HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20250212AGENDA
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION
COMMISSION
February 12, 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 - 12/11/24
III.PUBLIC COMMENTS
IV.COMMISSIONER MEMBER COMMENTS
V.DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
VI.PROJECT MONITORING
VI.A Project Monitoring Committee Assignments
VII.STAFF COMMENTS
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 627 W. Main St. - Minor Development and Variations Review - Public Hearing
minutes.hpc.20241211_DRAFT.docx
Project Monitoring Committee Assignments.20250108.pdf
Staff Memo.627 W Main St.20250207.pdf
Draft HPC Resolution # , Series of 2025.pdf
1
1
XIV.ADJOURN
XV.NEXT RESOLUTION NUMBER
HP Design Guidelines Analysis.20250207.pdf
Commercial, Lodging, Historic District Design Standards and Guidelines
Analysis.20250206.pdf
Variation Criteria Analysis.627 W Main St.20250207.pdf
Application.627 W Main St.20250205.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 DECEMBER 11TH, 2024
Chairperson Thompson opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission at
4:30pm.
Commissioners in attendance: Peter Fornell, Roger Moyer, Barb Pitchford, Dakota Severe, Kim
Raymond and Kara Thompson. Absent were Jodi Surfas and Riley Warwick.
Staff present:
Gillian White, Principal Planner – Historic Preservation
Stuart Hayden, Planner - Historic Preservation
Ben Anderson, Director of Community Development
Luisa Berne, Assistant City Attorney
Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk
MINUTES: Mr. Moyer moved to approve the draft minutes from October 9th, 2024. Ms. Thompson
seconded. Roll call vote:Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Ms. Raymond, yes; Ms.
Thompson, yes. 5-0 vote, motion passes.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: None.
COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS: Mr. Moyer passed around a historic photo of how the Crystal
Palace looked when he moved to Aspen and then one from after the renovations were done in 1970. He
also mentioned a book called the “Music Man” about the whole thing.
Ms. Pitchford asked about the draft letter Ms. Thompson put together about the Armory building. She
wanted to know if it was sent and if there had been any response from Council. Ms. Thompson
confirmed that it was sent. Ms. Raymond noted that she received an email from Councilor Guth
confirming he had received it, and Mr. Fornell mentioned that he had talked to Councilor Rose about it.
Mr. Fornell noted that Councilor Rose told him that he would be engaging in whatever HPC’s
recommendation was.
DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: None
PROJECT MONITORING: Mr. Hayden noted that since the last Project Monitoring update there had been
ten Project Monitoring items. These were at:
720 E. Hyman Ave.
227 E. Bleeker St.
343 E. Cooper Ave.
335 Lake Ave.
216 W. Hyman Ave.
110 W. Main St.
214 W. Bleeker St.
520 E. Cooper Ave.
820 E. Cooper Ave.
316 E. Hopkins Ave.
Mr. Hayden then went over the details of each item as outlined in the agenda packet.
STAFF COMMENTS: None
CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: Mr. Hayden noted that since the last Project Monitoring update
there had been four Project Monitoring items. These were at:
3
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 11TH, 2024
404 S Galena St. #301
302 E Hyman Ave.
110 E Hallam St.
400 E Cooper Ave.
Mr. Hayden then went over the details of each item as outlined in the agenda packet.
CALL UP REPORTS:None
SUBMIT PUBLIC NOTICE FOR AGENDA ITEMS: Ms. Berne confirmed that public notice was completed in
compliance with the Code as needed for the agenda item.
Ms. Severe entered the meeting at 4:50pm.
NEW BUSINESS: 333 W. Bleeker St. –Consideration of Penalties Regarding Alleged Violation of the
Municipal Code, Section 26.415 – Historic Preservation, PUBLIC HEARING
Staff Presentation:Gillian White, Principal Planner – Historic Preservation
Ms. White introduced the item and noted that a representative from the applicant team, Mr. Derek
Skalko, was in the audience and would be available for questions after her presentation. She then began
her presentation by showing an overhead view of the property and went over the neighborhood context
and history of the property. She displayed the plans and various elevations showing the structure prior
to the project starting and noted the red sections as areas where previous historic materials existed. She
then detailed the insubstantial amendment that staff approved in April of 2024, regarding work on the
historic framing, which was to be minimally invasive. Next, she showed some pictures that were taken at
a site visit in June documenting the location of the historic framing that was intact at that time.
Ms. White continued by going over a timeline of events that was complied by staff and the contractor
team as detailed in the staff memo. She then showed a site plan detailing the conditions as they exist
today and noted the red sections as areas where violations were observed by staff. She also showed the
same areas where violations occurred on the west elevation drawing. She continued to detail the
timeline of events through the fall of 2024 and showed a few more pictures of the framing violations.
Ms. White noted that as a means of resolving the outstanding violations, the applicant has offered to
pay the City $45K, which is the same amount as the bond that was previously returned on June 16
th,
2024. She said that in exchange for this amount, HPC would be agreeing that no further penalties would
be pursued. She noted that staff is further recommending that HPC make a request of the City’s Chief
Building official keep the stop work order in place until the proper documentation is submitted by the
applicant, including an insubstantial amendment and a change order. She said that HPC could decide to
pursue penalties allowed per the Land Use Code or to accept the $45K offered by the representative
team. She noted that staff is recommending HPC accept the offer of $45K to be utilized to improve the
Historic Preservation program.
Ms. Berne clarified to the HPC that the options in front of them would be to either approve or reject the
draft resolution as presented in the agenda packet. She noted that they could make recommendations
but could not negotiate to add anything to the existing resolution.
Mr. Fornell asked what the City of Aspen would do with the $45,000. Ms. White said that it would go
towards the Historic Preservation program, which could include updating design guidelines, training
4
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 11TH, 2024
opportunities, etc. Ms. Thompson said that the board could have a conversation with staff to provide
recommendations on where the money goes.
Ms. Pitchford asked if there was any possibility of restoration of the areas that violations occurred. Ms.
White said that the areas that do remain have been cut and placed back so there was no chance of it
going back to the way it was.
Mr. Hayden noted that if staff had thought restoration was possible, they would have pursued that first,
before pursing potential penalties.
Ms. Pitchford then asked if there was a BEST certified person on site when this occurred. Ms. White said
that the contractor’s team does have a BEST certified employee that to staff’s knowledge was on site.
Mr. Fornell asked if any staff had an opportunity to observe any of the removed historic materials or did
the contractor just discard them after removal. Mr. Hayden noted that it wasn’t a case that materials
were discarded, but rather removed, cut and then placed back in various locations and orientations
other than the historic locations.
Ms. Thompson invited the project’s representatives to the dais. Mr. Derek Skalko, 1 Friday Design and
Mr. Chris Madigan, Madigan & Company introduced themselves.
Mr. Madigan noted that their superintendent is HP certified and was on site every day. He also noted
that no framing materials were discarded but remained on site and reinstalled. He felt that where the
failure occurred was when the team got to these portions of the framing, they did not engage HPC when
conflicts were found between the plan sets and the actual conditions of the historic framing. He went on
to note that the simplicity of the framing in the garage allowed for standard means and methods to be
used as opposed to the in the main building.
Ms. Pitchford asked why the HP certified supervisor on site did not consult with Mr. Madigan or staff
when these conflicts were found. Mr. Madigan said that while there are many areas of the building
where great care was taken in preserving the historic framing, there were areas that the same level of
care was not taken. He also did not want to put all this on the superintendent and noted that he bore
the responsibility as well, again noting the lack of communication with HP staff.
Ms. Thompson asked if Mr. Madigan had any suggestions on how to prevent this from happening in the
future. Mr. Madigan pointed to more robust communication regarding monitors and having a known
point of contact. He took full responsibility but noted the transition in the HP staff and that his team
should have been more proactive in seeking out feedback from the new staff on how to proceed.
Mr. Fornell asked how much oversight the ownership group played during the course of the
construction work. Mr. Skalko noted that he was the original designer of record on the project, but a
New York entity ended up taking over. He said that he was willing to stay on as a local liaison, but the
ownership instructed him to stay as minimally on the clock as possible. He said that going forward he
would be much more involved as a site supervisor or construction administrator. He agreed with Mr.
Madigan that this was very much a communication issue and that with a historic property like this there
is so much communication about the process that is necessary. He noted that this was a failure and that
it cannot happen again and was a learning process for all involved.
Mr. Fornell asked if the ownership gave any instruction to continue with work, knowing the variations.
Mr. Madigan said that the owners did not have any knowledge of any deviations from the approved
plans.
5
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 11TH, 2024
Ms. Raymond asked if it would help going forward with this and any other projects in town, if there
were set timeframes where a monitor shows up to inspect the work. Mr. Madigan said absolutely and
noted that on other historic projects he had worked on, there was always an assigned monitor that they
could call and review the progress at critical milestones.
There was some discussion about the idea of having HP staff and the HPC monitor come to the sites at
certain set milestones.
Ms. Severe wanted to clarify that Mr. Skalko was the main point of contact going forward to which Mr.
Skalko said yes.
Ms. White did acknowledge that the level of communication with the applicant team has been very
good as of late.
