
(bottom)
40
Exhibit A
Review Criteria
1.3 Remove driveways or parking areas accessed directly from the street if they were not part of the
original development of the site.
• Do not introduce new curb cuts on streets.
• Non-historic driveways accessed from the street should be removed if they can be relocated to
the alley.
Response – No change to access.
1.4 Design a new driveway or improve an existing driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual impact.
• If an alley exists at the site, the new driveway must be located off it.
• Tracks, gravel, light grey concrete with minimal seams, or similar materials are appropriate for
driveways on Aspen Victorian properties.
Response – Access to the property is from Third Street via cobble stone tracks.
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 semiprivate entry feature, to private spaces.
Response – A simple walkway from Lake Avenue to the entry porch is proposed to reflect the traditional
transition from public to private space.
1.6 Provide a simple walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry on residential
projects.
• Meandering walkways are not allowed, except where it is needed to avoid a tree or is typical of
the period of significance.
• Use paving materials that are similar to those used historically for the building style and install
them in the manner that they would have been used historically. For example, on an Aspen
Victorian landmark set flagstone pavers in sand, rather than in concrete. Light grey concrete, brick
or red sandstone are appropriate private walkway materials for most landmarks.
• The width of a new entry sidewalk should generally be three feet or less for residential properties.
A wider sidewalk may be appropriate for an AspenModern property.
Response – A simple concrete walkway with steps and a handrail is proposed from Lake Avenue to the
front entry- there is significant grade change between the property and Lake Avenue. The width of the
walkway is three feet. Large cottonwoods in the right of way necessitate a slight jog in the walkway to
accommodate tree roots per the Parks Department. A dry stack stone retaining wall to replace the existing
wall is proposed along Lake Avenue which will be coordinated with the Engineering Department.
1.7 Provide positive open space within a project site.
• Ensure that open space on site is meaningful and consolidated into a few large spaces rather than
many small unusable areas.
• Open space should be designed to support and complement the historic building.
Response – Open space is provided around the new home to create usable outdoor areas and passive
landscaped areas. Two rain gardens are incorporated into the landscape plan, and hardscape is limited to
the side yard.
41
Exhibit A
Review Criteria
1.8 Consider stormwater quality needs early in the design process.
• When included in the initial planning for a project, stormwater quality facilities can be better
integrated into the proposal. All landscape plans presented for HPC review must include at least
a preliminary representation of the stormwater design. A more detailed design must be reviewed
and approved by Planning and Engineering prior to building permit submittal.
• Site designs and stormwater management should provide positive drainage away from the
historic landmark, preserve the use of natural drainage and treatment systems of the site, reduce
the generation of additional stormwater runoff, and increase infiltration into the ground.
Stormwater facilities and conveyances located in front of a landmark should have minimal visual
impact when viewed from the public right of way.
• Refer to City Engineering for additional guidance and requirements.
Response – A conceptual drainage plan is included in the application as shown on Sheet C4 of the drawing
set.
1.9 Landscape development on AspenModern landmarks shall be addressed on a case by case basis.
Response – n/a.
1.10 Built-in furnishings, such as water features, fire pits, grills, and hot tubs, that could interfere with or
block views of historic structures are inappropriate.
• Site furnishings that are added to the historic property should not be intrusive or degrade the
integrity of the neighborhood patterns, site, or existing historic landscape.
• Consolidating and screening these elements is preferred.
Response – Built in outdoor elements are proposed on the rear patio behind the home. More information
will be provided at Final Review as the landscape plan is further refined.
1.11 Preserve and maintain historically significant landscaping on site, particularly landmark trees and
shrubs.
• Retaining historic planting beds and landscape features is encouraged.
• Protect historically significant vegetation during construction to avoid damage. Removal of
damaged, aged, or diseased trees must be approved by the Parks Department.
• If a significant tree must be removed, replace it with the same or similar species in coordination
with the Parks Department.
• The removal of non-historic planting schemes is encouraged.
• Consider restoring the original landscape if information is available, including original plant
materials.
Response – Existing cottonwoods in the right of way along Lake Avenue, and significant trees along the
west property line are preserved and protected per the Parks Department’s specifications.
1.12 Provide an appropriate context for historic structures. See diagram.
• Simplicity and restraint are required. Do not overplant a site, or install a landscape which is over
textured or overly complex in relationship to the historic resource, particularly in Zone A. In Zone
A, new planting shall be species that were used historically or species of similar attributes.
42
Exhibit A
Review Criteria
• In areas immediately adjacent to the landmark, Zone A and Zone B, plants up 42” in height, sod,
and low shrubs are often appropriate.
• Contemporary planting, walls and other features are not appropriate in Zone A. A more
contemporary landscape may surround new development or be located in the rear of the
property, in Zone C.
• Do not cover areas which were historically unpaved with hard surfaces, except for a limited patio
where appropriate.
• Where residential structures are being adapted to commercial use, proposals to alter the
landscape will be considered on a case-by-case basis. The residential nature of the building must
be honored.
• In the case of a historic landmark lot split, careful consideration should be given so as not to over
plant either property, or remove all evidence of the landscape characteristics from before the
property was divided.
• Contemporary landscapes that highlight an AspenModern architectural style are encouraged.
Response – A simple landscape is proposed around the new house. Conceptual plantings are proposed on
Sheet LX-03 and LX-04 to -06 of the drawing set. The landscape plan will be finalized prior to final HPC
review.
1.13 Additions of plant material to the landscape that could interfere with or block views of historic
structures are inappropriate.
• Low plantings and ground covers are preferred.
• Do not place trees, shrubs, or hedgerows in locations that will obscure, damage, or block
significant architectural features or views to the building. Hedgerows are not allowed as fences.
• Consider mature canopy size when planting new trees adjacent to historic resources. Planting
trees too close to a landmark may result in building deteriorate or blocked views and is
inappropriate.
• Climbing vines can damage historic structures and are not allowed.
Response – Plants do not obscure the view of the new building or the adjacent landmark.
1.14 Minimize the visual impacts of landscape lighting.
• Landscape and pathway lighting is not permitted in Zone A (refer to diagram) on Aspen Victorian
properties unless an exception is approved by HPC based on safety considerations.
• Landscape, driveway, and pathway lighting on AspenModern properties is addressed on a case-
by-case basis.
• Landscape light fixtures should be carefully selected so that they are compatible with the building,
yet recognizable as a product of their own time.
• Driveway lighting is not permitted on Aspen Victorian properties.
• Landscape uplighting is not allowed.
Response – Landscape lighting is not proposed at this time. Lighting will be included in the Final Review
application.
43
Exhibit A
Review Criteria
1.15 Preserve original fences.
• Fences which are considered part of the historic significance of a site should not be moved,
removed, or inappropriately altered.
• Replace only those portions of a historic fence that are deteriorated beyond repair.
• Replacement elements must match the existing.
Response – n/a.
1.16 When possible, replicate a missing historic fence based on photographic evidence.
Response – n/a.
1.17 No fence in the front yard is often the most appropriate solution.
• Reserve fences for back yards and behind street facing façades, as the best way to preserve the
character of a property.
Response – No fence is proposed in the front yard. Fencing is proposed in the side and rear yards.
1.18 When building an entirely new fence, use materials that are appropriate to the building type and
style.
• The new fence should use materials that were used on similar properties during the period of
significance.
• A wood fence is the appropriate solution in most locations.
• Ornate fences, including wrought iron, may create a false history are not appropriate for Aspen
Victorian landmarks unless there is evidence that a decorative fence historically existed on the
site.
• A modest wire fence was common locally in the early 1900s and is appropriate for Aspen Victorian
properties. This fence type has many desirable characteristics including transparency, a low
height, and a simple design. When this material is used, posts should be simply detailed and not
oversized.
Response – The existing side fence is proposed to remain. The rear fence will be 42” tall wood fence with
appropriate spacing. More detail will be provided in the Final HPC application as part of the final
landscape plan.
1.19 A new fence should have a transparent quality, allowing views into the yard from the street.
• A fence that defines a front yard must be low in height and transparent in nature.
• For a picket fence, spacing between the pickets must be a minimum of 1/2 the width of the picket.
• For Post-WWII properties where a more solid type of fence may be historically appropriate,
proposals will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
• Fence columns or piers should be proportional to the fence segment.
Response – The rear fence will comply with this guideline – more details will be provided with the final
landscape plan for HPC review.
44
Exhibit A
Review Criteria
1.20 Any fence taller than 42” should be designed so that it avoids blocking public views of important
features of a designated building.
• A privacy fence should incorporate transparent elements to minimize the possible visual impacts.
Consider staggering the fence boards on either side of the fence rail. This will give the appearance
of a solid plank fence when seen head on. Also consider using lattice, or other transparent
detailing on the upper portions of the fence.
• A privacy fence should allow the building corners and any important architectural features that
are visible from the street to continue to be viewed.
• All hedgerows (trees, shrub bushes, etc.) are prohibited in Zones A and B.
Response – This property does not contain a designated building. The adjacent landmark is not blocked
by the proposed rear fence.
1.21 Preserve original retaining walls
• Replace only those portions that are deteriorated beyond repair. Any replacement materials
should match the original in color, texture, size and finish.
• Painting or covering a historic masonry retaining wall or covering is not allowed.
• Increasing the height of a retaining wall is inappropriate.
Response – n/a.
1.22 When a new retaining wall is necessary, its height and visibility should be minimized.
• All wall materials, including veneer and mortar, will be reviewed on a case by case basis and should
be compatible with the palette used on the historic structure.
Response – The existing red sandstone retaining wall in the right of way is proposed to be replaced with
a grey dry stack stone wall.
1.23 Re-grading the site in a manner that changes historic grade is generally not allowed and will be
reviewed on a case by case basis.
Response – The site is relatively flat and is not proposed to be regraded.
1.24 Preserve historically significant landscapes with few or no alterations.
• An analysis of the historic landscape and an assessment of the current condition of the landscape
should be done before the beginning of any project.
• The key features of the historic landscape and its overall design intent must be preserved.
Response – Existing cottonwood trees in the right of way along Lake Avenue are protected and preserved
per the Parks Department’s specifications.
1.25 New development on these sites should respect the historic design of the landscape and its built
features.
• Do not add features that damage the integrity of the historic landscape.
• Maintain the existing pattern of setbacks and siting of structures.
45
Exhibit A
Review Criteria
New Buildings on Landmarked Properties
• Maintain the historic relationship of the built landscape to natural features on the site.
• All additions to these landscapes must be clearly identifiable as recent work.
• New artwork must be subordinate to the designed landscape in terms of placement, height,
material, and overall appearance. Place new art away from significant landscape features.
• Avoid installing utility trenches in cultural landscapes if possible.
Response – A simple landscape with traditional plant species is proposed.
1.26 Preserve the historic circulation system.
• Minimize the impact of new vehicular circulation.
• Minimize the visual impact of new parking.
• Maintain the separation of pedestrian and vehicle which occurred historically.
Response – Parking is located off Third Street.
1.27 Preserve and maintain significant landscaping on site.
• Protect established vegetation during any construction.
• If any tree or shrub needs to be removed, replace it with the same or similar species.
• New planting should be of a species used historically or a similar species.
• Maintain and preserve any gardens and/or ornamental planting on the site.
• Maintain and preserve any historic landscape elements.
Response – All new plantings are simple and reference historically used native species.
11.1 Orient the new building to the street.
• Aspen Victorian buildings should be arranged parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional
grid pattern.
• AspenModern alignments shall be handled case-by-case.
• Generally, do not set the new structure forward of the historic resource. Alignment of their front
setbacks is preferred. An exception may be made on a corner lot or where a recessed siting for
the new structure is a better preservation outcome.
Response – The new building is oriented to Lake Avenue and is aligned with the historic landmark while still
respecting the tree root protection area and meeting the “build to requirement” in the Residential Design
Standards.
11.2 In a residential context, clearly define the primary entrance to a new building by using a front porch.
• The front porch shall be functional, and used as the means of access to the front door.
• A new porch must be similar in size and shape to those seen traditionally.
46
Exhibit A
Review Criteria
Response – A recessed front porch with 3’6” cantilevered metal roof provides primary entry into the home.
The historic landmark has a 65 sf recessed front porch, and the new home proposes a similarly sized recessed
rectangular front porch.
11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale and proportion with the historic buildings on a
parcel.
• Subdivide larger masses into smaller “modules” that are similar in size to the historic buildings on
the original site.
• Reflect the heights and proportions that characterize the historic resource.
Response – The new building is a simple one story gable form that transitions into a flat green roof toward
the rear of the property. The new building is 19’2” wide compared to the primary front module of the
landmark which is 20’ 8” wide. The building is one story and significantly shorter than the adjacent
landmark.
11.4 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building.
• The primary plane of the front shall not appear taller than the historic structure.
Response – The front façade of the new building is not taller than the historic structure as shown in Figure
2 .
11.5 The intent of the historic landmark lot split is to remove most of the development potential from the
historic resource and place it in the new structure(s).
• This should be kept in mind when determining how floor area will be allocated between structures
proposed as part of a lot split.