Ms. Raymond asked what the total cost was of this project and whether it received any variances or
benefits originally. Mr. Madigan said the cost was around $12 million and Mr. Skalko noted that the
project actually saw a reduction of the preliminary variations originally granted. He then detailed some
history of the project approvals and a reduction of floor area that came when the project went to final
review.
Ms. Thompson asked for a short five-minute recess to take an urgent call.
Ms. Thompson reentered the meeting, and Mr. Skalko continued his explanation of the reduction of
floor area and setbacks from the originally approved plans.
Mr. Hayden detailed the setback variations that were in place for the historic outbuilding and there was
more discussion about the setbacks.
Public Comment:None
Board Discussion:Ms. Thompson felt this was a very unfortunate situation and felt that communication
could be improved. She also felt that the money offered by the applicant should be used for the Historic
Preservation program and appreciated that the applicant was taking steps to address this. She was in
support of the resolution.
Mr. Fornell asked Ms. Thompson and Ms. Raymond as the architects on the board if once the work was
done if any of this would be noticeable to the lay person walking by the property. Both Ms. Thompson
and Ms. Raymond said nothing would be noticeable.
Ms. Raymond commented that this was a really nice historic building and will never be back to what it
was. She also felt that $45K on a $12 million project was such a drop in the bucket. She did not want
other projects to look at this and think “we can do whatever we want and then just give them the $45K
fine”. She admitted that while it is not meant to set a precedent, it does.
Mr. Fornell agreed. Ms. Thompson said they needed to consider just this specific project right now and
did not want to say no to this resolution which would just prolong the project.
Mr. Moyer felt that in today’s world there are no punishments anymore and there was just a dollar
amount. He also felt that the $45K was a pittance and laughable. He did not support the resolution and
thought that the punishment should be more focused on education. He felt that every member of the
construction team should have to get the BEST card and then write a letter to HPC about their
experience in getting the card and how to make the process better. He also suggested the applicant
6
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 11TH, 2024
team write a public apology to be included in the newspapers, on the radio and addressed to HPC. He
wanted to make sure the pubic was educated so that someone else won’t do the same thing.
Ms. Thompson noted that they could not require any of those things. They could only make
recommendations to the Chief Building Official.
Ms. Berne reminded the members that they were stuck with the penalties spelled out in the Land Use
Code and that they could not require the applicant to do anything outside of that. She noted that the
agreement in the resolution was worked on by staff and the applicant and was very similar to what was
brought before HPC for 227 Main St. but was $15K more. She wanted to be clear that if HPC rejected
this resolution, there would be no guarantee that a new deal could be reached with the applicant.
There was further discussion of the other potential penalty options.
Ms. Severe felt a bit annoyed that this was a case of “do what you want and then ask for forgiveness
after”. She did not feel the applicant team really tried to reach out and communicate when there was
such a massive issue. She did not want the same employee with the BEST card to continue to oversee
this work.
There was general agreement that the money should be used to improve the HP program and processes
so that something like this does not happen again. There was also some agreement about the do
something and then beg for forgiveness later attitude.
MOTION:Ms. Thompson moved to approve the next resolution in the series. Mr. Fornell seconded. Roll
call vote:Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Ms. Severe, yes; Ms. Raymond, yes; Ms.
Thompson, yes. 6-0 vote, motion passes.
Mr. Skalko stressed that both himself and Mr. Madigan are long time locals, and he wanted HPC to know
that this did not come from the attitude of “let just do this and ask for forgiveness later”. He
acknowledged that this happened but thanked HPC for their understanding and that they will only be
better going forward. He acknowledged that they did earn this punishment.
ADJOURN: Ms. Pitchfordmotioned to adjourn the regular meeting. Mr. Fornellseconded. All in favor;
motion passes.
____________________
Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk
7
HPC PROJECT MONITORING COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS
1/8/2025
Kara Thompson 300 E. Hyman
201 E. Main
333 W. Bleeker
234 W. Francis
Skier’s Chalet Steakhouse
720 E. Hyman
304 E. Hopkins
312 W. Hyman
520 E. Cooper
1020 E. Cooper
110 W. Main, Hotel Aspen
Lift 1 corridor ski lift support structure
134 E. Bleeker
Roger Moyer 227 E. Main
135 E. Cooper
517 E. Hopkins
Skier’s Chalet Lodge
202 E. Main
611 W. Main
132 W. Hopkins
500 E. Durant
211 W. Main
Jodi Surfas 202 E. Main
611 W. Main
602 E. Hyman
820 E. Cooper
227 E. Bleeker
Unassigned 304 E. Hopkins
233 W. Bleeker
214 W. Bleeker
128 E. Main
414-420 E. Cooper, Red Onion/JAS
Barb Pitchford 121 W. Bleeker
312 W. Hyman
132 W. Hopkins
214 W. Bleeker
630 W. Main
420 W. Francis
135 W. Francis
227 E. Bleeker
215 E. Hallam
Kim Raymond 630 W. Main
205 W. Main
216 W. Hyman
335 Lake Ave.
434 E. Cooper, Bidwell
Riley Warwick 420 W. Francis
400 E. Cooper
414-420 E. Cooper, Red Onion/JAS
134 E. Bleeker
Dakota Severe 434 E. Cooper, Bidwell
8
Page 1 of 5
427 Rio Grande Place, Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5000 | aspen.gov
Memorandum
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Stuart Hayden, Planner II, Historic Preservation
THROUGH: Gillian White, Principal Planner, Historic Preservation
MEETING DATE: February 12, 2025
RE: 627 W. Main St. – Minor Development and Variations, PUBLIC HEARING
Applicant/Owner:
Adam Stevenson,
627 W. Main St.,
Aspen, CO 81611
Representative:
Kim Raymond
Architecture +
Interiors
Address:
627 W. Main St.
Legal Description:
Lot B, Block 25, City
and Townsite of
Aspen, Colorado
Parcel
Identification
Number:
2735-124-48-010
Current Zoning:
MU – Mixed Use
Current &
Proposed Use:
Detached
Residential Dwelling
Summary: The applicant requests a Certificate of Appropriateness for
Minor Development and Variations at 627 W. Main St. for alterations to
the non-historic rear addition, including the removal of an exterior
stairway, addition of a shed-roofed wall dormer to support a new interior
stairway, installation and alteration of fenestration, and expansion of a
deck.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval with conditions of
the Minor Development and Variations review of 627 W. Main St.
Figure 1: 627 W. Main St. – Site Location Aerial Image with Property Line
9
Page 2 of 5
427 Rio Grande Place, Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5000 | aspen.gov
BACKGROUND:
The historic resource at 627 W. Main St. is a one-and-a-half-story, front-gabled, brick
miner’s cottage with a simple rectangular plan and a front-gabled entry porch constructed on this
3,000-square-foot lot in 1892. Its only documented use is as a detached residential dwelling. The
property is within the bounds of the Main Street Historic District designated by Ordinance #60,
Series of 1976. Three years later, Ordinance #57, Series of 1979, designated 627 W. Main St. as
an individual historic property.
A one-story rear addition joined the historic resource in the mid-1980s, the modification of
which the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) reviewed as a Major Development in 2008. In
addition to approving the conceptual development plan thereof, HPC Resolution #09, Series of
2008, granted a 500-square-foot floor area bonus to the project, the second benefit awarded to
the property that year. Ordinance #02, Series of 2008, approved the creation of a Transferrable
Development Right (TDR). Conditional approval of the final development plan occurred as HPC
Resolution #16, Series of 2008. The project was still underway some eight years later when HPC
Resolution #23, Series of 2016, granted a substantial amendment to the major development
approval. In the meantime, City Council granted the property another TDR, per Ordinance #12,
Series of 2009.
Although no significant exterior development has occurred at 627 W. Main St. since 2016,
the property experienced a major change when Ordinance #13, Series of 2022, amended the
permitted and conditional uses allowed in the Mixed-Use zone district to exclude “detached
residential dwelling.” Now, it is a non-conforming use. Pursuant to Section 26.312.020 of the
Aspen Land Use Code, nonconforming uses may continue, normal maintenance may be
performed (provided it does not exceed ten percent of the current replacement cost of the
structure within any twelve consecutive month period), but the net livable area of a dwelling unit
may not expand. Effectively, the building at 627 W. Main St. is restricted to its current floor area.
Figure 2: 1904 Sanborn Map with Property Line Figure 3: 627 W. Main St. in 1975
10
Page 3 of 5
427 Rio Grande Place, Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5000 | aspen.gov
REQUESTS OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
• Certificate of Appropriateness for a Minor Development (Section 26.415.070(c)): for
alterations that are made to non-historic portions of a designated historic property that do
not qualify for a certificate of no negative effect.
• Variations (Section 26.415.110(c)) for development in the side, rear and front setbacks.
The HPC is the final review authority of these requests.
PROJECT SUMMARY
The application proposes the following modifications to the non-historic rear addition of the
designated historic property which qualify for Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) Minor
Development Review: replacement of a double door on the first story of the west façade with a
single entry door; removal and infill of two windows on the first story of the west façade;
replacement of a single entry door with a single window on the south façade; removal of existing
exterior stair on the west façade; addition of second story on north end of west façade to enclose
a new interior stair; and construction of a second story deck on the west façade to connect with
an existing second story deck above the garage. The application also requests a variation to
develop 1 foot 1.5 inches into the 5-foot rear setback to accommodate the new section of deck
above the garage.
STAFF COMMENTS:
The proposed minor development sufficiently satisfies the applicable Historic Preservation
Design Guidelines and the Commercial, Lodging, and Historic District Design Standards. The
projection of the rooftop deck past the rear wall plane of the garage and into the rear setback,
however, warrants additional consideration.
Figure 4: Roof Plan with Property and Setback Lines
11
Page 4 of 5
427 Rio Grande Place, Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5000 | aspen.gov
Major Development, Conceptual Review - Section 26.415.070(d)
Rooftop Deck Expansion
The proposed expansion of the second-story deck at the back of the property does not
satisfy Historic Preservation Design Guidelines 1.1 and 1.2. As evidenced by its penetration of
the rear setback, the deck will exceed the development standards of the district which limit
construction to at least 5 feet from the rear property line. Figure 5 provides additional context for
the existing rooftop deck behind 627 W. Main St., illustrating its atypical projection beyond the
rear façade of the garage. Development of this kind along the alley is also historically
unprecedented. According to the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, “alleys are an important
feature of the historic townsite and have traditionally been used for utilitarian functions.” Today,
an alley is “an appropriate location for cars, storage, service areas, and in some cases, secondary
residential units or small businesses.” The 1904 Sanborn Map of Block 25, City and Townsite of
Aspen (Figure 2) supports this assertion. Where only one, one-story detached dwelling and a
myriad of outbuildings abuts the alley, a second-story deck or similar feature is unlikely to have
existed. Instead of downplaying this atypical, ahistoric character, the proposed expansion of the
second-story beyond the façade of the garage and into the rear setback exacerbates and
emphasizes this divergence from guidelines.
While limiting the southern extent of the new deck to south façade of the garage would
suffice the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District
Design Standards and Guidelines (Historic District Standards and Guidelines) call for additional
considerations that warrant additional limitations on the expansion of the feature. The application
does not fully satisfy Historic District Guideline 1.4. At the front of the property, the proposed work
maintains the traditional transition from public to semi-public to private space. At the back, the
expansion of the rear deck projects private space into the rear setback that would otherwise serve
as a semi-public transition into the public alley.
The application similarly meets and does not meet Historic District Guideline 1.7.
Penetrating the rear setback at the second story may create visual interest of the alley façade,
but also increases the perceived scale of the building. Consequently, the proposed work is
dissimilar to the traditional pattern of massing along the alley and fails to fully satisfy Historic
District Guideline 3.9. The two-story mass of the existing addition already diverges from the
detached massing of traditional shed development along the alley. Expanding it emphasizes and
exacerbates this atypical alleyway massing.
The proposed rooftop railing does not meet Historic District Guideline 1.21. This guideline
calls for minimizing the visibility of rooftop railings, in part, by setting the railing back a distance
that equals or exceeds the height of the railing (3 feet in this instance). Instead, the application
proposes to erect a railing 2 feet forward of the garage façade.
Setback Variation - Section 26.415.110.C
The proposal to erect a deck that extends into the 5-foot rear setback 1 foot 2 inches meets
neither criteria required to grant a dimensional variation. The application provides no evidence
12
Page 5 of 5
427 Rio Grande Place, Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5000 | aspen.gov
that the expanded deck is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or
district. There is no known historic precedent for a 16-feet-6-inch-wide deck extending 2 feet past
the rear wall plane of the garage below it.
The proposed variation does not enhance the historic significance or architectural
character of the historic property, an adjoining historic property, or historic district, nor mitigate an
adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character of the historic property, an
adjoining historic property, or historic district.
REFERRAL COMMENTS:
Staff did not refer the application to other City departments for comments.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the Minor Development review with the following conditions:
1. The southern extent of the addition to the rear deck must be set back from the south
façade of the garage a distance equal to or greater than the height of the deck railing.
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution # __, Series of 2025
Exhibit A – Historic Preservation Design Guidelines – Staff Findings
Exhibit B – Commercial, Lodging, and Historic District Design Guidelines – Staff Findings
Exhibit C – Variation Criteria – Staff Findings
Exhibit D – Application
Figure 5: Street View of Alley, Aug. 2019. Google
13
HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2025
Page 1 of 3
RESOLUTION #__,
(SERIES OF 2025)
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
GRANTING MINOR DEVELOPMENT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 627
WEST MAIN STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT B, BLOCK 25, CITY AND
TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
PARCEL ID: 2735-124-48-010
WHEREAS, the applicant, Adam Stevenson, represented by Kim Raymond Architecture +
Interiors, has requested HPC approval for Minor Development and Variations for the property
located at 327 West Main Street, Lot B, Block 25, City and Townsite of 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 Minor Development Review, the HPC must review the application,
a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project’s
conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section
26.415.070.C of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve,
disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information
necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and
WHEREAS, for approval of Variations, the application shall meet the requirements of Aspen
Municipal Code Section 26.415.110, Benefits; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director determines that, as a designated historic
resource listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures, the proposed
development is exempt from the provisions of Aspen Municipal Code Chapter 26.410,
Residential Design Standards; and
WHEREAS, Community Development Department staff reviewed the application for
compliance with the applicable review standards and recommended approval of Minor
Development with conditions; and
WHEREAS, the HPC reviewed the project on February, 12 2024. The HPC considered the
application, the staff memo and public comments, and found the proposal consistent with the
review standards and granted approval with conditions by a vote of _ to _.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That HPC hereby approves Minor Development 327 W. Main St., Lot B, Block 25, City and
Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado as follows:
14
HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2025
Page 2 of 3
Section 1: Minor Development Review and Relocation.
HPC hereby approves the Minor Development as proposed with the following conditions:
1. The southern extent of the addition to the rear deck must be set back from the south
façade of the garage a distance equal to or greater than the height of the deck railing.
Section 2: Material Representations
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the
development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation
presented before the Community Development Department, the Historic Preservation
Commission, or the Aspen City Council are hereby incorporated in such plan development
approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by
other specific conditions or an authorized authority.
Section 3: Existing Litigation
This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of
any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended
as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
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: 627 West Main Street.
15
HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2025
Page 3 of 3
Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews and
approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City of
Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this approval.
The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; the
period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the
date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required under Section
26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the Colorado
Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter.
APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the
12th day of February 2025.
Approved as to Form: Approved as to Content:
__________________________________ ____________________________________
Luisa Berne, Assistant City Attorney Kara Thompson, HPC Chair
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk
16
Page 1 of 6
Exhibit A
Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Criteria
Staff Findings
26.415.070 - Development involving designated historic property or property within a
historic district.
No building, structure or landscape shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired,
relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or a property located within a
Historic District until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community
Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their
review. An application for a building permit cannot be submitted without a development order.
(C) Certificate of Appropriateness for a Minor Development
1. The review and decision on the issuance of a certificate of appropriateness for minor
development shall begin with a determination by the Community Development Director that
the proposed project constitutes a minor development. Minor development work includes:
a) Expansion or erection of a structure wherein the increase of the floor area of the
structure is two hundred and fifty (250) square feet or less or
b) Alterations to a building façade, windows, doors, roof planes or material, exterior wall
materials, dormer porch, exterior staircase, balcony or ornamental trim when three (3)
or fewer elements are affected and the work does not qualify for a certificate of no
negative effect or
c) Erection or installation of a combination or multiples of awning, canopies, mechanical
equipment, fencing, signs, accessory features and other attachments to designated
properties such that the cumulative impact does not allow for the issuance of a
certificate of no negative effect or
d) Alterations that are made to non-historic portions of a designated historic property that
do not qualify for a certificate of no negative effect or
e) The erection of street furniture, signs, public art and other visible improvements within
designated historic districts of a magnitude or in numbers such that the cumulative
impact does not allow for the issuance of a certificate of no negative effect. The
Community Development Director may determine that an application for work on a
designated historic property involving multiple categories of minor development may
result in the cumulative impact such that it is considered a major development. In such
cases, the applicant shall apply for a major development review in accordance with
Subsection 26.415.07(d).
17
Page 2 of 6
Relevant Historic Preservation Design Guidelines & Findings
The applicant requests a Certificate of Appropriateness for Minor Development at 627 W. Main
St. for the purposes of removing an exterior stairway, adding an interior stairway, expanding a
deck, and altering fenestration on the non-historic rear addition.
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/Not
Met
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
Met/Not
Met
Chapter 10: Building Additions Finding
10.3 Design a new addition such that one’s ability to interpret the historic
character of the primary building is maintained.
• A new addition must be compatible with the historic character of the primary
building.
• An addition must be subordinate, deferential, modest, and secondary in
comparison to the architectural character of the primary building.
• An addition that imitates the primary building’s historic style is not allowed.
For example, a new faux Victorian detailed addition is inappropriate on an
Aspen Victorian home.
• An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate.
• Proposals on corner lots require particular attention to creating compatibility.
Met
18
Page 3 of 6
10.4 The historic resource is to be the focus of the property, the entry point,
and the predominant structure as viewed from the street.
• The historic resource must be visually dominant on the site and must be
distinguishable against the addition.