Figure 2: Comparison of Lot A (historic) and Lot B (new) front facades.
47
Exhibit A
Review Criteria
Response – n/a. The lot split was approved in 2005 at which time floor area and the FAR Bonus were
allocated. 337 Lake Avenue was allocated 1,700 sf of floor area with the intention of developing a small
home on this lot.
11.6 Design a new structure to be recognized as a product of its time.
• Consider these three aspects of a new building; form, materials, and fenestration. A project 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.
• When choosing to relate to building form, use forms that are similar to the historic resource.
• When choosing to relate to materials, use materials that appear similar in scale and finish to those
used historically on the site and use building materials that contribute to a traditional sense of
human scale
• When choosing to relate to fenestration, use windows and doors that are similar in size and shape
to those of the historic resource.
Response – The new structure is recognized as a product of its own time in the size and application of the
fenestration and solid to void ratios on the building facades. The gable roof form relates to surrounding
historic landmarks, and the primary material is horizontal stained wood siding. Modern architectural details
like eave depth, cantilevered metal porch roof, and the flat green roof viewed from Third Street, distinguish
this home as new construction that fits into the neighborhood. Historic photographs below illustrate
traditional forms and details along Lake Avenue.
Figure 3: 220 Lake Avenue, 1978. Aspen Historical Society. Figure 4: Lake Avenue streetscape with prominent street facing gables.
48
Exhibit A
Review Criteria
11.7 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged.
• This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings.
• Overall, details shall be modest in character.
Response – The new home is modest in character and is clearly a product of its own time as expressed
through architectural details, fenestration size and placement, and the treatment of the wood siding
(stained dark).
12.3 Exterior light fixtures should be simple in character.
• The design of a new fixture should be appropriate in form, finish, and scale with the structure.
• New fixtures should not reflect a different period of history than that of the affected building, or
be associated with a different architectural style.
• Lighting should be placed in a manner that is consistent with the period of the building, and should
not provide a level of illumination that is out of character.
• One light adjacent to each entry is appropriate on an Aspen Victorian residential structure. A
recessed fixture, surface mounted light, pendant or sconce will be considered if suited to the
building type or style.
• On commercial structures and AspenModern properties, recessed lights and concealed lights are
often most appropriate.
Response – An exterior lighting plan will be provided at Final Design Review.
Lighting and Mechanical
Figures 5 & 6: Historic home at 335 Lake (left) and proposed new home at 337 Lake (right).
49
Exhibit A
Review Criteria
12.4 Minimize the visual impacts of utilitarian areas, such as mechanical equipment and trash storage.
• Place mechanical equipment on the ground where it can be screened.
• Mechanical equipment may only be mounted on a building on an alley façade.
• Rooftop mechanical equipment or vents must be grouped together to minimize their visual
impact. Where rooftop units are visible, it may be appropriate to provide screening with materials
that are compatible with those of the building itself. Use the smallest, low profile units available
for the purpose.
• Window air conditioning units are not allowed.
• Minimize the visual impacts of utility connections and service boxes. Group them in a discrete
location. Use pedestals when possible, rather than mounting on a historic building.
• Paint mechanical equipment in a neutral color to minimize their appearance by blending with
their backgrounds
• In general, mechanical equipment should be vented through the roof, rather than a wall, in a
manner that has the least visual impact possible.
• Avoid surface mounted conduit on historic structures.
Response – The mechanical equipment will mostly be located in the basement. Required outdoor
units are conceptually located in the side yard with screening, and are significantly setback from the
front façade. This property has two street facing yards – utilizing the side yard for mechanical
equipment is the least impactful option. We coordinated the location with the City Forester to ensure
the tree roots are not impacted.
Figure 7: Location of above grade mechanical equipment. The area is fully screened and has been vetted with Parks.
50
City of Aspen Community Development Department
Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Packet
City of Aspen | 130 S. Galena Street. | (970) 920 5090 Historic Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: March, 2020
ATTACHMENT 2 - Historic Preservation Land Use Application
PROJECT:
APPLICANT:
Name:
Address:
Phone #: Fax#: E-mail:
REPRESENTATIVE:
Name:
Address:
Phone #: Fax#: E-mail:
TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply):
EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.)
PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.)
Name:
Location:
(Indicate street address, lot & block number or metes and bounds description of property)
Parcel ID # (REQUIRED)
Historic Designation
Certificate of No Negative Effect
Certificate of Appropriateness
Minor Historic Development
Major Historic Development
Conceptual Historic Development
Final Historic Development
Relocation (temporary, on or off-site)
Demolition (total demolition)
Substantial Amendment
Historic Landmark Lot Split
Aspen West AJ LLC
337 Lake Avenue, Aspen, CO
Lot B, Daggs Historic Landmark Lot Split
2735-121-35-002
Jon and Abby Winkelried
416 South Beach Rd., Hobe Sound, FL 33455
n/a abbywinkelried@gmail.com
BendonAdams
300 S. Spring Street, Aspen CO 81611
970-925-2855 n/a sara@bendonadams.com
vacant lot created per Ordinance 47-2005 historic landmark lot split
Single family home.
Exhibit B
973-943-7020
51
337 Lake Avenue Dimensional Requirements
R6 requirement/ Ord. 47-2005 Vacant Lot
Minimum lot size 3,000 sf 6,001 sf
Minimum net lot area
per dwelling unit 3,000 sf for landmark properties 6,001 sf
Minimum lot width 30 feet 60 feet
Minimum front yard 10 feet primary
15 feet accessory 10 feet
Minimum side yards
5 feet per side 5 feet minimum
15 feet combined Greater than 15 feet combined
Maximum site
coverage 50% 15%
Minimum rear yard 10 feet living space
5 feet garage Greater than 10 ft.
Maximum height 25 feet 15 ft. 6 in.
Floor Area 1,700 sf 1,084 sf
Parking 1 space per bedroom or 1 space per unit,
whichever is greater 1 surface parking space
52
PRE-APPLICATION SUMMARY
DATE: June 30, 2023
PLANNER: Kirsten Armstrong - Principal Planner, Historic Preservation, kirsten.armstrong@aspen.gov
REPRESENTATIVE: Sara Adams, AICP, sara@bendonadams.com
PROJECT LOCATION: 337 Lake Avenue; Lot B, Daggs Historic Landmark Lot Split
PARCEL ID: 2735-121-35-002
REQUEST: Historic Preservation – Major Development Review
DESCRIPTION: In 2005, a historic landmark lot split regarding the current subject property was approved by
the Historic Preservation Commission (Resolution #45, series of 2005) and City Council (Ordinance #47,
series of 2005). The Historic Lot Split Subdivision Exemption Plat and the Subdivision Exemption Agreement
for the Daggs Historic Landmark Lot Split were recorded in 2006, Book 80, Page 97 and Reception #427631,
respectively. The Daggs Historic Landmark Lot Split Subdivision Exemption created Lots A and B out of the
original parcel for 640 N. Third Street, consisting of Lots 4, 5, and 6 (Less the southerly 3.2’ of Lot 6) Block
102, Hallam’s Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen. Lot A is a 5707 sq. ft. lot containing an
AspenVictorian landmark. Lot B, to the north of Lot A, is a vacant 6,000 sq. ft. lot, and is the subject of this
request. Both are located in the R-6 zone district. Both parcels are designated historic and are subject to
development review by the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission.
The owner would like to develop Lot B with new construction. Pursuant to Ordinance #47, Series of 2005,
both lots created as part of the Daggs Historic Landmark Lot Split must conform to the requirements of their
underlying zone district. The Ordinance and associated plat states that Lot B has an allowed floor area of
1,700 sq. ft. Variations provided for in Section 26.415.110.C.1.a-c are not applicable to Lot B, as it does not
contain the historic structure. The maximum potential buildout for the two parcels created by the lot split is not
to exceed three units, which may be composed of a duplex and a single-family home. The Ordinance also
states that any lot for which development is proposed shall be subject to affordable housing mitigation, which
in the 2023 City of Aspen Municipal Land Use Code includes Growth Management Residential Development
review per Section 26.470.090.A.
The scope of work qualifies as Major Development, which is a two-step process, requiring the approval of
Conceptual Design and a Final Design. Conceptual Design review will consider mass, scale and site plan..
Following Conceptual, staff will inform City Council of the HPC decision, allowing them the opportunity to
uphold or to “Call Up” aspects of the design approval for further discussion. This is a standard practice for all
significant HPC projects. Following the Notice of Call Up, HPC will conduct Final Design review to consider
landscape, lighting and materials.
The Historic Preservation Design Guidelines and the Land Use Code Sections that are applicable to this
project will be used to evaluate the proposal. This property is subject to Residential Design Standard Review
(RDS).
RELEVANT LAND USE CODE SECTIONS:
Section Number Section Title
26.304 Common Development Review Procedures
26.410 Residential Design Standards (RDS)
26.415.070.D Historic Preservation – Major Development
26.470.090.A Growth Management, Administrative Applications
26.575.020 Calculations and Measurements
26.710.090 Medium-Density Residential (R-6)
Exhibit C
53
For your convenience – links to the Land Use Application and Land Use Code are below:
Application Packet Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Municipal Code
REVIEW BY:
• Staff for completeness and recommendations
• HPC for decisions. City Council for Notice of Call Up.
PUBLIC HEARING:
• Yes, at Conceptual and Final
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 FEES: $0. 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.
TOTAL DEPOSIT: $1,950 at Conceptual and Final (additional/lesser planning hours are
billed/refunded at a rate of $325/hour).
APPLICATION CHECKLIST:
Below is a list of submittal requirements. Please email the entire application as one .pdf to
kirsten.armstrong@aspen.gov. 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.
List of adjacent property owners within 300’ for public hearing.
An 8 1/2” by 11” vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen.
Site improvement survey, no more than a year old, showing all existing conditions including
topography and vegetation, certified by a registered land surveyor, licensed in the state of
Colorado.
54
APPLICATION CHECKLIST CONTINUED:
A written description of the proposal (scope of work) and written explanation of how the proposed
work complies with the relevant Historic Preservation Guidelines and any other relevant land use
code at Conceptual and Final.
An existing and proposed site plan showing property boundaries, setbacks and parking.
Scaled floor plans and elevations of the proposed structure(s) clearly depicting form, height,
mass/scale and roof plan. If possible, a project model is appreciated, to assist the HPC in their
analysis.
An accurate representation of all building materials and finishes to be used in the development.
Please include relevant cut-sheets for all materials for review.
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 will need to be submitted in addition to the items listed above:
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.
55
Exhibit D
56
Customer Distribution
Prevent fraud - Please call a member of our closing team for wire transfer
instructions or to initiate a wire transfer. Note that our wiring instructions will
never change.
Order Number: Q62017442 Date: 08/13/2024
Property Address: 337 LAKE AVENUE, ASPEN, CO 81611
For Closing Assistance For Title Assistance
Land Title Roaring Fork Valley
Title Team
533 E HOPKINS #102
ASPEN, CO 81611
(970) 927-0405 (Work)
(970) 925-0610 (Work Fax)
valleyresponse@ltgc.com
Seller/Owner
ASPEN WEST AJ LLC
Delivered via: No Commitment Delivery
BENDONADAMS LLC
Attention: ERIN WACKERLE
300 S SPRING STREET SUITE 202
Aspen, CO 81611
(406) 531-0806 (Cell)
(970) 925-2855 (Work)
erin@bendonadams.com
Delivered via: Electronic Mail
Exhibit E.1
57
Estimate of Title Fees
Order Number: Q62017442 Date: 08/13/2024
Property Address: 337 LAKE AVENUE, ASPEN, CO 81611
Seller(s): ASPEN WEST AJ, LLC, A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
Buyer(s):
Thank you for putting your trust in Land Title. Below is the estimate of title fees for the
transaction. The final fees will be collected at closing. Visit ltgc.com to learn more about
Land Title.
Estimate of Title Insurance Fees
"TBD" Commitment $279.00
TOTAL $279.00
Note: The documents linked in this commitment should be reviewed carefully. These
documents, such as covenants conditions and restrictions, may affect the title, ownership and
use of the property. You may wish to engage legal assistance in order to fully understand and
be aware of the implications of the documents on your property.
Chain of Title Documents:
Pitkin county recorded 10/19/2022 under reception no. 690992
Plat Map(s):
Pitkin county recorded 08/18/2006 at book 80 page 97
58
Copyright 2006-2024 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved.
The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing
as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the
American Land Title Association.
Property Address:
337 LAKE AVENUE, ASPEN, CO 81611
1.Effective Date:
07/26/2024 at 5:00 P.M.
2.Policy to be Issued and Proposed Insured:
"TBD" Commitment
Proposed Insured:
$0.00
3.The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment and covered herein is:
FEE SIMPLE
4.Title to the estate or interest covered herein is at the effective date hereof vested in:
ASPEN WEST AJ, LLC, A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
5.The Land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows:
LOT B, DAGGS HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT
THEREOF RECORDED AUGUST 18, 2006 IN PLAT BOOK 80 AT PAGE 97 AS RECEPTION NO. 527634.
COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO.
ALTA COMMITMENT
Old Republic National Title Insurance Company
Schedule A
Order Number:Q62017442
59
ALTA COMMITMENT
Old Republic National Title Insurance Company
Schedule B, Part I
(Requirements)
Order Number: Q62017442
All of the following Requirements must be met:
This 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.
Pay the agreed amount for the estate or interest to be insured.
Pay the premiums, fees, and charges for the Policy to the Company.
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.
THIS COMMITMENT IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY, AND NO POLICY WILL BE ISSUED PURSUANT HERETO.
60
This commitment does not republish any covenants, condition, restriction, or limitation contained in any
document referred to in this commitment to the extent that the specific covenant, conditions, restriction,
or limitation violates state or federal law based on race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender
identity, handicap, familial status, or national origin.
1.Any facts, rights, interests, or claims thereof, not shown by the Public Records but that could be
ascertained by an inspection of the Land or that may be asserted by persons in possession of the Land.
2.Easements, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, not shown by the Public Records.
3.Any encroachment, encumbrance, violation, variation, or adverse circumstance affecting the Title that
would be disclosed by an accurate and complete land survey of the Land and not shown by the Public
Records.
4.Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by
law and not shown by the Public Records.
5.Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the
public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date of the proposed
insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this
Commitment.
6.(a) Taxes or assessments that are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that
levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the Public Records; (b) proceedings by a public
agency that may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown
by the records of such agency or by the Public Records.
7.(a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the
issuance thereof; (c) water rights, claims or title to water.
8.RIGHT OF PROPRIETOR OF A VEIN OR LODE TO EXTRACT AND REMOVE HIS ORE THEREFROM
SHOULD THE SAME BE FOUND TO PENETRATE OR INTERSECT THE PREMISES AS RESERVED IN
UNITED STATES PATENT RECORDED JUNE 07, 1888, IN BOOK 55 AT PAGE 2.
9.TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF ORDINANCE# 18, SERIES OF 2001 RECORDED AUGUST 16,
2001 UNDER RECEPTION NO. 457607.
10.TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF RESOLUTION# 20, SERIES OF 2001 RECORDED AUGUST
16, 2001 UNDER RECEPTION NO. 457608.
11.TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION
COMMISSION RECORDED JANUARY 17, 2003 UNDER RECEPTION NO. 477482.
12.TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT DEED RESTRICTION
RECORDED OCTOBER 21, 2005 UNDER RECEPTION NO. 516549.
13.TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF RESOLUTION# 40, SERIES OF 2005 RECORDED OCTOBER
27, 2005 UNDER RECEPTION NO. 516762.
14.TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF APPROVAL OF HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT
RECORDED NOVEMBER 21, 2005 UNDER RECEPTION NO. 517646.
15.TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION AGREEMENT RECORDED
AUGUST 18, 2006 UNDER RECEPTION NO. 527631.
16.TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF ORDINANCE# 47, SERIES OF 2005 RECORDED AUGUST 18,
2006 UNDER RECEPTION NO. 527632.
ALTA COMMITMENT
Old Republic National Title Insurance Company
Schedule B, Part II
(Exceptions)
Order Number: Q62017442
61
17.TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE RECORDED
MARCH 15, 2007 UNDER RECEPTION NO. 535454.
18.EASEMENTS, RIGHTS OF WAY AND ALL OTHER MATTERS AS SHOWN ON PLAT OF SUBJECT
PROPERTY RECORDED AUGUST 18, 2006 IN PLAT BOOK 80 AT PAGE 97.
19.TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS AND OBLIGATIONS AS SET FORTH IN REVOCABLE
ENCROACHMENT LICENSE RECORDED JUNE 28, 2012 AS RECEPTION NO. 590247 AND AGREEMENT
TO SHARE REVOCABLE ENCROACHMENT LICENSE RECORDED JULY 31, 2015 AS RECEPTION NO.
622009.
20.CLAIMS OF RIGHT, TITLE AND/OR INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY BETWEEN THE BOUNDARY LINES AND
THE FENCES AS DEPICTED ON THE SURVEY PREPARED BY ASPEN SURVEY, DATED SEPTEMBER 21,
2022, JOB NO. 210578 WHETHER SAID CLAIMS ARISE BY ABANDONMENT, ADVERSE POSSESSION OR
OTHER MEANS.
SAID DOCUMENT STORE AS OUR ESI 40895826
ALTA COMMITMENT
Old Republic National Title Insurance Company
Schedule B, Part II
(Exceptions)
Order Number: Q62017442
62
Land Title Guarantee Company
Disclosure Statements
Note: Pursuant to CRS 10-11-122, notice is hereby given that:
Note: Effective September 1, 1997, CRS 30-10-406 requires that 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 may refuse to record or file any document that does not conform, except that,
the requirement for the top margin shall not apply to documents using forms on which space is provided for recording or
filing information at the top margin of the document.
Note: Colorado Division of Insurance Regulations 8-1-2 requires that "Every title entity shall be responsible for all matters
which appear of record prior to the time of recording whenever the title entity conducts the closing and is responsible for
recording or filing of legal documents resulting from the transaction which was closed". Provided that Land Title
Guarantee Company conducts the closing of the insured transaction and is responsible for recording the legal documents
from the transaction, exception number 5 will not appear on the Owner's Title Policy and the Lenders Policy when issued.
Note: 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:
No coverage will be given under any circumstances for labor or material for which the insured has contracted for or
agreed to pay.
Note: Pursuant to CRS 10-11-123, notice is hereby given:
The Subject real property may be located in a special taxing district.(A)
A certificate of taxes due listing each taxing jurisdiction will be obtained from the county treasurer of the county in
which the real property is located or that county treasurer's authorized agent unless the proposed insured provides
written instructions to the contrary. (for an Owner's Policy of Title Insurance pertaining to a sale of residential real
property).
(B)
The 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.
(C)
The land described in Schedule A of this commitment must be a single family residence which includes a
condominium or townhouse unit.
(A)
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.
(B)
The Company must receive an appropriate affidavit indemnifying the Company against un-filed mechanic's and
material-men's liens.
(C)
The Company must receive payment of the appropriate premium.(D)
If there has been construction, improvements or major repairs undertaken on the property to be purchased within
six months prior to the Date of 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.
(E)
63
This notice applies to owner's policy commitments disclosing that a mineral estate has been severed from the surface
estate, in Schedule B-2.
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 a closing
protection letter for the lender, purchaser, lessee or seller in connection with this transaction.
Note: Pursuant to CRS 24-21-514.5, Colorado notaries may remotely notarize real estate deeds and other documents
using real-time audio-video communication technology. You may choose not to use remote notarization for any
document.
That there is recorded evidence that a mineral estate has been severed, leased, or otherwise conveyed from the
surface estate and that there is substantial likelihood that a third party holds some or all interest in oil, gas, other
minerals, or geothermal energy in the property; and
(A)
That such mineral estate may include the right to enter and use the property without the surface owner's
permission.
(B)
64
Joint Notice of Privacy Policy of
Land Title Guarantee Company
Land Title Insurance Corporation and
Old Republic National Title Insurancy Company
This Statement is provided to you as a customer of Land Title Guarantee Company as agent for Land Title Insurance
Corporation and Old Republic National Title Insurance Company.
We want you to know that we recognize and respect your privacy expectations and the requirements of federal and state
privacy laws. Information security is one of our highest priorities. We recognize that maintaining your trust and confidence
is the bedrock of our business. We maintain and regularly review internal and external safeguards against unauthorized
access to your non-public personal information ("Personal Information").
In the course of our business, we may collect Personal Information about you from:
applications or other forms we receive from you, including communications sent through TMX, our web-based
transaction management system;
your transactions with, or from the services being performed by us, our affiliates, or others;
a consumer reporting agency, if such information is provided to us in connection with your transaction;
and
The public records maintained by governmental entities that we obtain either directly from those entities, or from
our affiliates and non-affiliates.
Our policies regarding the protection of the confidentiality and security of your Personal Information are as follows:
We restrict access to all Personal Information about you to those employees who need to know that information in
order to provide products and services to you.
We may share your Personal Information with affiliated contractors or service providers who provide services in the
course of our business, but only to the extent necessary for these providers to perform their services and to
provide these services to you as may be required by your transaction.
We maintain physical, electronic and procedural safeguards that comply with federal standards to protect your
Personal Information from unauthorized access or intrusion.
Employees who violate our strict policies and procedures regarding privacy are subject to disciplinary action.
We regularly assess security standards and procedures to protect against unauthorized access to Personal
Information.
WE DO NOT DISCLOSE ANY PERSONAL INFORMATION ABOUT YOU WITH ANYONE FOR ANY PURPOSE THAT
IS NOT STATED ABOVE OR PERMITTED BY LAW.
Consistent with applicable privacy laws, there are some situations in which Personal Information may be disclosed. We
may disclose your Personal Information when you direct or give us permission; when we are required by law to do so, for
example, if we are served a subpoena; or when we suspect fraudulent or criminal activities. We also may disclose your
Personal Information when otherwise permitted by applicable privacy laws such as, for example, when disclosure is
needed to enforce our rights arising out of any agreement, transaction or relationship with you.
Our policy regarding dispute resolution is as follows: Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to our privacy
policy, or the breach thereof, shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration
65
Association, and judgment upon the award rendered by the arbitrator(s) may be entered in any court having jurisdiction
thereof.
66
Commitment For Title Insurance
Issued by Old Republic National 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, Old Republic National Title Insurance
Company, a Minnesota 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 6 months after the Commitment Date, this Commitment terminates and the Company’s liability and obligation end.
COMMITMENT CONDITIONS
1. DEFINITIONS
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, 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:
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
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.
6. LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY MUST BE BASED ON THIS COMMITMENT
“Knowledge” or “Known”: Actual or imputed knowledge, but not constructive notice imparted by the Public Records.(a)
“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.
(b)
“Mortgage”: A mortgage, deed of trust, or other security instrument, including one evidenced by electronic means authorized by law.(c)
“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.
(d)
“Proposed Insured”: Each person identified in Schedule A as the Proposed Insured of each Policy to be issued pursuant to this Commitment.(e)
“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.
(f)
“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.
(g)
“Title”: The estate or interest described in Schedule A.(h)
the Notice;(a)
the Commitment to Issue Policy;(b)
the Commitment Conditions;(c)
Schedule A;(d)
Schedule B, Part I—Requirements; and(e)
Schedule B, Part II—Exceptions; and(f)
a counter-signature by the Company or its issuing agent that may be in electronic form.(g)
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:
(a)
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.
(b)
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.
(c)
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.
(d)
The Company shall not be liable for the content of the Transaction Identification Data, if any.(e)
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.
(f)
In any event, the Company’s liability is limited by the terms and provisions of the Policy.(g)
Only a Proposed Insured identified in Schedule A, and no other person, may make a claim under this Commitment.(a)
Any claim must be based in contract and must be restricted solely to the terms and provisions of this Commitment.(b)
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.
(c)
67
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.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Land Title Insurance Corporation has caused its corporate name and seal to be affixed by its duly authorized officers on the date shown
in Schedule A to be valid when countersigned by a validating officer or other authorized signatory.
Issued by:
Land Title Guarantee Company
3033 East First Avenue Suite 600
Denver, Colorado 80206
303-321-1880
Craig B. Rants, Senior Vice President
This page is only a part of a 2016 ALTA® Commitment for Title Insurance issued by Old Republic National 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; and 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.
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.
(d)
Any amendment or endorsement to this Commitment must be in writing and authenticated by a person authorized by the Company.(e)
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.(f)
68
Exhibit E.2
69
70
Exhibit F
71
abbywinkelried@gmail.com 973-943-7020
Exhibit G
72
415 411
406
420
411415
329
335401
337
600
701
340
320
620
315
330
350
312
311
314
710707
300
330
400
360
0 0.01 0.030.01
mi
FLegend
Aspen Address
Parcels
Source: City of Aspen GIS
Vicinity Map Exhibit H73
Pitkin County Mailing List of 300 Feet Radius
Pitkin County GIS presents the information and data on this web
site as a service to the public. Every effort has been made to
ensure that the information and data contained in this electronic
system is accurate, but the accuracy may change. The
information maintained by the County may not be complete as to
mineral estate ownership and that information should be
determined by separate legal and property analysis.
Pitkin County GIS makes no warranty or guarantee concerning
the completeness, accuracy, or reliability of the content at this
site or at other sites to which we link. Assessing accuracy and
reliability of information and data is the sole responsibility of the
user. The user understands he or she is solely responsible and
liable for use, modification, or distribution of any information or
data obtained on this web site.
This document contains a Mailing List formatted to be
printed on Avery 5160 Labels. If printing, DO NOT "fit to
page" or "shrink oversized pages." This will manipulate the
margins such that they no longer line up on the labels
sheet. Print actual size.