• The total above grade floor area of an addition may be no more than 100%
of the above grade floor area of the original historic resource. All other
above grade development must be completely detached. HPC may
consider exceptions to this policy if two or more of the following are met:
o The proposed addition is all one story
o The footprint of the new addition is closely related to the footprint of
the historic resource and the proposed design is particularly sensitive
to the scale and proportions of the historic resource
o The project involves the demolition and replacement of an older
addition that is considered to have been particularly detrimental to
the historic resource
o The interior of the resource is fully utilized, containing the same
number of usable floors as existed historically
o The project is on a large lot, allowing the addition to have a significant
setback from the street
o There are no variance requests in the application other than those
related to historic conditions that aren’t being changed
o The project is proposed as part of a voluntary AspenModern
designation, or
o The property is affected by non-preservation related site specific
constraints such as trees that must be preserved, Environmentally
Sensitive Areas review, etc.
Met
10.6 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time.
• An addition shall be distinguishable from the historic building and still be
visually compatible with historic features.
• A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle
change in material, or a modern interpretation of a historic style are all
techniques that may be considered to help define a change from historic
construction to new construction.
• Do not reference historic styles that have no basis in Aspen.
• Consider these three aspects of an addition; form, materials, and
fenestration. An addition must relate strongly to the historic resource in at
least two of these elements. Departing from the historic resource in one of
these categories allows for creativity and a contemporary design response.
• Note that on a corner lot, departing from the form of the historic resource
may not be allowed.
• There is a spectrum of appropriate solutions to distinguishing new from old
portions of a development. Some resources of particularly high significance
or integrity may not be the right instance for a contrasting addition.
Met
19
Page 4 of 6
10.8 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main
building.
• An addition that is lower than, or similar to the height of the primary building,
is preferred.
Met/Not
Met
10.9 If the addition is taller than a historic building, set it back from significant
façades and use a “connector” to link it to the historic building.
• Only a one-story connector is allowed.
• Usable space, including decks, is not allowed on top of connectors unless
the connector has limited visibility and the deck is shielded with a solid
parapet wall.
• In all cases, the connector must attach to the historic resource underneath
the eave.
• The connector shall be a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition and
the primary building.
• Minimize the width of the connector. Ideally, it is no more than a passage
between the historic resource and addition. The connector must reveal the
original building corners. The connector may not be as wide as the historic
resource.
• Any street-facing doors installed in the connector must be minimized in
height and width and accessed by a secondary pathway. See guideline 4.1
for further information.
Met
10.10 Place an addition at the rear of a primary building or set it back
substantially from the front to minimize the visual impact on the historic
structure and to allow the original proportions and character to remain
prominent.
• Locating an addition at the front of a primary building is inappropriate.
• Additions to the side of a primary building are handled on a case-by-case
basis and are approved based on site specific constraints that restrict rear
additions.
• Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement
which will not alter the exterior mass of a building.
Met
10.11 Roof forms shall be compatible with the historic building.
• A simple roof form that does not compete with the historic building is
appropriate.
• On Aspen Victorian properties, a flat roof may only be used on an addition
to a gable roofed structure if the addition is entirely one story in height, or if
the flat roofed areas are limited, but the addition is primarily a pitched roof.
Met
10.12 Design an addition to a historic structure that does not destroy or
obscure historically important architectural features.
• Loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices, and eavelines must be
avoided.
Met
20
Page 5 of 6
Staff Findings:
Site Planning and Landscape
The proposed minor development of 627 W. Main St. both meets and does not meet
Guidelines 1.1 and 1.2. As it only affects the non-historic rear addition, the proposal respects the
historic development pattern and context of the block, neighborhood and district as observed from
Main St. It maintains the historic building’s footprint and location, thereby reinforcing the traditional
pattern of the neighborhood. The existing building already does not allow for porosity on the site.
Its setback-to-setback development leaves no useful open space visible from the street.
Removing the exterior stairway, building a second-story addition for a new internal stairway,
altering fenestration, and building a new deck on the west façade of the non-historic rear addition
will not exacerbate this condition.
The projection of the rooftop deck beyond the rear wall plane of the garage and into the
rear setback, however, is uncharacteristic for the block, neighborhood and district. According to
the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, “alleys are an important feature of the historic
townsite and have traditionally been used for utilitarian functions.” Today, an alley is “an
appropriate location for cars, storage, service areas, and in some cases, secondary residential
units or small businesses.” Rather than reinforce the traditional pattern of the neighborhood and
preserve the character found in historic alleys, the deck exceeds the district’s rear setback
standard, and limits visible open space to interject an ahistoric private use into semi-public space.
The proposed expansion of this deck emphasizes and exacerbates the property’s atypical
development along the alley. It stands out from the ancillary buildings called for in the guidelines.
Building Additions
The proposed minor development of 627 W. Main St. maintains one’s ability to interpret
the historic character of the primary building is maintained thereby meeting Guideline 10.3. The
new addition is compatible with, and subordinate, deferential, modest, and secondary in
comparison to the architectural character of the primary building. It maintains a simple form and
style without imitating those of the primary building. The new addition also does not cover or
obscure historically significant features.
Insofar as the historic resource remains the focus of the property, the entry point, and the
predominant structure as viewed from the street, the project also satisfies Guideline 10.4. The
historic resource is visually dominant on the site, distinguishable against the addition, and has
more above-grade floor area than the whole addition (existing and new).
The new addition also appears to be a product of its own time, satisfying Guideline 10.6.
Of the three aspects of architecture, the proposed development strongly relates to the historic
resource in both form and fenestration while departing from the historic resource in material.
The proposed shed-roofed second story addition/wall dormer is not as tall as the historic
roof ridge. It is, nevertheless, taller than the nearby historic dormer and adds mass to a rear
addition that rises above the west slope of the historic front gabble roof. The new addition is less
compatible in size and scale with the main building than the existing addition, thereby meeting
and not meeting Guideline 10.8.
The existing addition is set back from significant facades and links to the historic building
via a “connector” pursuant to Guideline 10.9. The proposed work maintains, if not reinforces,
these conditions. The new addition is also set back substantially from the front to minimize its
21
Page 6 of 6
visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character to remain
prominent, thereby meeting Guideline 10.10.
The shed roof form of the new addition is compatible with the historic building and satisfies
Guideline 10.11. It maintains a similar shape and slope as the historic gable roof, without imitating
the nearby historic gable-roofed dormer. It is simpler and more contemporary without competing
with the historic building.
Insofar as the new addition does not obscure, let alone destroy, important architectural
features, the proposal also meets Guideline 10.12.
Staff Recommendation:
Approval with the following conditions:
1. The southern extent of the addition to the rear deck must be in line with, or set back from,
the south façade of the garage.
22
Page 1 of 6
Exhibit B
Commercial, Lodging, and Historic District Design Standards and Guidelines Criteria
Staff Findings
26.415.070 - Development involving designated historic property or property within a
historic district.
No building, structure or landscape shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired,
relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or a property located within a
Historic District until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community
Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their
review. An application for a building permit cannot be submitted without a development order.
(C) Certificate of Appropriateness for a Minor Development
1. The review and decision on the issuance of a certificate of appropriateness for minor
development shall begin with a determination by the Community Development Director
that the proposed project constitutes a minor development. Minor development work
includes:
a) Expansion or erection of a structure wherein the increase of the floor area of the
structure is two hundred and fifty (250) square feet or less or
b) Alterations to a building façade, windows, doors, roof planes or material, exterior wall
materials, dormer porch, exterior staircase, balcony or ornamental trim when three (3)
or fewer elements are affected and the work does not qualify for a certificate of no
negative effect or
c) Erection or installation of a combination or multiples of awning, canopies, mechanical
equipment, fencing, signs, accessory features and other attachments to designated
properties such that the cumulative impact does not allow for the issuance of a
certificate of no negative effect or
d) Alterations that are made to non-historic portions of a designated historic property that
do not qualify for a certificate of no negative effect or
e) The erection of street furniture, signs, public art and other visible improvements within
designated historic districts of a magnitude or in numbers such that the cumulative
impact does not allow for the issuance of a certificate of no negative effect. The
Community Development Director may determine that an application for work on a
designated historic property involving multiple categories of minor development may
result in the cumulative impact such that it is considered a major development. In such
cases, the applicant shall apply for a major development review in accordance with
Subsection 26.415.07(d).
23
Page 2 of 6
Relevant Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Standards & Guidelines
with Findings
The applicant requests a Certificate of Appropriateness for Minor Development at 627 W. Main
St. to remove an exterior stairway, add an interior stairway, expand a deck, and alter
fenestration on the non-historic rear addition.
Chapter 1: General Finding
1.1 All projects shall provide a context study.
• The study should include the relationship to adjacent structures and streets
through photographs, streetscape elevations, historic maps, etc.
Not Met
1.2 All projects shall respond to the traditional street grid.
• A building shall be oriented parallel to the street unless uncharacteristic of
the area. Refer to specific chapters for more information.
• Buildings on corners shall be parallel to both streets.
Met
1.4 Where there is open space on a site, reinforce the traditional transition
from public space to semi-public space to private space.
• This may be achieved through a fence, a defined walkway, a front porch
element, covered walkway, or landscape.
Met/Not
Met
1.5 Maintain alignment of building facades where appropriate.
• Consider the entire block of a neighborhood to determine appropriate
building placement. Carefully examine and respond to the variety of building
alignments that are present.
• Consider all four corners of an intersection and architectural context to
determine appropriate placement for buildings located on corners.
• Consider the appropriate location of street level Pedestrian Amenity when
siting a new building.
Met/Not
Met
1.7 Develop alley facades to create visual interest.
• Use varied building setbacks and/or changes in material to reduce perceived
scale.
Met/Not
Met
1.16 Entries that are significantly taller or shorter than those seen
historically or that conflict with the established scale are highly
discouraged.
• Transom windows above an entry are a traditional element that may be
appropriate in neighborhoods with 19th century commercial buildings.
• Entries should reflect the established range of sizes within the context of
the block. Analyze surrounding buildings to determine appropriate height
for entry doors.
Met
24
Page 3 of 6
1.18 The roofscape should be designed with the same attention as the
elevations of the building.
• Consolidate mechanical equipment, including solar panels, and screen
from view.
• Locate mechanical equipment toward the alley, or rear of a building if there
is no alley access.
• Use varied roof forms or parapet heights to break up the roof plane mass
and add visual interest.
Met
1.21 Minimize visibility of rooftops railings.
• Mostly transparent railings are preferred.
• Integrating the rooftop railing into the architecture as a parapet or other
feature, may be appropriate considering the neighborhood context and
proposed building style.
• Set back the railing a distance that equals or exceeds the height of the railing.
Not Met
1.22 Complete and accurate identification of materials is required.
• Provide drawings that identify the palette of materials, specifications for the
materials, and location on the proposed building as part of the application.
• Physical material samples shall be presented to the review body. An onsite
mock-up prior to installation may be required.
Met
1.23 Building materials shall have these features:
• Convey the quality and range of materials found in the current block context
or seen historically in the Character Area.
• Convey pedestrian scale.
• Enhance visual interest through texture, application, and/or dimension.
• Be non-reflective. Shiny or glossy materials are not appropriate as a
primary material.
• Have proven durability and weathering characteristics within Aspen’s
climate.
• A material with an integral color shall be a neutral color. Some variation is
allowed for secondary materials.
Met
1.33 All remodel projects shall meet Standards 1.22 and 1.23. Met
1.35 Design alterations to relate to the existing building style and form that
may remain. Met
25
Page 4 of 6
Chapter 3: Main Street Historic District Findings
3.2 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 should relate strongly to the historic district in at least
two of these elements. Departing from one of these categories allows for
creativity and a contemporary design response.
o When choosing to relate to building form, use forms that are similar to
the historic district.
o When choosing to relate to materials, use materials that appear similar
in scale and finish to those used historically in the district and use
building materials that contribute to a traditional sense of human scale.
o When choosing to relate to fenestration, use windows and doors that
are similar in size and shape to those in the historic district.
Met
3.3 The imitation of older historic styles blurs the distinction between old
and new buildings and is discouraged.
• Overall, details should be modest in character.
Met
3.5 Roof forms should be in character with surrounding historic buildings.
• Roof forms should be simple.
• If applicable, gable ends should be oriented toward the street.
• Carefully consider roof eaves, orientation of ridgelines, roof pitch, dormers,
and other features as a way to either create compatibility or differentiate a
new building or addition.
Met
3.8 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main
building.
• An addition that is lower, or similar in height to the existing building, is
preferred.
Met
3.9 When planning an addition to a building in a historic district, preserve
historic alignments on the street.
• Some roof lines and porch eaves on historic buildings may align at
approximately the same height.
• An addition should not be placed in a location where these relationships
would be altered or obscured.
• Detach building mass along alleyways, similar to the pattern of traditional
shed development.
Met/Not
Met
3.10 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those of
the Victorian-era residences seen traditionally on Main Street.
• These include windows, doors, and porches.
• Overall, details should be modest in character.
Met
26
Page 5 of 6
3.11 Architectural details should reinforce the historic context of the block.
• Consider how detailing can be used to create relationships between new
and old buildings while still allowing for current architectural expression.
• Consider scale, location, and purpose of historic detailing to inform new
designs.
• It is inappropriate to imitate historic details.
Met
3.12 Primary materials should be wood or brick.
• Alternate primary materials may be considered on a case-by-case basis
depending on the historic context of the block.
Met
3.13 Secondary materials should relate to the historic context.
• More variety is acceptable for secondary material if a relationship to the
historic palette can be demonstrated.
• Stone should be limited to the foundation.
Met
3.14 Use roofing materials that are similar in appearance to those seen
historically. Met
Staff Findings:
General
By omitting a context study, the application fails Standard 1.1. The application claims
“the design of these small exterior changes to the existing building have be [sic] done in
consideration of the character of the neighborhood and the existing home,” but provides no
evidence of such. The degree to which “there will be no adverse impacts on the neighborhood
or the adjacent neighbors,” as stated in the application, requires additional research and outside
references as the application fails to show the subject property’s relationship to adjacent
structures and streets through photographs, streetscape elevations, historic maps, etc.
The application proposes no change to the historic resource. It maintains its parallel
orientation to, and setback from, Main Street, preserving the traditional street grid and meeting
Standard 1.2. In this way, the front of the property also reinforces the traditional transition from
public to semi-public to private space, and the historic alignment of, building façades. The back
of property, however, does not. The rear deck projects private space beyond the back wall plane
of the garage and into the rear setback that would otherwise serve as a semi-public transition
into the public alley. The deck disrupts any alignment of the south façade with its neighbor and
stands out among all others on the block. Insofar as it proposes to expand this deck, the
application both meets and does not meet Guidelines 1.4 and 1.5.
The application similarly meets and does not meet Guideline 1.7. Penetrating the rear
setback at the second story may create visual interest of the alley façade, but only increases the
perceived scale of the building.
The proposed fenestration meets Guideline 1.16. The doors are similar in size to those
seen historically and do not conflict with the established scale within the context of the block.
27
Page 6 of 6
Insofar as the new shed-roofed addition/wall dormer uses a varied roof form to break up
the roof plane mass and adds visual interest, the application meets Guideline 1.18.
The proposed rooftop railing does not meet Guideline 1.21. This guideline calls for
minimizing the visibility of rooftop railings, in part, by setting the railing back a distance that
equals or exceeds the height of the railing (3 feet in this instance). Instead, the application
proposes to erect a railing 2 feet forward of the garage’s south wall plane.
The application meets Standards 1.22, 1.23, and 1.33 by completely and accurately
identifying the palette of materials proposed for the project that convey the quality and range of
materials found in the current block context or seen historically in the Main Street Historic District.
They appear to convey pedestrian scale, enhance visual interest through texture, are non-
reflective, have proven durability and weathering characteristics, and have a neutral color when
integral to the material.
The proposed alterations are simple in style and form. In this way, they relate to the
historic building and satisfy Guideline 1.35.
Main Street Historic District
The new addition at 627 W. Main St. is recognized as a product of its time. In accordance with
Guidelines 3.2 and 3.3, it relates strongly to the historic district in form, materials, and
fenestration, but, by keeping its details modest in character, does not imitate older historic styles.
Its simple orthogonal forms and shed roof are similar to those used in the Main Street Historic
District. Its horizontal shiplap wood siding and standing-seam metal roof appear similar in scale
and finish to those used historically in the district and contribute to a traditional sense of human
scale. The windows and doors are also similar in size and shape to those in the historic district.
Similarly, the shed roof of the new addition meets Guideline 3.5. It is simple, in character
with surrounding historic buildings, yet differentiated from the gable roof of the historic dormer.
Albeit unnecessary, its divergent material also distinguishes this new roof from both the historic
resource and the existing non-historic addition. The standing-seam metal roof is, nevertheless,
similar enough in appearance to those seen historically to meet Guideline 3.14.
The new addition also meets Guidelines 3.8 and 3.10. It is not only compatible in size
and scale with the historic building, but also uses building components that are similar in size
and shape to those of the Victorian-era residences seen traditionally on Main Street. Its details
are modest in character, thereby reinforcing the historic context of the block in satisfaction of
Guideline 3.11.
The proposed work partially meets Guideline 3.9. Although, it does not alter or obscure
the historic building and preserves historic alignments at the front of the property, the proposed
work is dissimilar to the traditional pattern of massing at the back of the property. The two-story
mass of the existing addition already diverges from the detached massing of traditional shed
development along the alley. The proposed expansion of the second-story rear deck
emphasizes and exacerbates the property’s atypical alleyway massing.
Staff Recommendation:
Approval with the following conditions:
1. The southern extent of the addition to the rear deck must be set back from the south façade
of the garage a distance equal to or greater than the height of the deck railing.
28
Page 1 of 2
Exhibit C
Variations Criteria - Staff Findings
26.415.110 - Benefits:
(c) Variations. Dimensional variations are allowed for projects involving designated properties to
create development that is more consistent with the character of the historic property or district
than what would be required by the underlying zoning's dimensional standards.
(1) The HPC may grant variations of the Land Use Code for designated properties to allow:
a. Development in the side, rear and front setbacks;
b. Development that does not meet the minimum distance requirements between
buildings;
c. Up to five percent (5%) additional site coverage;
d. Less public amenity than required for the on-site relocation of commercial historic
properties.