From Parcel: 273512135002 on 08/13/2024
Instructions:
Disclaimer:
http://www.pitkinmapsandmore.com
Exhibit I
74
315 LAKE LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
315 LAKE AVE
320 LAKE LLC
NEW YORK, NY 10028
151 E 85TH ST #C
420 WEST NORTH LLC
SEATTLE, WA 98103
3518 FREMONT AVE N #508
433 ASPEN LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
625 E MAIN ST #102B-233
707 NORTH THIRD STREET LLC
CUMBERLAND, RI 02864
200 SCENIC VIEW DR
ASPEN CTR FOR ENVIRON STUDIES
ASPEN, CO 81611
100 PUPPY SMITH ST
ASPEN RESIDENCE SBLMSL LLC
MILWAUKEE, WI 53202
833 E MICHIGAN ST #1500
ASPEN WEST AJ LLC
HOBE SOUND, FL 33455
416 SOUTH BEACH RD
BART ASPEN LLC
NEW ORLEANS, LA 70130-6036
601 POYDRAS ST FL 24
BERGER BARBARA QPRT #1
ASPEN, CO 81611
600 E HOPKINS AVE #202
BERGER BRUCE C QPRT #1
ASPEN, CO 81611
600 E HOPKINS AVE #202
BERGER ILYSE D 1998 TRUST
ASPEN, CO 81611
600 E HOPKINS AVE # 202
BERGER SETH P
ASPEN, CO 81611
600 E HOPKINS AVE # 202
BRAND NEW DAY LLC
NASHVILLE, TN 37205
1203 CANTERBURY DR
CAD ASPEN LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
710 N 3RD ST
D STREET PARTNERS LLC
MIDLAND, TX 79702
PO BOX 10703
DURAND LOYAL & BERNICE ASPEN REV TRUST
ASPEN, CO 816111256
415 PEARL CT
E A ALTEMUS PARTNERSHIP LLLP
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 5000
EFH HOLDINGS LP
LOS ANGELES, CA 90049
801 BRAMBLE WY
ELEVATE DEVELOPMENT & DESIGN #002 LLC
SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615
PO BOX 5223
GILLESPIE LLC
NORTHBROOK , IL 60062
401 HUEHL RD # 1A
HUNT WILLIAM O JR MARITAL INCOME TRUST
LOS ANGELES, CA 90049
801 BRAMBLE WY
KDR TRUST
ASPEN , CO 81611
506 W HALLAM ST
LAKE AVENUE PARTNERS LLC
SOUTHLAKE, TX 76092
690 S PEYTONVILLE AVE
LAKE HOUSE ASPEN LLC
HENDERSON, NV 89011
430 PARKSON RD
MARTIN CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
COMMON AREA
MUSIC ASSOCIATES OF ASPEN INC
ASPEN, CO 81611
225 MUSIC SCHOOL RD
NORTH THIRD STREET LLC
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596
500 YGNACIO VALLEY RD #360
OAK LODGE LLC
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 7951
PEACHES TRUST
SANTA BARBARA, CA 93101
200 E CARRILLO ST #300
75
PEARL COURT LLC
CORAL GABLES, FL 33156
5299 HAMMOCK DR
PETERSEN DARREN C LIV TRUST
LAS VEGAS, NV 89118
5052 S JONES BLVD #110
PETERSON JAMES D & HENSLEY R
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 1714
PINES DAVID & ARONELLE S REV TRUST
URBANA, IL 618014964
403 W MICHIGAN AVE
WOOD DUCK LLC
ENGLEWOOD, CO 80112
9033 E EASTER PL #112
76
Exhibit J.1
77
78
79
80
81
Exhibit J.2
82
83
84
85
86
Exhibit J.3
87
Residential Design Standards
Administrative Compliance Review Applicant Checklist
Standard Complies Alternative
Compliance N/A Sheet #(s)/Notes
B.1.Articulation of Building Mass
(Non-flexible)
B.2.Building Orientation
(Flexible)
B.3.Build-to Requirement
(Flexible)
B.4.One Story Element
(Flexible)
C.1.Garage Access
(Non-flexible)
C.2.Garage Placement
(Non-flexible)
C.3.Garage Dimensions
(Flexible)
Instructions: Please fill out the checklist below, marking whether the proposed design complies with the applicable standard as written or is requesting Alternative Compliance (only
permitted for Flexible standards). Also include the sheet #(s) demonstrating the applicable standard. If a standard does not apply, please mark N/A and include in the Notes section why
it does not apply. If Alternative Compliance is requested for a Flexible standard, include in the Notes section how the proposed design meets the intent of the standard(s). Additional
sheets/graphics may be attached.
Disclaimer: This application is only valid for the attached design. If any element of the design subject to Residential Design Standards changes prior to or during building permit review, the
applicant shall be required to apply for a new Administrative Compliance Review.
Address:
Parcel ID:
Zone District/PD:
Representative:
Email:
Phone:
Page 1 of 2
Exhibit K
88
Standard Complies Alternative
Compliance N/A Sheet #(s)/Notes
C.4.Garage Door Design
(Flexible)
D.1.Entry Connection
(Non-flexible)
D.2.Door Height
(Flexible)
D.3.Entry Porch
(Flexible)
E.1.Principle Window
(Flexible)
E.2.Window Placement
(Flexible)
E.3.Nonorthogonal Window Limit
(Flexible)
E.4.Lightwell/Stairwell Location
(Flexible)
E.5.Materials
(Flexible)
Residential Design Standards
Administrative Compliance Review Applicant Checklist
Disclaimer: This application is only valid for the attached design. If any element of the design subject to Residential Design Standards changes prior to or during building permit review, the
applicant shall be required to apply for a new Administrative Compliance Review.
Page 2 of 2 89
WEST END GARDEN HOUSE
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
CONCEPTUAL SET
337 Lake Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611
08/16/2024
DRAWING INDEX - HPC
GENERAL
G0.00 GENERAL NOTES AND PROJECT INFORMATION
G0.01 NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT
G0.02 EXTERIOR MATERIALS
G0.03 SUBGRADE CALCULATIONS
G0.04 FLOOR AREA CALCAULATIONS AND BUILDING HEIGHT
DIAGRAM
SURVEY
. SURVEY
CIVIL
C1 COVER SHEET
C2 SITE LAYOUT
C3 UTILITIES PLAN
C4 CONCEPTUAL GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN
LANDSCAPE
LX.01 TREE PROTECTION AND REMOVAL PLAN
LX.02 MATERIALS PLAN
LX.03 LANDSCAPE PLAN
LX.04 MATERIAL PALETTE
LX.05 PLANTING PALETTE
LX.06 PLANTING PALETTE
DRAWING INDEX - HPC
ARCHITECTURE
A1.00 SITE PLAN
A1.01 LOT A AND B ADJACENCY PLAN AND ELEVATION
A2.01 BASEMENT & MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLANS
A2.02 ROOF PLAN
A3.01 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
Exhibit L
90
1. GRID LINE REFERENCE
GENERAL SYMBOLS LEGEND
ELEVATION
NAME
---
AX.XX
X
AX.XX
X
2. LEVEL / DATUM REFERENCE
3. EXTERIOR ELEVATION REFERENCE
5. BUILDING SECTION REFERENCE
4. INTERIOR ELEVATION REFERENCE
7. DETAIL SECTION REFERENCE
8. CALLOUT/DETAIL REFERENCE
9. REVISION REFERENCE
10. ROOM REFERENCE
AXXX
X
AX.00
Drawing Number
Sheet Number
Drawing Number
Sheet Number
---
AX.XX
X
6. WALL SECTION REFERENCE
Drawing Number
Sheet Number
#
#
#
#
Drawing Number
Sheet Number
Drawing Number
Sheet Number
Drawing Number
Sheet Number
#
D001
W#
11. ASSEMBLY REFERENCE
12. WINDOW REFERENCE
13. DOOR REFERENCE
14. NORTH ARROW
AX.XX
X
#
100
ROOM NAME
X#
MATERIALS LEGEND
WOOD BLOCKING
(SHIM)
WOOD FRAMING
(CONTINUOUS)
FINISHED WOOD PLYWOOD
BATT INSULATION RIGID INSULATION
GRAVEL EARTH
ALUMINUM STEEL
MASONRY (CMU)BRICK
MINERAL WOOL
INSULATION FOAM INSULATION
LOCATION MAP
NOT TO SCALE
VICINITY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
SITE
SITE
pr
o
j
e
c
t
:
stamp/seal:
sheet:
title:
checked by:
drawn by:
project manager:
principal architect:
revisions:
job no.:
W
E
S
T
E
N
D
G
A
R
D
E
N
H
O
U
S
E
33
7
L
a
k
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
A
s
p
e
n
,
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
33
7
L
a
k
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
A
s
p
e
n
,
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
GENERAL NOTES AND
PROJECT INFORMATION
G0.00
23002
EW, EH
TK
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
08/16/2024
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
CONCEPTUAL SET
KT, MK
ABBREVIATIONS
@ AT
Ø DIAMETER
# POUND OR NUMBER
(E) EXISTING
(N) NEW
AB ANCHOR BOLT
ABV ABOVE
ACC ACCESS
ACOUS ACOUSTICAL
ACP ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVING
ACT ACOUSTIAL CEILING TILE
ACS PNL ACCESS PANEL
AD AREA DRAIN
ADA AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES
ADJ ADJUSTABLE
AFF ABOVE FINISHED FLOOR
AGGR AGGREGATE
AIB AIR INFILTRATION BARRIER
ALT ALTERNATE
ALUM ALUMINIUM
APPROX APPROXIMATE
ARCH ARCHITECTURAL
APSH ASPHALT
AUTO AUTOMATIC
BD BOARD
BITUM BITUMINOUS
BLDG BUILDING
BLKG BLOCKING
BM BEAM
BO BOTTOM OF
BOT BOTTOM
BRG BEARING
BSMT BASEMENT
BUR BUILT UP ROOFING
CAB CABINET
CB CATCH BASIN
CEM CEMENT
CER CERAMIC
CIP CAST-IN-PLACE
CJ CONTROL JOINT
CLG CEILING
CLK CAULKING
CLO CLOSET
CLR CLEAR
CMU CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT
CNTR COUNTER
COL COLUMN
CONC CONCRETE
CONN CONNECTION
CONSTR CONSTRUCTION
CONT CONTINUOUS
CONTR CONTRACTOR
CORR CORRIDOR
CPT CARPET; CARPETED
CRS COLD ROLLED STEEL
CSK COUNTERSUNK
CTR CENTER
CU FT CUBIC FEET
CT CERAMIC TILE
DBL DOUBLE
DEMO DEMOLITION
DET DETAIL
DIA DIAMETER
DIM DIMENSION
DL DEAD LOAD
DN DOWN
DR DOOR
DR OPNG DOOR OPENING
DS DOWNSPOUT
DSP DRY STANDPIPE
DT DRAIN TILE
DW DISHWASHER
DWG DRAWING
E EAST
EA EACH
EJ EXPANSION JOINT
EL ELEVATION
ELEC ELECTRICAL
ELEV ELEVATOR
ENCL ENCLOSURE
EQ EQUAL
EQUIP EQUIPMENT
EST ESTIMATE
EF EXHAUST FAN
EXIST EXISTING
EXP EXPANDED; EXPANSION
EXP BT EXPANSION BOLT
EXPO EXPOSED
EXT EXTERIOR
EW EACH WAY
FA FIRE ALARM
FB FLAT BAR
FD FLOOR DRAIN
FE FIRE EXTINGUISHER
FEC FIRE EXTINGUISHER CABINET
FF EL FINISH FLOOR ELEVATION
FH FIRE HYDRANT
FHC FIRE HOSE CABINET
FIN FLR FINISH FLOOR
FF FINISH TO FINISH
FIN FINISH
FLASH FLASHING
FLR FLOOR; FLOORING
FLUOR FLUORESCENT
FOC FACE OF CONCRETE
FOF FACE OF FINISH
FOIC FURNISHED BY OWNER-INSTALLED BY
CONTRACTOR
FOM FACE OF MASONRY
FOS FACE OF STUDS
FP FIREPROOF
FPL FIREPLACE
FR FRAME
FT FOOT OR FEET
FTG FOOTING
FURR FURRING
FUT FUTURE
FW FULL WIDTH
PROJECT DIRECTORY
CLIENT:
ARCHITECT:
GEOTECH:
K+A/ KUMAR & ASSOCIATES
5020 COUNTY ROAD 154
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601
T: 970.384.4844
CONTACT: STEVEN L. PAWLAK, P.E.
SPAWLAK@KUMARUSA.COM
CONTRACTOR:
HANSEN CONSTRUCTION INC.