(2) In granting a variation, the HPC must make a finding that such a variation:
a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district; and/or
Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural
character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic
district.
29
Page 2 of 2
Staff Finding:
The proposal to erect a deck that extends into the 5-foot rear setback 1 foot 2 inches meets
neither criteria required to grant a dimensional variation. The application provides no evidence
that the expanded deck is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or
district. There is no known historic precedent for a 16-feet-6-inch-wide deck extending 1 foot 9
inches past the rear wall plane of the garage below it.
The proposed variation does not enhance the historic significance or architectural
character of the historic property, an adjoining historic property, or historic district, nor does it
mitigate an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character of the historic
property, an adjoining historic property, or historic district.
Staff Recommendation:
Denial of the request for setback variations.
Variation Review Criteria for 325 W. Hopkins Ave.
The applicant requests a rear setback variation of 1 foot 2 inches to expand a not historic rear
deck.
In granting a variation, the HPC must make a finding that such a variation
either: Finding
Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district; or Not Met
Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural
character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property, or
historic district.
Not Met
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
PRE-APPLICATION SUMMARY
PRE-23-093
DATE: August 31, 2023
PLANNER: Kirsten Armstrong, Principal Planner, Historic Preservation
REPRESENTATIVE: Kim Raymond, kim@krai.us
PROJECT LOCATION: 627 W. Main Street
REQUEST: Historic Preservation – Minor Development Review, Non-Conformities, Special Review
DESCRIPTION: The residence at 627 W. Main Street is a ca. 1892, AspenVictorian Landmark located on a
3,000 square foot lot in the Mixed-Use zone district. The building was designated as part of the Main Street
Historic District in 1976, per Ordinance #60, Series of 1976, and it was individually designated three years
later, per Ordinance #57, Series of 1979. The building consists of the ca. 1892, rectangular plan residence
with a front gable roof, a front gable entry porch, and non-historic additions.
A one-story rear addition was constructed on the south elevation between 1980 and 1991 based on aerial
imagery. Review of building permits indicate that permits for this addition were approved in 1983. The property
underwent Major Development review approval with the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) in 2008, for
an application proposing to modify the existing addition, per HPC Resolution #16, Series of 2008. At this time
a 500 square foot FAR bonus was awarded for the project. The project was not fully constructed. In 2016, the
property underwent substantial amendment to the 2008 Major Development approval, resulting in approval
per HPC Resolution #23, Series of 2016.
Two Transferrable Development Rights (TDRs) have been severed from the property per Ordinance #02,
Series of 2008 and Ordinance #12, Series of 2009.
The applicant is proposing the following modifications to the property, which qualify for Historic Preservation
Commission (HPC) Minor Development Review: removal of a double door on the west elevation of the non-
historic addition and replacement with a single entry door; removal and infill of windows on the west elevation
of the non-historic west elevation; removal of existing non-historic exterior stair on the west elevation; addition
of second story on north end of west elevation at the non-historic addition to enclose a new interior stair; and
addition of a second story deck on the west elevation of the non-historic addition to connect with an existing
second story deck on the south elevation.
Given the location of the single-family home in the Mixed-Use zone district, discussion of non-conformities is
warranted. In this zone district, as of the adoption of City Council Ordinance #13, Series of 2022, existing
single-family homes are permitted to continue but no new single-family homes are allowed to be constructed.
There is no floor area allowance provided in the floor area table in this section of the land use code for single
family homes. For existing single-family homes in this zone district, the existing floor area is the allowable floor
area. Reconfiguration of floor area in this instance is subject to Section 26.312.010 (Non-Conformities).
Please note, that Section 26.312.030.C states that “a nonconforming structure shall not be extended by an
enlargement or expansion that increases the nonconformity. A nonconforming structure may be extended or
altered in a manner that does not change or that decreases the nonconformity.”
The proposed scope of work must seek HPC approval for Minor Development Review, and the applicant must
demonstrate compliance with all applicable criteria in the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines and all
applicable Land Use Code Sections. Rearrangement of non-conforming space as described must also be
considered against the review criteria described in Sec. 26.430.040 – Review standards for special review.
Furthermore, the FAR bonus awarded in 2008 is project specific, “At such time that more than 40% of an
addition to a historic resource that was constructed as part of a project which previously received a floor area
39
bonus is demolished, the bonus may be retained only if the proposed redevelopment is found to meet the
requirements” of Section 26.415.110.f.
Minor Development is a one-step board review process. Additionally, as a historically designated landmark
property the applicant may request for historic preservation benefits (Section 26.415.110), which may or may
not be needed for the project as proposed. The HPC may approve, disapprove, or approve the project with
conditions.
RELEVANT LAND USE CODE SECTIONS:
Section Number Section Title
26.304 Common Development Review Procedures
26.312.030 Non-Conformities
26.415.070.C Historic Preservation – Minor Development Review
26.415.110 Historic Preservation – Benefits
26.430.040 Review Standards for Special Review
26.575.020 Calculations and Measurements
26.710.180 Mixed-Use (MU) Zone District
For your convenience – links to the Land Use Application and Land Use Code are below:
Land Use Application Land Use Code Historic Preservation Design Guidelines
Review by: Staff for completeness and recommendation,
HPC for determinations
Public Hearing: Yes, at Minor Review
Referrals: Staff may seek referral comments from the Building Department,
Zoning, Engineering and Parks regarding any relevant code
requirements or considerations. There will be no Development
Review Committee meeting or referral fees.
Planning Fees: $1,300 for 4 billable hours of staff time. (Additional/ lesser hours will
be billed/ refunded at a rate of $325 per hour.)
Referral Agencies Fee: $0.
Total Deposit: $1,300.
APPLICATION CHECKLIST:
Below is a list of submittal requirements for this Minor Development Review. 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 (attached).
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.
40
Site improvement survey (no more than 1 year old) showing all existing conditions including
topography and vegetation, certified by a registered land surveyor, licensed in the state of
Colorado.
A written description of the proposal (scope of work) and written explanation of how the proposed
development complies with the review standards and design guidelines relevant to the
application.
A proposed site plan showing setbacks and property boundaries.
Scaled drawings of existing and proposed structure(s) or addition(s) depicting their form,
including their height, massing, scale, proportions and roof plan; and the primary features of all
elevations. Existing and proposed elevations should clearly show areas of change.
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.
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.
41
42
711 E. Valley Rd, Unit 201B
Basalt, CO 81621
Phone: 970-366-4111 Fax: 970-672-1576
www.titlecorockies.com
OWNERSHIP & ENCUMBRANCE REPORT
& INVOICE
Prepared
for:
Adam Stevenson Date:October 4, 2023
Order:7002450-OE
Ref:
PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION AND OWNERSHIP
Legal Description:LOT B, BLOCK 25, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN
Property Address:627 West Main Street, Aspen, CO 81611 County:Pitkin, Colorado
Schedule/Parcel #:273512448010 / R008776
Owner’s Name(s):Adam Stevenson
TITLE ABSTRACT
Warranty Deed recorded March 11, 2019 as Reception No. 654488.
Deed of Trust from Adam Stevenson to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County for the use of Bank of Colorado, to
secure $2,500,000.00, dated October 13, 2020, and recorded October 19, 2020 at Reception No. 669591.
Nothing Further of Record
Note: This report covers Pitkin County, Colorado Real Estate Records
Through September 22, 2023.
CHARGES FOR THIS REPORT AND DOCUMENTS ATTACHED
Description of Charge Amount Qty Total
O&E Report $125.00 1 $125.00
Please return one copy of this report with your remittance
payable to Title Company of the Rockies Total Due:$125.00
Disclaimer: This report reflects the results of a search of the c ounty records posted to the above described real estate only, and
does not necessarily reflect involuntary liens or other matters which might be disclosed by a search on the individual owner ’s or
other names shown hereinabove. The Title Company of the Rockies makes no warranty regarding the accuracy of the information
herein provided, and further, shall not be liable for any loss incurred by reason of the information reported in this report.
THE DOCUMENTS INCLUDED WITH THIS REPORT ARE THE BEST COPIES AVAILABLE
Title Company of the Rockies maintains branch operations in Eagle, Garfield, Grand, Lake, Moffat (dba Northwest Title Company), Pitkin, Routt, and Summit Counties
along with Front Range coverage. Closing services are available for all Mountain Communities, throughout the State of Colorado, and on a nationwide basis. Experience
the Experience, www.titlecorockies.com
43
711 E. Valley Rd, Unit 201B
Basalt, CO 81621
Phone: (719) 486-2688 Fax:
www.titlecorockies.com
Order:7002981-OE
Ref:
PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION AND OWNERSHIP
Legal Description:LOT B, BLOCK 25, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN
Property Address:627 West Main Street, Aspen, CO 81611 County:Pitkin, Colorado
Schedule/Parcel #:273512448010 / R008776
Owner’s Name(s):Adam Stevenson
TITLE ABSTRACT
Warranty Deed recorded March 11, 2019 as Reception No. 654488.