310 AABC
ASPEN, CO 81611
T: 970.920.1558 EXT. 108
CONTACT: TIM O'CONNELL
TOCONNELL@HANSENCONST.COM
CODE CONSULTANT:
CIVIL:
ROARING FORK ENGINEERING
592 CO-133
CARBONDALE, CO 81623
T: 970.340.4130
CONTACT: ANTHONY ALFINI
ANTHONYA@RFENG.BIZ
LANDSCAPE:
DESIGN WORKSHOP
22860 TWO RIVERS ROAD, SUITE 102
BASALT, CO 81621
T: 970.925.8354
CONTACT: MIKE ALBERT
MALBERT@DESIGNWORKSHOP.COM
STRUCTURAL ENGINEER:
KL&A ENGINEERS & BUILDERS
1717 WASHINGTON AVE
GOLDEN, CO 80401
T: 303.384.9910
PRINCIPAL: DAN DOHERTY
CONTACT: MEGAN SKODACK
MSKODACK@KLAA.COM
MEP:
BG BUILDINGWORKS
222 CHAPEL PLACE, SUITE AC-201
AVON, CO 81620
P.O. BOX 9650
AVON, CO 81620
T: 970.949.6108
CONTACT:PETER B. MORABITO
PBMORABITO@BGBUILDINGWORKS.COM
LIGHTING:
NITEO
1932 1ST AVE, SUITE 605
SEATTLE, WA 98101
T: 206.456.4554 EXT. 104
CONTACT: ERIK CROWELL
ERIK@NITEOLIGHTING.COM
ENVELOPE CONSULTANT:
WISS, JANNEY, ELSTNER ASSOCIATES, INC.
3609 S WADSWORTH, SUITE 400
LAKEWOOD, CO 80235
T: 303.914.4300
CONTACT: SCOTT R. SONDRUP
SSONDRUP@WJE.COM
INTERIOR:
VICTORIA HAGAN
5 COLUMBUS CIRCLE
19TH FLOOR
NEW YOR, NY 10019
T: 212.888.1178
CONTACT: VICTORIA HAGAN
VHAGAN@VICTORIAHAGAN.COM
ASPEN WEST AJ LLC
335 LAKE AVE
ASPEN, CO 81611
SURVEY:
THE SEXTON SURVEY COMPANY
P.O BOX 912
SILT, CO 81652
T: 970.456.3081
CONTACT: SCOTT R. BLACKARD
SBLACKARD11@GMAIL.COM
OLSON KUNDIG
159 SOUTH JACKSON STREET, SUITE 600
SEATTLE, WA 98104
T: 206.624.5670
F: 206.624.3730
PRINCIPAL ARCHITECT: TOM KUNDIG
CONTACT: ERICA WILLIAMS
ERICA@OLSONKUNDIG.COM
EKRAM HASSEN
EKRAMH@OLSONKUNDIG.COM
ASPEN WEST AJ LLC
300 S SPRING ST #202
ASPEN, CO 81611
T: 970.925.2855
CONTACT: SARA ADAMS
SARA@BENDONADAMS.COM
GENERAL NOTES
1. CODES: ALL WORK SHALL CONFORM APPLICABLE LAND USE AND BUILDING CODES AS
AMENDED BY AUTHORITIES HAVING JURISDICTION.
2. DO NOT SCALE DIMENSIONS FROM DRAWINGS. USE CALCULATED DIMENSIONS ONLY.
NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT IMMEDIATELY IF ANY CONFLICTS EXIST.
3. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL CONDITIONS PRIOR TO INITIATING THE WORK. NOTIFY
THE ARCHITECT OF ANY DISCREPANCIES.
4. VERIFY ALL ROUGH-IN DIMENSIONS FOR EQUIPMENT. PROVIDE ALL BUCK-OUT,
BLOCKING, BACKING, AND JACKS REQUIRED FOR INSTALLATIONS.
5. DIMENSIONS ARE TO EXTERIOR FACE OF CONCRETE / WOOD FRAMING UNLESS
OTHERWISE NOTED.
6. EXTERIOR WALL FRAMING 2x6 WOOD STUDS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
7. INTERIOR WALL FRAMING 2x6 WOOD STUDS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
BUILDING CODE / ZONING SUMMARY
PROJECT ADDRESS: 337 LAKE AVENUE
ASPEN, CO 81611
ASSESOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 273512135002
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SUBDIVISION: DAGGS HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT
LOT: B
APPLICABLE CODES: TITLE 8 AMENDMENTS TO ALL CODES EXCEPT
ENERGY
2021 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE ADAPTED
APPENDICES C, E, P
2021 ASPEN ENERGY CODE
2021 INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE
2021 INTERNATIONAL MECHANICAL CODE
2021 INTERNATIONAL FUEL GAS CODE
2021 UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE
2021 INTERNATIONAL SOLAR ENERGY PROVISIONS
2023 NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE
AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION: CITY OF ASPEN
PHYSICAL ADDRESS: ASPEN CITY HALL
427 RIO GRANDE PLACE
ASPEN, CO 81611
PHONE: 970.920.5000
LOT SIZE: 6,000 SQFT
LAND USE DESIGNATION: R-6 ZONE DISTRICT
DENSITY: MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW ONE STORY, SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENCE.
HEIGHT: ALLOWED: 25 FT
PROPOSED: 14 FT 3 IN
YARD SETBACKS: FRONT: 10 FT
SIDE: 5 FT
REAR: 10 FT
ENERGY CODE COMPLIANCE: COMPLIANCE PER 2021 ASPEN RESIDENTIAL ENERGY
CODE PRESCRIPTIVE REQUIREMENTS TABLE
402.1.3 -INSULATION MINIMUM R-VALUE AND
FENESTRATION REQUIRMENTS BY COMPONENT FOR
CLIMATE ZONE 7.
ci = continuous insulation.
a. R-values are minimums. U-factors and SHGC are
maximums. Where insulation is installed in a cavity that is
less than the label or design thickness of the insulation, the
installed R-value of the insulation shall be not less than the
R-value specified in the table.
b. The fenestration U-factor column excludes skylights. The
SHGC column applies to all glazed fenestration.
c. R-10 insulation shall be provided under the full slab area of
a heated slab in addition to the required slab edge insulation
R-value for slabs as indicated in the table. The slab-edge
insulation for heated slabs shall not be required to extend
below the slab.
d. The first value is cavity insulation; the second value is
continuous insulation. Therefore, as an example, “13 + 5”
means R-13 cavity insulation plus R-5 continuous insulation.
e. Mass walls shall be in accordance with Section R402.2.5.
The second R-value applies where more than half of the
insulation is on the interior of the mass wall.
Vertical fenestration shall also comply with R402.3.6 and
R402.3.7.Doors may have a U-factor of 0.28 or less.
ABBREVIATIONS
GA GAUGE
GALV GALVANIZED
GC GENERAL CONTRACTOR
GL GLASS
GLAM GLUE-LAMINATED
GR GRADE
GWB GYPSUM WALL BOARD
GYP GYPSUM
HB HOSE BIB
HC HOLLOW CORE
HDO HIGH DENSITY OVERLAY
HDR HEADER
HDWD HARDWOOD
HDW HARDWARE
HM HOLLOW METAL
HORIZ HORIZONTAL
HP HIGH POINT
HR HOUR
HR HOUR
HT HEIGHT
HVAC HEATING/VENTILATING/AIR CONDITIONING
HW HOT WATER
HWT HOT WATER TANK
ID INSIDE DIAMETER
IN INCH
INCL INCLUDED
INSUL INSULATION
INT INTERIOR
INV INVERT
JB JUNCTION BOX
JF JOINT FILLER
JT JOINT
KIT KITCHEN
KO KNOCKOUT
LAM LAMINATE; LAMINATED
LAV LAVATORY
LBS POUNDS
LF LINEAR FEET (FOOT)
LH LEFT HAND
LL LIVE LOAD
LOC LOCATION
LP LOW POINT
LT LIGHT
MAS MASONRY
MATL MATERIAL
MAX MAXIMUM
MB MACHINE BOLT
MC MEDICINE CABINET
MDF MEDIUM DENSITY FIBERBOARD
MDO MEDIUM DENSITY OVERLAY
MECH MECHANICAL
MEMB MEMBRANE
MEZZ MEZZANINE
MFR MANUFACTURER
MIN MINIMUM
MIR MIRROR
MISC MISCELLANEOUS
MO MASONRY OPENING
MTD MOUNTED
MTL METAL
MUL MULLION
N NORTH
N/A NOT APPLICABLE
NO NUMBER
NOM NOMINAL
NR NOISE REDUCTION
NTS NOT TO SCALE
NIC NOT IN CONTRACT
OA OVERALL
OC ON CENTER
OD OUTSIDE DIAMETER; OVERFLOW DRAIN
OFF OFFICE
OH OVERHEAD
OHWM ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK
OPNG OPENING
OPP OPPOSITE
OSB ORIENTED STRAND BOARD
OCC OCCUPANTS
OLF OCCUPANT LOAD FACTOR
PBD PARTICLE BOARD
PCC PRECAST CONCRETE
PCF POUNDS PER CUBIC FOOT
PERF PERFORATED
PERP PERPENDICULAR
PL PLATE
PLAM PLASTIC LAMINATE
PLAS PLASTER
PLWD PLYWOOD
PNL PANEL
PNT POINT
PR PAIR
PRCST PRECAST
PSF POUNDS PER CUBIC FOOT
PSI POUNDS PER SQUARE INCH
PT PRESERVATIVE TREATED
PTN PARTITION
PVC POLYVINYL CHLORIDE
R RISER
RA RETURN AIR
RAD RADIUS
RD ROOF DRAIN
REF REFERENCE
REFR REFRIGERATOR
REG REGISTER
REINF REINFORCED
REM REMAINDER
REQ REQUIRED
RESIL RESILIENT
REV REVISION(S); REVISED
RH RIGHT HAND
RM ROOM
ABBREVIATIONS
RO ROUGH OPENING
RWL RAIN WATER LEADER
S SOUTH
SAF SELF-ADHERED FLASHING
SAM SELF-ADHERED MEMBRANE
SC SOLID CORE
SCHED SCHEDULE
SD SMOKE DETECTOR
SECT SECTION
SG SAFETY GLAZING
SHV SHELF; SHELVING
SHR SHOWER
SHT SHEET
SHT MTL SHEET METAL
SHTG SHEATHING
SIM SIMILAR
SOG SLAB ON GRADE
SPEC SPECIFICATION
SQ FT SQUARE FOOT (FEET)
SQ IN SQUARE INCH(ES)
SST STAINLESS STEEL
STD STANDARD
STL STEEL
STOR STORAGE
STRUCT STRUCTURAL
SUSP SUSPENDED
SYM SYMETRICAL
T TREAD
T&G TONGUE AND GROOVE
TEL TELEPHONE
TER TERRAZZO
TG TEMPERED GLASS
THK THICK
TO TOP OF
TOB TO OF BEAM
TOC TOP OF CONCRETE; CURB
TOF TOP OF FLOOR; FOOTING; FRAME
TOM TOP OF MASONRY
TOP TOP OF PARAPET; PAVEMENT
TOPO TOPOGRAPHY
TOS TOP OF SLAB; STEEL
TOW TOP OF WALL
TS TUBE STEEL
TSTAT THERMOSTAT
TYP TYPICAL
UNO UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE
VB VINYL BASE
VEN VENEER
VERT VERTICAL
VEST VESTIBULE
VG VERTICAL GRAIN
VIF VERIFY IN FIELD
VT VINYL TILE
W WEST
W/ WITH
W/O WITHOUT
WC WATER CLOSET
WD WOOD
WDW WINDOW
WF WIDE FLANGE
WF BM WIDE FLANGE BEAM
WG WIRED GLASS
WH WATER HEATER
WL WATER LINE
WLD WELDED
WP WATERPROOF
WPM WATERPROOF MEMBRANE
WR WATER RESISTANT
WSCT WAINSCOT
WSG WIRE SAFETY GLASS
WTR WATER
WWF WELDED WIRE FABRIC
WWM WELDED WIRE MESH
WT WEIGHT
no.: date: description:
91
pr
o
j
e
c
t
:
stamp/seal:
sheet:
title:
checked by:
drawn by:
project manager:
principal architect:
revisions:
job no.:
W
E
S
T
E
N
D
G
A
R
D
E
N
H
O
U
S
E
33
7
L
a
k
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
A
s
p
e
n
,
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
33
7
L
a
k
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
A
s
p
e
n
,
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
NEIGHBORHOOD
CONTEXT
G0.01
23002
EW, EH
TK
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
08/16/2024
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
CONCEPTUAL SET
KT, MK
no.: date: description:
92
pr
o
j
e
c
t
:
stamp/seal:
sheet:
title:
checked by:
drawn by:
project manager:
principal architect:
revisions:
job no.:
W
E
S
T
E
N
D
G
A
R
D
E
N
H
O
U
S
E
33
7
L
a
k
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
A
s
p
e
n
,
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
33
7
L
a
k
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
A
s
p
e
n
,
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
EXTERIOR MATERIALS
G0.02
23002
EW, EH
TK
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
08/16/2024
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
CONCEPTUAL SET
KT, MK
PROPOSED BUILDING MATERIALS
CEDAR SHAKE ROOF STAINED WOOD SIDING (DARK)CONCRETE BASE CLADDING MESH SCREEN GUARDRAILROOF STEEL PLATE CEDAR SOFFIT WOOD
no.: date: description:
STEEL WINDOW SYSTEM, FRAMES PAINTED BLACK
93
42133.8
4
558 SF
65'-0"
B A.5
3
93 SF
10'-10 1/2"
4 3.8
2
48 SF
5'-7 1/4"
100'-0"
MAIN FLOOR
89'-6"
BASEMENT
AA.5
98'-1"
BO MAIN FLOOR
1
72 SF
8'-4"
2 133.8
6
429 SF
59'-4 3/4"
81 SF
100'-0"
MAIN FLOOR
89'-6"
BASEMENT
BAA.5
98'-1"
BO MAIN FLOOR
5
165 SF
19'-2 1/2"
SUBGRADE CALCULATIONS
1
2
3
4
TOTAL WALL AREA
EXPOSED WALL AREA
UNEXPOSED WALL AREA
% OF EXPOSED WALL AREA (EXPOSED/TOTAL)
WALL ELEVATIONS WALL AREA (SQ FT)EXPOSED WALL AREA (SQ FT)
72
48
93
558
1,446
6%
0
0
0
0
81
UNEXPOSED WALL AREA (SQ FT)
72
48
93
558
1,365
% OF UNEXPOSED WALL AREA (UNEXPOSED/TOTAL)94%
5 165 0 165
6 510 81 429
SUBGRADE LEGEND
BELOW GRADE
ABOVE GRADE
GRADE ABOVE STRUCTURAL CEILING
6
5
4
3
2
1
pr
o
j
e
c
t
:
stamp/seal:
sheet:
title:
checked by:
drawn by:
project manager:
principal architect:
revisions:
job no.:
W
E
S
T
E
N
D
G
A
R
D
E
N
H
O
U
S
E
33
7
L
a
k
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
A
s
p
e
n
,
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
33
7
L
a
k
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
A
s
p
e
n
,
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
SUBGRADE
CALCULATIONS
G0.03
23002
EW, EH
TK
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
08/16/2024
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
CONCEPTUAL SET
KT, MK
no.: date: description:
94
UP
DN
1202 SF
BASEMENT
FIREPLACE ABOVE
919 SF
MAIN LEVEL
52 SF
EXEMPT
PORCH
317 SF
EXEMPT
PATIO
(BELOW
TRELLIS)
TRELLIS ABOVE
ROOF ABOVE
396 SF
EXEMPT
PATIO
18 SF
GRILL
81 SF
EXTERIOR
STAIR
FLOOR AREA LEGEND
FLOOR AREA
EXEMPT FLOOR AREA
DECK
FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS
TOTAL ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA = 1,700 SF
DECK EXEMPTION = 255 SF (15% OF ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA)
BASEMENT LEVEL = 72 SF (FLOOR AREA * EXPOSED WALL % (1,202 * 0.06))
MAIN LEVEL = 919 SF
TOTAL DECK = 93 SF ((77 SF (EXT STAIR) + 253 (TRELLIS) -255 SF) + 18 SF (GRILL))
TOTAL = 1,084 SF (72 SF + 919 SF + 93 SF)
EXISTING GRADE
MAXIMUM ALLOWED
BUILDING HEIGHT
15
'
-
6
"
.
PROPOSED HEIGHT:
1/3 POINT FROM
EAVE TO RIDGE
PROPOSED GRADE
25
'
-
0
"
SITE COVERAGE
LOT AREA = 6,001 SF
MAIN LEVEL AREA = 919 SF
SITE COVERAGE PERCENTAGE = 15% (919 SF / 6,001 SF)
pr
o
j
e
c
t
:
stamp/seal:
sheet:
title:
checked by:
drawn by:
project manager:
principal architect:
revisions:
job no.:
W
E
S
T
E
N
D
G
A
R
D
E
N
H
O
U
S
E
33
7
L
a
k
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
A
s
p
e
n
,
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
33
7
L
a
k
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
A
s
p
e
n
,
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
FLOOR AREA
CALCAULATIONS AND
BUILDING HEIGHT
DIAGRAM
G0.04
23002
EW, EH
TK
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
08/16/2024
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
CONCEPTUAL SET
KT, MK
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
1 BASEMENT
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
2 MAIN LEVEL
no.: date: description:
SCALE: 1" = 10'-0"
3 BUILDING HEIGHT DIAGRAM
95
SITE
Lot A
5,706 sq ft ±
0.131 Acres ±
Lot B
6,001 sq ft ±
0.138 Acres ±
MARTIN CONDO ASSOC
COMMON AREA
ASPEN CO 81611
Parcel No. 273512127800
E A ALTEMUS PARTNERSHIP LLLP
PO BOX 5000
ASPEN CO 81612
Parcel No. 273512108003
No
r
t
h
T
h
i
r
d
S
t
r
e
e
t
65
.
0
'
R
-
O
-
W
La
k
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
75
.
0
'
R
-
O
-
W
SALTER/LUBAR
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
Plat Book 88, Page 67
Unit B
MARTIN CONDOMINIUMS
Plat Book 22, Page 51
Unit A
MARTIN CONDOMINIUMS
Plat Book 22, Page 51
T1
T2
Gas
ac ac ac ac
T4
T3
T5
T7 T8
T6
T9
T10 T11 T12 T14
T15
T16
T20
T21
T22
T23
T24
T25
T26T27T28T29T30T31T32T33T34T35T36
FF=7884.88'
FF=7884.21'
FF Garage
7884.24'
Ridge El=7904.86'
Ri
d
g
e
E
l
=
7
9
0
7
.
6
9
'
Covered
Stone
St
e
p
s
ww
ww ww
ww
Electrical Transformer
Electric
Meter
5/8" Rebar &
Red Plastic Cap
LS No. 25947
5/8" Rebar &
Red Plastic Cap
LS No. 25947
Site Benchmark
Elev.=7883.90'
5/8" Rebar &
Red Plastic Cap
LS No. 25947
5/8" Rebar
5/8" Rebar &
Yellow Plastic Cap
LS No. 9184
5/8" Rebar &
Yellow Plastic Cap
LS No. 9184
Edge of
Asphalt
Light Pole
Storm Grate
Mail Box
Stone
Stone
Stone
Stone
Stone Stone
2 Story
Frame House
Posted Address:
638 N. 3rd St.
2 Story
Frame House
w/ Basement
Address: 335 Lake Ave.
Concrete
Driveway
Top Back
Curb
Edge of Asphalt
Flow Line Curb
Electric
Box
Co
v
e
r
e
d
De
c
k
Covered
Stone
Planter
Planter
Planter Stone
Retaining
Walls
Upper Level
Deck
Upper Level
Deck
FenceAdjoining
House
Fence Storm Inlet
Rim El.=7874.2'
Storm Inlet
10.21'
11.45'
T13 T17 T19
T18
City of Aspen
GPS Monument No. 8
City of Aspen GPS Monument No. 9
NAVD88 Elev. =7906.09'
LEGEND
Found Monument
Electric Meter
Telephone Pedestal
Cable Pedestal
Electrical Transformer
Window Well
Sewer Clean-out
Storm Inlet
Light Pole
Fir Tree
Aspen Tree
Deciduous Tree
ww
VICINITY MAP
SCALE: 1" = 500'
SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE:
I, SCOTT R. BLACKARD, BEING A PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR IN THE STATE OF COLORADO, DO HEREBY
CERTIFY TO *SEE BELOW* THAT THIS IMPROVEMENT SURVEY WAS PREPARED FROM AN ACTUAL
MONUMENTED LAND SURVEY OF THE PROPERTY CORNER MONUMENTS, BOTH FOUND AND SET, UNDER MY
DIRECT SUPERVISION AND CHECKING; THAT IT IS CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE
AND THAT ALL DIMENSIONS, BOTH LINEAR AND ANGULAR WERE DETERMINED BY AN ACCURATE CONTROL
SURVEY IN THE FIELD WHICH BALANCED AND CLOSED WITHIN A LIMIT OF 1 IN 15,000 (WHICH COMPLIES
WITH COLORADO PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS FOR A LAND SURVEY PLAT AND THE CURRENT ACCURACY
STANDARDS FOR ALTA/ACSM LAND TITLE SURVEYS): I FURTHER CERTIFY THAT THE IMPROVEMENTS ON THE
ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL ON THIS DATE, MAY 30, 2023, EXCEPT UTILITY CONNECTIONS, ARE ENTIRELY
WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE PARCEL, EXCEPT AS SHOWN, THAT THERE ARE NO ENCROACHMENTS
UPON THE DESCRIBED PREMISES BY IMPROVEMENTS ON ANY ADJOINING PREMISES EXCEPT AS INDICATED,
AND THAT THERE IS NO APPARENT EVIDENCE OR SIGN OF ANY EASEMENT CROSSING OR BURDENING ANY
PART OF SAID PARCEL, EXCEPT AS NOTED.
*HANSEN CONSTRUCTION INC.
________________________________________________________________________________________
SCOTT R. BLACKARD L.S. 38342 DATE
sblackard11@gmail.com
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
LOT A & B
DAGGS HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION RECORDED AT PLAT BOOK 80, PAGE 97.
CITY OF ASPEN
COUNTY OF PITKIN
STATE OF COLORADO
IMPROVEMENT SURVEY
LOT A & B DAGGS HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION
COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO
U.S. SURVEY FEET USED
NOTES
1.) DATE OF THE FIELD SURVEY WAS MAY 30, 2023.
2.) THIS PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, RIGHTS OF WAY AND/ OR REQUIREMENTS AS NOTED OR
SHOWN IN THE RECORDS OF THE PITKIN COUNTY CLERK & RECORDER.
3.) ELEVATIONS ARE BASED UPON CITY OF ASPEN BENCHMARK GPS 9 (NAVD 88).
4.) NO TITLE COMMITMENT WAS PROVIDED FOR THIS SURVEY.
5.) CONTOUR INTERVAL IS ONE FOOT.
6.) THIS SURVEY IS BASED ON DAGGS HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION RECORDED
AT PLAT BOOK 80, PAGE 97.
IMPROVEMENT SURVEY
LOT A & B DAGGS HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION
COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO
TREE TABLE
96
C1
Cover Sheet
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
LOCATION:337 LAKE AVENUE
OWNER:STEVEN L BLACK
PARCEL NUMBER:273512135002
AREA:6,001 SQUARE FEET
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:SUBDIVISION: DAGGS HISTORIC
LANDMARK LOT SPLIT Lot: B
ZONING:MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-6)
WEST END RESIDENCE
337 LAKE AVENUE | ASPEN, CO
CHECKED BY:
#
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
DA
T
E
DR
A
W
N
B
Y
CONSTRUCTION
DRAWN BY:
JOB #:2023-53
NOT FOR
RO
A
R
I
N
G
F
O
R
K
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
59
2
H
I
G
H
W
A
Y
1
3
3
CA
R
B
O
N
D
A
L
E
,
C
O
8
1
6
2
3
RF
E
N
G
.
B
I
Z
|
(
9
7
0
)
3
4
0
-
4
1
3
0
AWA
JAK
WE
S
T
E
N
D
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
GA
R
D
E
N
H
O
U
S
E
33
7
L
A
K
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
AS
P
E
N
,
C
O
Of 4
1
HP
C
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
07
.
3
0
.
2
4
JA
K
HPC SUBMITTAL
97
CHECKED BY:
#
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
DA
T
E
DR
A
W
N
B
Y
CONSTRUCTION
DRAWN BY:
JOB #:2023-53
NOT FOR
RO
A
R
I
N
G
F
O
R
K
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
59
2
H
I
G
H
W
A
Y
1
3
3
CA
R
B
O
N
D
A
L
E
,
C
O
8
1
6
2
3
RF
E
N
G
.
B
I
Z
|
(
9
7
0
)
3
4
0
-
4
1
3
0
AWA
JAK
WE
S
T
E
N
D
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
GA
R
D
E
N
H
O
U
S
E
33
7
L
A
K
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
AS
P
E
N
,
C
O
Of 4
1
HP
C
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
07
.
3
0
.
2
4
JA
K
C2
Site Layout
98
C3
Utilities Plan
CHECKED BY:
#
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
DA
T
E
DR
A
W
N
B
Y
CONSTRUCTION
DRAWN BY:
JOB #:2023-53
NOT FOR
RO
A
R
I
N
G
F
O
R
K
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
59
2
H
I
G
H
W
A
Y
1
3
3
CA
R
B
O
N
D
A
L
E
,
C
O
8
1
6
2
3
RF
E
N
G
.
B
I
Z
|
(
9
7
0
)
3
4
0
-
4
1
3
0
AWA
JAK
WE
S
T
E
N
D
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
GA
R
D
E
N
H
O
U
S
E
33
7
L
A
K
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
AS
P
E
N
,
C
O
Of 4
1
HP
C
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
07
.
3
0
.
2
4
JA
K
99
FF
E
+
8
2
.
2
9
+8
2
.
2
7
+8
2
.
1
8
+8
1
.
1
+74.56
+74.59+7
4
.
7
6
+8
0
.
7
0
+7874.65
+7874.43
FF
E
+
8
2
.
2
9
+8
2
.
2
7
TW
+
7
8
7
8
TW +86.03 +8
2
.
0
0
+8
2
.