Deed of Trust from Adam Stevenson to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County for the use of Bank of Colorado, to
secure $2,500,000.00, dated October 13, 2020, and recorded October 19, 2020 as Reception No. 669591.
Nothing Further of Record
Note: This report covers Pitkin County, Colorado Real Estate Records
Through August 16, 2024.
Disclaimer: This report reflects the results of a search of the c ounty records posted to the above described real estate only, and
does not necessarily reflect involuntary liens or other matters which might be disclosed by a search on the individual owner ’s or
other names shown hereinabove. The Title Company of the Rockies makes no warranty regarding the accuracy of the information
herein provided, and further, shall not be liable for any loss incurred by reason of the information reported in this report.
THE DOCUMENTS INCLUDED WITH THIS REPORT ARE THE BEST COPIES AVAILABLE
Title Company of the Rockies maintains branch operations in Eagle, Garfield, Grand, Lake, Moffat (dba Northwest Title Company), Pitkin, Routt, and Summit Counties
along with Front Range coverage. Closing services are available for all Mountain Communities, throughout the State of Colorado, and on a nationwide basis. Experience
the Experience, www.titlecorockies.com
44
45
46
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: 273512448010 on 09/25/2023
Instructions:
Disclaimer:
http://www.pitkinmapsandmore.com
47
501 MAIN ASPEN LLC
GRAND RAPIDS, MI 49503
80 OTTAWA NW ALDRICH PL #200
501 WEST MAIN LLC
ASPEN, CO 816111818
532 E HOPKINS AVE
604 WEST LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
604 W MAIN ST
611 WEST MAIN STREET LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
625 E MAIN ST UNIT 102B #401
616 W MAIN ST LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
612 W MAIN ST
616 WEST MAIN CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
COMMON AREA
616 W MAIN ST
616.5 W MAIN ST LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
612 W MAIN ST
617 MAIN ST PROF BLDG CONDO
ASPEN, CO 81611
617 W MAIN ST
617 WEST MAIN BRUIN LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
617 W MAIN ST #E
635 BLEEKER STREET LLC
NEW YORK, NY 10128
1070 PARK AVE PH-W
700 WEST HOPKINS CONDO
ASPEN, CO 81611
700 W HOPKINS AVE
711 W BLEEKER LLC
ASPEN , CO 81611
715 W MAIN ST
715 WEST MAIN CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
COMMON AREA
715 W MAIN ST
7TH & MAIN AFFORDABLE HOUSING
ASPEN, CO 81611
COMMON AREA
719 W MAIN ST
ALL INN LLC
NEW YORK, NY 10007
24 WARREN ST
ALPINE BANK
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601
2200 GRAND AVE
AMAYA JOSE ANTONIO & BLANCA E ARGUETA
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W HOPKINS AVE #103
ANGELOV DIMTAR S & DANIEL D
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W HOPKINS AVE #209
ARONSTEIN SCOTT & LINDSAY
HOUSTON, TX 77019
2511 REBA DR
ASPEN HEIGHTS LLC
SUGAR LAND, TX 77479
4771 SWEETWATER BLVD #351
ASPEN MAIN ST LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
715 W MAIN ST #201
ASPEN MAIN STREET II LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
715 W MAIN ST #201
ASPEN SQUARE CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
617 E COOPER
ASPEN SQUARE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION INC
ASPEN, CO 81611
617 E COOPER AVE
BARBER EDGAR F
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 9678
BLACK BENJAMIN F & ALICE M
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W HOPKINS AVE #208
BLANCHARD NATALIE M
ASPEN, CO 81611
720 W HOPKINS #B
BLEEKER STREET LLC
MIAMI BEACH, FL 33139
523 MICHIGAN AVE
BODURTHA SUSAN M
ASPEN, CO 81611
719 W MAIN ST #206
BRAISTED DAVID
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 11442
48
BRINKMEYER THOMAS K
ASPEN, CO 81611
719 W MAIN ST #200
BRYAN SHEILAH
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 976
BULICZ CHARLES JOHN
ASPEN, CO 81611
719 W MAIN 102
CARROLL MEREDITH & ARTHUR
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W HOPKINS AVE #210
CHI LINDA
ASPEN, CO 81611
719 W MAIN ST #101
CHRISTIANA ASPEN D101 LLC
BOCA RATON, FL 33496
3756 COVENTRY LN
CITY OF ASPEN
ASPEN, CO 81611
427 RIO GRANDE PL
CLEANER EXPRESS
ASPEN, CO 81611
435 E MAIN ST
CORD AMY
ASPEN, CO 81611
719 W MAIN ST #100
COYOTE PEAK LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
706 W MAIN ST
CUMMINS RICHARD
ASPEN, CO 81611
617 W MAIN ST #B
DAMORE MATTHEW
ASPEN, CO 81611
634 W MAIN ST #3
DAUCH KARIN
NEW YORK, NY 10003
80 4TH AVE #7A
DEANE LANDON
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 508
DENBY SAMUEL ROBERT
ASPEN, CO 816111617
501 W MAIN ST #A101
ELSENBROOK EVAN
HOUSTON, TX 77024
3 PINE CRESCENT CT
EYXEFC2 LLC
ARVADA, CO 80002
7310 W 52ND AVE #A129
FIELDS CHARLES DAVID
ASPEN, CO 81611
634 W MAIN ST #5
FRANSEN ERIN M & GREGORY H
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W HOPKINS UNIT 206
FRIAS PROPERTIES OF ASPEN
ASPEN, CO 81611
730 E DURANT
GANT CONDO ASSC
ASPEN, CO 816112142
610 S WESTEND ST
GANT CONDO ASSOC INC
ASPEN, CO 816112142
610 S WESTEND ST
GANT CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION INC
ASPEN, CO 81611
610 S WEST END ST
GARMISCH LODGING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
GARSKE GINGER
ASPEN, CO 81611
736 W HOPKINS AVE
GARSKE LAURA
ASPEN, CO 81611
134 S 7TH ST
GEORGE ALEXANDRA
ASPEN, CO 81611
312 AABC #D
GOLDEN ALEXANDRA SEP PROP TRUST
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST PH B
GOLDSTEIN MARC
SAINT LOUIS, MO 63130
7902 TEASDALE AVE
GOLDSTONE JONNA A
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W HOPKINS AVE # 203
49
GRUETER PAUL ERICH
ASPEN, CO 81611
719 W MAIN ST #103
HAYMAX HOTELS LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
HERNANDEZ ROBERTO PABLO REV TRUST
MIAMI, FL 33129
1901 BRICKELL AVE #B913
HESSIAN ASPEN LLC
WINTER PARK, FL 327894881
1470 GENE ST #B
HOMESTAKE PARCEL LLC
PALO ALTO, CA 94301
855 EL CAMINO REAL #13A BOX #249
HOPKINS & FOURTH LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
625 E MAIN ST UNIT 102B #401
HOPKINS 616 LLC
ROSS, CA 94957
PO BOX 858
HOPKINS VP LP
HOUSTON, TX 77019
1210 W CLAY #10
HORNE CHRISTOPHER & BRANDI
AUSTIN, TX 78746
5214 BUCKMAN MTN RD
HY-MOUNTAIN TRANSPORT INC
ASPEN, CO 81611
214 B AABC
JAS CAPITAL LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
617 W MAIN ST #E
JEMAR PARTNERS LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
701 W MAIN ST
JEROME OFFICE ASPEN CO LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
715 W MAIN ST #201
JEROME OFFICE ASPEN COMPANY LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
715 W MAIN ST #301
JULES ASPEN LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
625 E HYMAN AVE #201
KATZMAN LORI ANN
CHARLEVOIX, MI 49720
301 MERCER BLVD
KEERY RICHARD
ASPEN, CO 81611
719 W MAIN ST #203
KENDRICK SCOTT
ASPEN, CO 81611
700 W HOPKINS AVE #5
KENNINGTON BRAD
ASPEN, CO 81611
736 W HOPKINS AVE
KNIGHT GLENDA C
SNOWMASS, CO 81654
PO BOX 328
KRAHE SHARON
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 8615
KURKULIS PATSY & PAUL R
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W HOPKINS AVE #201
LAMPING RICHARD
ASPEN, CO 81611
126 S SEVENTH ST
LARY LANCE R
ASPEN, CO 81611
719 W MAIN ST #301
LENIO IRREV TRUST
ROME, NY 13440
737 W BLOOMFIELD ST
LINDAUER REBECCA F
AUSTIN, TX 78703
1115 ELM ST
LITTLE AJAX CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W HOPKINS AVE
LITTLE VICTORIAN CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