0
0
LL FFE
+73.79
FFE +82.29
+82.27
83
82
LP +82.12
+82.27
1.5%
2.0%
1.5%
1.5%
+82.1
CHECKED BY:
#
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
DA
T
E
DR
A
W
N
B
Y
CONSTRUCTION
DRAWN BY:
JOB #:2023-53
NOT FOR
RO
A
R
I
N
G
F
O
R
K
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
59
2
H
I
G
H
W
A
Y
1
3
3
CA
R
B
O
N
D
A
L
E
,
C
O
8
1
6
2
3
RF
E
N
G
.
B
I
Z
|
(
9
7
0
)
3
4
0
-
4
1
3
0
AWA
JAK
WE
S
T
E
N
D
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
GA
R
D
E
N
H
O
U
S
E
33
7
L
A
K
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
AS
P
E
N
,
C
O
Of 4
1
HP
C
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
07
.
3
0
.
2
4
JA
K
C4
Conceptual Grading &
Drainage Plan
10
0
T4 -10"
T3 - 16"
T8 - 20"
T6 - 24"
T10 - 6"
A
u
g
1
6
,
2
0
2
4
-
3
:
1
1
p
m
F:
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
_
A
-
L
\
7
3
0
2
-
3
3
5
3
3
7
L
a
k
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
\
D
-
C
A
D
\
0
2
.
S
h
e
e
t
s
\
D
W
-
7
3
0
2
-
H
P
C
S
u
b
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
_
3
3
7
.
d
w
g
C
ISSUE DATE:
SHEET NUMBER
REVIEWED:
PROJECT NUMBER:
DRAWN:
1
REVISIONS
7302
2 3 4 5 6 7
A
B
C
D
E
AS
P
E
N
,
C
O
C O P Y R I G H T D E S I G N W O R K S H O P, I N C.
F
8 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
A
u
g
1
6
,
2
0
2
4
-
3
:
1
1
p
m
F:
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
_
A
-
L
\
7
3
0
2
-
3
3
5
3
3
7
L
a
k
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
\
D
-
C
A
D
\
0
2
.
S
h
e
e
t
s
\
D
W
-
7
3
0
2
-
H
P
C
S
u
b
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
_
3
3
7
.
d
w
g
EP, XL MA
08/16/2024
DESIGN WORKSHOP
Landscape Architecture · Land Planning
Urban Design · Tourism Planning
Aspen · Austin · Chicago · Denver · Houston
Lake Tahoe · Los Angeles · Raleigh
W W W . D E S I G N W O R K S H O P . C O M
FOR REVIEW ONLY-
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
LX-01
22860 Two Rivers Road #1
Basalt, CO 81621
(970) 925-8354
33
7
L
A
K
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
TREE PROTECTION
AND REMOVAL
PLAN
NORTH 0
ORIGINAL SCALE:
5'10'20'
1"=10'
HPC
SUBMISSION
TREE REMOVAL CHART
T3
T4
T6
T8
T10
TREE SURVEY# TREE TYPE D.B.H
FIR
ASPEN
FIR
FIR
ASPEN (DEAD)
16"
10"
24"
20"
6"
TOTAL: 76"
TREE PROTECTION FENCE, TYP.
EXTENTS OF TREE DRIPLINE, TYP.
EXISTING CURB TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING WALL TO BE REMOVED
101
A
u
g
1
6
,
2
0
2
4
-
3
:
1
1
p
m
F:
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
_
A
-
L
\
7
3
0
2
-
3
3
5
3
3
7
L
a
k
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
\
D
-
C
A
D
\
0
2
.
S
h
e
e
t
s
\
D
W
-
7
3
0
2
-
H
P
C
S
u
b
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
_
3
3
7
.
d
w
g
C
ISSUE DATE:
SHEET NUMBER
REVIEWED:
PROJECT NUMBER:
DRAWN:
1
REVISIONS
7302
2 3 4 5 6 7
A
B
C
D
E
AS
P
E
N
,
C
O
C O P Y R I G H T D E S I G N W O R K S H O P, I N C.
F
8 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
A
u
g
1
6
,
2
0
2
4
-
3
:
1
1
p
m
F:
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
_
A
-
L
\
7
3
0
2
-
3
3
5
3
3
7
L
a
k
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
\
D
-
C
A
D
\
0
2
.
S
h
e
e
t
s
\
D
W
-
7
3
0
2
-
H
P
C
S
u
b
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
_
3
3
7
.
d
w
g
EP, XL MA
08/16/2024
DESIGN WORKSHOP
Landscape Architecture · Land Planning
Urban Design · Tourism Planning
Aspen · Austin · Chicago · Denver · Houston
Lake Tahoe · Los Angeles · Raleigh
W W W . D E S I G N W O R K S H O P . C O M
FOR REVIEW ONLY-
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
LX-02
22860 Two Rivers Road #1
Basalt, CO 81621
(970) 925-8354
33
7
L
A
K
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
MATERIALS
PLAN
NORTH 0
ORIGINAL SCALE:
5'10'20'
1"=10'
VEHICULAR PAVING - COBBLE STONE
STONE PAVER TYPE 2 - SAND SET
STONE STEP
DRY STACK STONE WALL
MATERIAL
WOOD FENCE
VEHICULAR PAVING
CONCRETE PAVER, TYP.
CONCRETE STEP, TYP.
IMPROVED DRY STACK
STONE WALL
WOOD FENCE (42" HEIGHT)
LEGEND
STONE PAVER TYPE 1 - MORTAR SET
HPC
SUBMISSION
GUARDRAIL PER ARCH
HANDRAIL
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA PA
PAPA
CONCRETE STEP
CONCRETE PAVER
CONCRETE BOARD FORM WALL
EXISTING WOOD FENCE
STONE PAVER TYPE 1, TYP.
STONE PAVER TYPE 2, TYP.
STONE STEPS
CONCRETE BOARD
FORM WALL
GRILL AND COUNTER
HANDRAIL
CONCRETE PAD
ROOFLINE, TYP
RE: ARCH
PA
CONCRETE PAD (6" OR LESS OF
EXCAVATION WITHIN DRIPLINE OF TREE)
RAIN GARDEN
RAIN GARDEN
102
LEGEND
GREEN ROOF (HATCH)
PROPOSED DECIDUOUS SHRUB
PERENNIALS MIX (HATCH)
PROPOSED DECIDUOUS TREE
A
u
g
1
6
,
2
0
2
4
-
3
:
1
1
p
m
F:
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
_
A
-
L
\
7
3
0
2
-
3
3
5
3
3
7
L
a
k
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
\
D
-
C
A
D
\
0
2
.
S
h
e
e
t
s
\
D
W
-
7
3
0
2
-
H
P
C
S
u
b
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
_
3
3
7
.
d
w
g
C
ISSUE DATE:
SHEET NUMBER
REVIEWED:
PROJECT NUMBER:
DRAWN:
1
REVISIONS
7302
2 3 4 5 6 7
A
B
C
D
E
AS
P
E
N
,
C
O
C O P Y R I G H T D E S I G N W O R K S H O P, I N C.
F
8 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
A
u
g
1
6
,
2
0
2
4
-
3
:
1
1
p
m
F:
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
_
A
-
L
\
7
3
0
2
-
3
3
5
3
3
7
L
a
k
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
\
D
-
C
A
D
\
0
2
.
S
h
e
e
t
s
\
D
W
-
7
3
0
2
-
H
P
C
S
u
b
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
_
3
3
7
.
d
w
g
EP, XL MA
08/16/2024
DESIGN WORKSHOP
Landscape Architecture · Land Planning
Urban Design · Tourism Planning
Aspen · Austin · Chicago · Denver · Houston
Lake Tahoe · Los Angeles · Raleigh
W W W . D E S I G N W O R K S H O P . C O M
FOR REVIEW ONLY-
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
LX-03
22860 Two Rivers Road #1
Basalt, CO 81621
(970) 925-8354
33
7
L
A
K
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
LANDSCAPE
PLAN
NORTH 0
ORIGINAL SCALE:
5'10'20'
1"=10'
PLANT
CODE BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME
TREES
CC-5 Crataegus crus-galli inermis Thornless Cockspur Hawthorn
PP-10 Picea pungens Colorado Spruce
PT Pinus thunbergii Japanese Black Pine
PT-4 Populus tremuloides Quaking Aspen
SHRUBS
BM-5 Buxus microphylla japonica 'Winter Gem'Winter Gem Japanese Boxwood
CB-5 Cornus sericea 'Baileyi'Bayley's Red Twig Dogwood
CI-5 Cornus sericea `Isanti`Isanti Red Twig Dogwood
CA-10 Cotoneaster acutifolius Peking Cotoneaster
PO-5 Physocarpus opulifolius Ninebark
RP-1 Rubus parviflorus Thimbleberry
SB-5 Spiraea betulifolia Birchleaf Spirea
SJ-3 Spiraea japonica 'Froebelii'Froebelii Japanese Spirea
SV-5 Syringa vulgaris Common Purple Lilac
VD-5 Viburnum dentatum 'Blue Muffin'Blue Muffin Arrowwood Viburnum
ORNAMENTAL GRASSES
HS-1 Helictotrichon sempervirens Blue Oat Grass
GROUND COVERS
GO-1 Galium odoratum Sweet Woodruff
PR-4 Petrosedum rupestre 'Blue Spruce'Blue Spruce Stonecrop
PERENNIALS
AP-1 Aegopodium podagraria 'Variegatum'Variegated Bishop Weed
AXM-1 Allium x `Millenium`Millenium Ornamental Onion
HD Hosta x `Big Daddy`Big Daddy Hosta
LA-1 Leucanthemum x superbum `Alaska`Alaska Shasta Daisy
NF-1 Nepeta x faassenii Catmint
SP-1 Salvia nemorosa Meadow Sage
SOD/SEED
FE Festuca x 'Eco-Lawn'Eco-Lawn Fescue
PLANT SCHEDULE
HS-1, TYP
PERENNIAL MIX, TYP.
FE, TYP.
HPC
SUBMISSION
PP-10
CA-10 SB-5
CC-5
EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN, TYP.
PROPOSED CONIFEROUS TREE
PROPOSED ORNAMENTAL GRASS
PT
PT-4
SJ-3
SJ-3
SV-5
BM-5
CB-5 CB-5 CB-5 CB-5
CB-5
CB-5
RP-1
RP-1
PO-5
RP-1
SB-5
VD-5
TURF (HATCH)
CI-5
PR-4
103
A
u
g
1
6
,
2
0
2
4
-
3
:
1
1
p
m
F:
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
_
A
-
L
\
7
3
0
2
-
3
3
5
3
3
7
L
a
k
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
\
D
-
C
A
D
\
0
2
.
S
h
e
e
t
s
\
D
W
-
7
3
0
2
-
H
P
C
S
u
b
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
_
3
3
7
.
d
w
g
C
ISSUE DATE:
SHEET NUMBER
REVIEWED:
PROJECT NUMBER:
DRAWN:
1
REVISIONS
7302
2 3 4 5 6 7
A
B
C
D
E
AS
P
E
N
,
C
O
C O P Y R I G H T D E S I G N W O R K S H O P, I N C.
F
8 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
A
u
g
1
6
,
2
0
2
4
-
3
:
1
1
p
m
F:
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
_
A
-
L
\
7
3
0
2
-
3
3
5
3
3
7
L
a
k
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
\
D
-
C
A
D
\
0
2
.
S
h
e
e
t
s
\
D
W
-
7
3
0
2
-
H
P
C
S
u
b
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
_
3
3
7
.
d
w
g
EP, XL MA
08/16/2024
DESIGN WORKSHOP
Landscape Architecture · Land Planning
Urban Design · Tourism Planning
Aspen · Austin · Chicago · Denver · Houston
Lake Tahoe · Los Angeles · Raleigh
W W W . D E S I G N W O R K S H O P . C O M
FOR REVIEW ONLY-
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
LX-04
22860 Two Rivers Road #1
Basalt, CO 81621
(970) 925-8354
33
7
L
A
K
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
MATERIAL
PALETTE
MATERIALS
GRANITE COBBLE:
-VEHICULAR PAVING
CONCRETE PAVER:
-CONCRETE PAVER
-CONCRETE STEPS
WOOD FENCE
STONE PAVER
-STONE PAVER TYPE 1
HPC
SUBMISSION
HANDRAILDRY STACK STONE WALL
STONE PAVER
-STONE PAVER TYPE 2
CONCRETE BOARD FORM WALL
104
A
u
g
1
6
,
2
0
2
4
-
3
:
1
1
p
m
F:
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
_
A
-
L
\
7
3
0
2
-
3
3
5
3
3
7
L
a
k
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
\
D
-
C
A
D
\
0
2
.
S
h
e
e
t
s
\
D
W
-
7
3
0
2
-
H
P
C
S
u
b
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
_
3
3
7
.
d
w
g
C
ISSUE DATE:
SHEET NUMBER
REVIEWED:
PROJECT NUMBER:
DRAWN:
1
REVISIONS
7302
2 3 4 5 6 7
A
B
C
D
E
AS
P
E
N
,
C
O
C O P Y R I G H T D E S I G N W O R K S H O P, I N C.
F
8 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
A
u
g
1
6
,
2
0
2
4
-
3
:
1
1
p
m
F:
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
_
A
-
L
\
7
3
0
2
-
3
3
5
3
3
7
L
a
k
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
\
D
-
C
A
D
\
0
2
.
S
h
e
e
t
s
\
D
W
-
7
3
0
2
-
H
P
C
S
u
b
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
_
3
3
7
.
d
w
g
EP, XL MA
08/16/2024
DESIGN WORKSHOP
Landscape Architecture · Land Planning
Urban Design · Tourism Planning
Aspen · Austin · Chicago · Denver · Houston
Lake Tahoe · Los Angeles · Raleigh
W W W . D E S I G N W O R K S H O P . C O M
FOR REVIEW ONLY-
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
LX-05
22860 Two Rivers Road #1
Basalt, CO 81621
(970) 925-8354
33
7
L
A
K
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
PLANTING
PALETTE
TREES
Crataegus crus-galli inermis
SHRUBS
Thornless Cockspur Hawthorn
Picea pungens
Colorado Spruce
Buxus microphylla japonica 'Winter Gem'
Winter Gem Japanese Boxwood
Cornus sericea 'Baileyi'
Bayley's Red Twig Dogwood
Spiraea betulifolia
Birchleaf Spirea
Spiraea japonica 'Froebelii'
Froebelii Japanese Spirea
HPC
SUBMISSION
Pinus thunbergii
Japanese Black Pine
Populus tremuloides
Quaking Aspen
Cotoneaster acutifolius
Peking Cotoneaster
Syringa vulgaris
Common Purple Lilac
Physocarpus opulifolius
Ninebark
Viburnum dentatum 'Blue Muffin'
Blue Muffin Arrowwood Viburnum
Rubus parviflorus
Thimbleberry
Cornus sericea 'Isanti'
Isanti Red Twig Dogwood
105
PLANTING
PALETTE
PERENNIALS
Hosta x 'Big Daddy'
Big Daddy Hosta
Leucanthemm x superbum 'Alaska'
Alaska Shasta Daisy
Salvia nemorosa
Midnight Sage
Helictotrichon sempervirens
Blue Oat Grass
Nepeta x faassenii
Catmint
HPC
SUBMISSION
A
u
g
1
6
,
2
0
2
4
-
3
:
1
1
p
m
F:
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
_
A
-
L
\
7
3
0
2
-
3
3
5
3
3
7
L
a
k
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
\
D
-
C
A
D
\
0
2
.
S
h
e
e
t
s
\
D
W
-
7
3
0
2
-
H
P
C
S
u
b
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
_
3
3
7
.
d
w
g
C
ISSUE DATE:
SHEET NUMBER
REVIEWED:
PROJECT NUMBER:
DRAWN:
1
REVISIONS
7302
2 3 4 5 6 7
A
B
C
D
E
AS
P
E
N
,
C
O
C O P Y R I G H T D E S I G N W O R K S H O P, I N C.
F
8 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
A
u
g
1
6
,
2
0
2
4
-
3
:
1
1
p
m
F:
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
_
A
-
L
\
7
3
0
2
-
3
3
5
3
3
7
L
a
k
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
\
D
-
C
A
D
\
0
2
.
S
h
e
e
t
s
\
D
W
-
7
3
0
2
-
H
P
C
S
u
b
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
_
3
3
7
.
d
w
g
EP, XL MA
08/16/2024
DESIGN WORKSHOP
Landscape Architecture · Land Planning
Urban Design · Tourism Planning
Aspen · Austin · Chicago · Denver · Houston
Lake Tahoe · Los Angeles · Raleigh
W W W . D E S I G N W O R K S H O P . C O M
FOR REVIEW ONLY-
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
LX-06
22860 Two Rivers Road #1
Basalt, CO 81621
(970) 925-8354
33
7
L
A
K
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
GROUND COVERS
Aegopodium podagraria 'Variegatum'
Variegated Bishop's Weed
Galium odoratum
Sweet Woodruff
Petrosedum rupestre 'Blue Spruce'
Blue Spruce Stonecrop
ORNAMENTAL GRASSES
Allium x 'Millenium'
Millenium Ornamental Onion
106
5'-0"
FACE OF BUILDING
421
B
A
10'-0"
10'-0"
SE
T
A
B
A
C
K
)
10
'
-
0
"
(1
5
'
-
0
"
C
O
M
B
I
N
E
D
5'
-
0
"
PROPERTY LINE
SIDE SETBACK
SIDE SETBACK
RE
A
R
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
FR
O
N
T
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
3
GREEN ROOF
CEDAR SHINGLES
METAL TRELLIS
337 LAKE AVENUE
HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT
LOT B
LOT SIZE: 6,001 SF
ZONE DISTRICT R-6
METAL FIREPLACE
TREE TO BE
REMOVED
1'-6"
METAL CANOPY
3.8
A.5
CANOPY IN SETBACK
BUILD-TO REQUIREMENT -
SEC. 26.410.030.(B)(3)C
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT
PARKING SPACE
3R
D
S
T
R
E
E
T
LA
K
E
A
V
E
.
8'
-
6
"
18'-0"
17
'
-
2
1
/
4
"
36'-1 1/4"
pr
o
j
e
c
t
:
stamp/seal:
sheet:
title:
checked by:
drawn by:
project manager:
principal architect:
revisions:
job no.:
W
E
S
T
E
N
D
G
A
R
D
E
N
H
O
U
S
E
33
7
L
a
k
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
A
s
p
e
n
,
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
33
7
L
a
k
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
A
s
p
e
n
,
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
SITE PLAN
A1.00
23002
EW, EH
TK
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
08/16/2024
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
CONCEPTUAL SET
KT, MK
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
1 SITE PLAN
no.: date: description:
NOTE: REFER TO LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS
FOR LANDSCAPE RELATED INFORMATION.
107
EF
EF
EF
PROPERTY LINE
337 LAKE AVENUE
HISTORIC LANDMARK
LOT SPLIT
LOT B
LOT SIZE: 6,001 SF
ZONE DISTRICT R-6
337 LAKE AVENUE
HISTORIC LANDMARK
LOT SPLIT
LOT A
LOT SIZE: 5,706 SF
ZONE DISTRICT R-6
3R
D
S
T
R
E
E
T
LA
K
E
A
V
E
.
LOT BLOT A
pr
o
j
e
c
t
:
stamp/seal:
sheet:
title:
checked by:
drawn by:
project manager:
principal architect:
revisions:
job no.:
W
E
S
T
E
N
D
G
A
R
D
E
N
H
O
U
S
E
33
7
L
a
k
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
A
s
p
e
n
,
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
33
7
L
a
k
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
A
s
p
e
n
,
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
LOT A AND B
ADJACENCY PLAN AND
ELEVATION
A1.01
23002
EW, EH
TK
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
08/16/2024
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
CONCEPTUAL SET
KT, MK
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
1 LOT A AND B ADJACENCY PLAN NOTE: REFER TO LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS
FOR LANDSCAPE RELATED INFORMATION.
no.: date: description:
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
2 LOT A AND B ADJACENCY ELEVATION (EAST)
108
DN
UP
A3.01
1
A3.01
2
A3.01
3
20
'
-
0
"
49'-9 1/4"
19
'
-
2
1
/
2
"
421
B
A
3
102
KITCHEN
100
ENTRY
103
LIVING /
BEDROOM
101
POWDER
METAL GUARDRAIL
RETAINING WALL
GAS FIREPLACE
EDGE OF METAL PLATE
CANOPY ABOVE
EDGE OF ROOF ABOVE
METAL TRELLIS ABOVE
4
3
/
4
"
10
'
-
1
0
1
/
2
"
8'
-
4
"
4
3
/
4
"
15
'
-
4
"
3'
-
1
0
1
/
2
"
8'
-
2
3
/
4
"
19
'
-
0
"
1'
-
0
"
3.8
A.5
EL 100'-0"
7'-9"1'-4"5'-6"1'-4"23'-7 1/2"3'-10"5'-7 1/4"
9"9"
4 3/4"22'-10"26'-1 3/4"
4 3/4"
1'-1 1/4"
4 3/4"
3'-6"
A3.01
1
A3.01
2
A3.01
3
421
B
A
3
001
BASEMENT
65'-0"
19
'
-
2
1
/
2
"
003
MECH.
ROOM
CONCRETE SLAB
CONCRETE FOUNDATION, TYP.
10
'
-
1
0
1
/
2
"
8'
-
4
"
11'-0 3/4"48'-4"5'-7 1/4"
4'
-
8
3
/
4
"
EL 89'-6"
3.8
A.5
52'-5 3/4"12'-6 1/4"
pr
o
j
e
c
t
:
stamp/seal:
sheet:
title:
checked by:
drawn by:
project manager:
principal architect:
revisions:
job no.:
W
E
S
T
E
N
D
G
A
R
D
E
N
H
O
U
S
E
33
7
L
a
k
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
A
s
p
e
n
,
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
33
7
L
a
k
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
A
s
p
e
n
,
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
BASEMENT & MAIN
LEVEL FLOOR PLANS
A2.01
23002
EW, EH
TK
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
08/16/2024
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
CONCEPTUAL SET
KT, MK
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
2 MAIN FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
1 BASEMENT PLAN
no.: date: description:
109
A3.01
1
A3.01
2
A3.01
3
421
B
A
3
23'-2 3/4"25'-9"
48'-11 3/4"
19
'
-
2
1
/
2
"
METAL PLATE CANOPY
CEDAR SHINGLES
METAL TRELLIS GREEN ROOF
3.8
A.5
METAL FIREPLACE
METAL ROOF9 3/4" TYP. SPACE BETWEEN
pr
o
j
e
c
t
:
stamp/seal:
sheet:
title:
checked by:
drawn by:
project manager:
principal architect:
revisions:
job no.:
W
E
S
T
E
N
D
G
A
R
D
E
N
H
O
U
S
E
33
7
L
a
k
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
A
s
p
e
n
,
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
33
7
L
a
k
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
A
s
p
e
n
,
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
ROOF PLAN
A2.02
23002
EW, EH
TK
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
08/16/2024
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
CONCEPTUAL SET
KT, MK
no.: date: description:
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
1 ROOF PLAN
110
100'-0"
MAIN FLOOR
89'-6"
BASEMENT
4213
CEDAR SHINGLE ROOF
STAINED WOOD SIDING
METAL WINDOW & DOOR SYSTEM, TYP.
METAL TRELLIS
BOARD-FORM CONCRETE
SITE WALL
METAL FASCIA
3.8
25'-9"23'-2 3/4"16'-0 1/4"
48'-11 3/4"
CONCRETE OR METAL
FLASHING, TBD
METAL PLATE ROOF
CANOPY AT ENTRY
100'-0"
MAIN FLOOR
89'-6"
BASEMENT
BA
METAL WINDOW &
DOOR SYSTEM, TYP.
STAINED WOOD SIDING
METAL FASCIA
METAL TRELLIS
A.5
19'-2 1/2"
MA
X
.
A
L
L
O
W
E
D
2
5
'
-
0
"
12
'
-
0
"
.
GREEN ROOF ASSEMBLY,
TBD AT FINAL HPC REVIEW
100'-0"
MAIN FLOOR
89'-6"
BASEMENT
B A
METAL PLATE ROOF
CANOPY AT ENTRY
1/3 POINT FROM
EAVE TO RIDGE
METAL WINDOW & DOOR
SYSTEM, TYP.
STAINED WOOD SIDING
10
'
-
0
"
3'-5"4'-1"
8'
-
0
"
A.5
MA
X
.
A
L
L
O
W
E
D
2
5
'
-
0
"
15
'
-
6
"
.
10'-10 1/2"8'-4"
19'-2 1/2"
4 3/4"4 3/4"
CONCRETE OR METAL
FLASHING, TBD
100'-0"
MAIN FLOOR
89'-6"
BASEMENT
4 2 13
DOORS TO BASEMENT,
SHOWN DASHED
STAIR TO BASEMENT,
SHOWN DASHED
METAL MESH GUARDRAIL
CONCRETE
RETAINING WALL
METAL TRELLIS
METAL WINDOW
SYSTEM, TYP.
STAINED WOOD
SIDING
CEDAR SHINGLES
METAL FIREPLACE
3.8
5'-7 1/4"20'-1 3/4"23'-2 3/4"16'-0 1/4"
48'-11 3/4"
BOARD-FORM CONCRETE
SITE WALL
CONCRETE OR
METAL FLASHING,
TBD
pr
o
j
e
c
t
:
stamp/seal:
sheet:
title:
checked by:
drawn by:
project manager:
principal architect:
revisions:
job no.:
W
E
S
T
E
N
D
G
A
R
D
E
N
H
O
U
S
E
33
7
L
a
k
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
A
s
p
e
n
,
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
33
7
L
a
k
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
A
s
p
e
n
,
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
A3.01
23002
EW, EH
TK
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
08/16/2024
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
CONCEPTUAL SET
KT, MK
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
2 SOUTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
3 WEST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
1 EAST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
4 NORTH ELEVATION
no.: date: description:
111