PO BOX 3149
LONE EAGLE TRUST
ASPEN, CO 81611
634 W MAIN ST #1
LORD KAREN R FAMILY 2020 DYNASTY TRUST
MIAMI BEACH, FL 33140
2301 N MERIDIAN AVE
50
LUU INVESTMENTS LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
435 E MAIN ST
LYLE ALEXANDER T
ASPEN, CO 81611
719 W MAIN ST #204
MADSEN MARTHA W REV TRUST
ASPEN, CO 81611
608 W HOPKINS AVE #9
MARSHALL ALISON & JOSHUA
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W HOPKINS AVE #212
MARSHALL ELLEN M & THOMAS M REV TRUST
ASPEN, CO 81611
300 RIVERSIDE AVE
MARY B LOT 1 LLC
PALO ALTO, CA 94301
855 EL CAMINO REAL STE 13A BOX #249
MARY B LOT 2 LLC
PALO ALTO, CA 94301
855 EL CAMINO REAL STE 13A BOX #249
MCCLURE MARY
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W HOPKINS AVE #207
MCGRATH TIMOTHY M
ASPEN, CO 81611
740 W HOPKINS AVE #C-1
MCGUIRE JENNIFER ERIN
ASPEN, CO 81611
501 E DEAN ST
MENENDEZ LUIS A REV TRUST
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 8036
MENENDEZ NASRIN N REV TRUST
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 8036
MEYER MARY ANNE
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 11238
MEYER OLVIN
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 11238
MOSIER AMY F
ASPEN, CO 81611
634 W MAIN ST #2
NALEZNY C GERARD & PENNIE
FORT COLLINS, CO 80526
4251 MORNING GLORY RD
NECHADEIM REALTY LLC
NEW YORK, NY 10019
680 FIFTH AVE 7TH FL
NELSON JOHN AUSTIN & TARA
ASPEN, CO 81611
732 W HOPKINS ST #A3
NELSON KATY
ASPEN, CO 81611
719 W MAIN ST #205
NEMIROW JORDAN
ASPEN, CO 81611
612 W MAIN ST
OBX TO ASPEN LLC
FORT COLLINS, CO 80526
4251 MORNING GLORY RD
ONEIL BRIAN & SUZANNE
TAVERNIER, FL 33070
PO BOX 199
PEARSON MARK M & LEES M
ASPEN, CO 81611
702 W MAIN ST
PERRY IAN MICHAEL
ASPEN, CO 81611
426 E HYMAN AVE
PETERS DAWN
ASPEN, CO 81611
126 S SEVENTH ST
PITKIN COUNTY
ASPEN, CO 81611
530 E MAIN ST #301
PLATEK DIANE
ASPEN, CO 81611
138 S SEVENTH ST #B4
POLICARO FRANCO & PAOLA
SAN DIEGO, CA 92109
765 VAN NUYS ST
POTTS LEAH S
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W HOPKINS AVE #102
PRINCE ANNMARIE
ASPEN, CO 81611
719 W MAIN ST #301
51
PROMISE LAND LLC
ENGLEWOOD, CO 80111
6500 S QUEBEC ST #300
QUADRANT MANAGEMENT INC
NEW YORK, NY 100225730
510 MADISON AVE FL #1802
RD OLSON INVESTMENTS II LLC
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
520 NEWPORT CENTER DR #600
REID SUZANNAH V K
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 10443
RILEY BENJAMIN NEIL
ASPEN, CO 81611
634 W MAIN ST #6
RODRIGUEZ JOANN
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #00A
SACKS CAROL
SAINT LOUIS, MO 63130
7902 TEASDALE AVE
SANDERS BARBARA
ASPEN, CO 81611
634 W MAIN ST #8
SCHALL FAMILY TRUST
ENCINO, CA 91436
3841 HAYVENHURST DR
SCHMITT JOANN
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W HOPKINS #211
SCHULMAN WILLIAM PAUL
CHARLEVOIX, MI 49720
301 MERCER BLVD
SCHWARTZ RACHEL K & MARK
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 483042603
1061 COUNTRY CLUB RD
SGSG ASPEN CONDO LLC
CRESTED BUTTE, CO 81224
PO BOX 1171
SHADOW MOUNTAIN OFFICES LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
715 W MAIN ST #201
SHEA LAYNE & MICHAEL
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W HOPKINS AVE #202
SILVERLODE INVESTORS LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
715 W MAIN ST #301
SKANDIA TOWNHOUSES CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
COMMON AREA
720 W HOPKINS AVE
SMB CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MIAN ST
SMITH ANDREW C & DONNA G
DALLAS, TX 75205
3622 SPRINGBROOK ST
STEVEN & JERRI PEDRO REAL ESTATE LLC
FORT WORTH, TX 76132
7833 OAKMONT BLVD
STURT DAVID B
ASPEN, CO 81611
728 W HOPKINS AVE #A2
SUNTKEN JERI L
ASPEN, CO 81611
719 MAIN ST #207
TELAMON HOLDINGS LLC
CARBONDALE , CO 81623
19 PIONEER POINT
THROM DOUGLAS H
ASPEN, CO 81611
617 W MAIN ST
TOLK GAYLA LYNN
ASPEN, CO 81611
117 N SIXTH ST
TOMS CONDO LLC
ERWINNA , PA 18920
6 SHULL FARM RD
TUCKER LUCY LEA
ASPEN, CO 81611
PO BOX 1480
TYUTRINA KSENIA
ASPEN, CO 81611
230 E HOPKINS AVE
ULLR HOMEOWNERS ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
520 W MAIN ST
UMBA ENTERPRISE LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #103
52
VALENTINO TARA & NICHOLAS
ASPEN, CO 81611
724 W HOPKINS AVE #A1
VINES CRAIG
ASPEN, CO 81611
719 W MAIN ST #202
VOSS NATALIE
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W HOPKINS AVE #204
WAGNER HOLDINGS CORP LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 E MAIN ST
WARBLE ERIC
BASALT, CO 81621
310 ROARING FORK CT
WASHBURN SERENE MARIE V
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W HOPKINS AVE #205
WEIEN J ROBERT
ASPEN, CO 81611
709 W MAIN ST
WELLES PETER S & SONDRA T
CARBONDALE, CO 81623
5343 CR 100
WENDLING NAN JEAN
ASPEN, CO 816129747
PO BOX 10745
WENDT ROBERT E II
PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272
350 MT HOLYOKE AVE
WERLIN LAURA B TRUST
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94115
2200 PACIFIC AVE #12F
WEST ALFRED JR & LORALEE
VANTURA, CA 93993
4572 TELEPHONE RD #912
WEST HOPKINS CONDO ASSOCIATION
ASPEN, CO 81611
144 S SEVENTH ST
WESTERNOFF TRENT & NAZLY FAMILY TRUST
MANHATTAN BEACH, CA 90266
724 10TH ST
WOLF JOSEPH G
ASPEN, CO 81611-1638
720 W HOPKINS AVE #E
WRIGHT FAMILY REV TRUST
ASPEN, CO 81611
715 W MAIN ST #301
YATES TIMOTHY ROSSITER
ASPEN, CO 81611
10 CLUB CIR
YULE BRADLEY A
ASPEN, CO 81611
130 S 7TH ST #B2
53
4,514
752.3
Legend
1:
WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere
Feet0752.3376.17
Notes
Pitkin Maps & More
THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES.
Pitkin County GIS makes no warranty or guarantee
concerning the completeness, accuracy, or reliability
of the content represented.
Map Created on 11:57 AM 09/25/23 at http://www.pitkinmapsandmore.com
State Highway
Road Centerline 4K
Primary Road
Secondary Road
Service Road
Rivers and Creeks
Continuous
Intermittent
River, Lake or Pond
Town Boundary
Federal Land Boundary
BLM
State of Colorado
USFS
54
Pitkin Maps &
More
2,257
376.2
Legend
1:
WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere
Feet0376.2188.08
Notes THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES.
Pitkin County GIS makes no warranty or guarantee
concerning the completeness, accuracy, or reliability
of the content represented.
Map Created on 12:23 PM 09/25/23 at
http://www.pitkinmapsandmore.com
Driveway
State Highway
Road Centerline 4K
Primary Road
Secondary Road
Service Road
Address Number
Full Address
Parcel ID Label
Parcel Boundary
Rivers and Creeks
Continuous
Intermittent
River, Lake or Pond
Town Boundary
N
627 W. Main St.
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 627 W. MAIN STREET, ASPEN CO 81611
PARCEL: 273512448010
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Subdivision: CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN Block: 25 Lot: B
VICINITY MAP
55
58
.
0
'
0.7'
0.5'
1.8'
21
.
8
'
14.8'
22
.
6
'
5.1'
25
.
0
'
1.5'
31
.
5
'
22.2'
G
G
E
IVB
IVB
SHED
FL
A
G
S
T
O
N
E
W
A
L
K
CO
N
C
R
E
T
E
R
E
T
A
I
N
I
N
G
W
A
L
L
(
T
Y
P
I
C
A
L
)
CO
N
C
R
E
T
E
W
A
L
K
SE
C
O
N
D
F
L
O
O
R
ST
A
I
R
S
-
-
-
-
>
PLANT
E
R
PLANT
E
R
RUBB
E
R
S
I
D
E
W
A
L
K
PA
V
E
D
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
OV
E
R
H
A
N
G
SI JO
H
N
S
O
N
D
I
T
C
H
ALLE
Y
-
B
L
O
C
K
2
5
MAIN
S
T
R
E
E
T
TWO
S
T
O
R
Y
VICT
O
R
I
A
N
H
O
U
S
E
627 W
E
S
T
M
A
I
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
SITE
B
E
N
C
H
M
A
R
K
FOUN
D
R
E
B
A
R
&
1
-
1
/
4
"
YELLO
W
P
L
A
S
T
I
C
C
A
P
ILLEG
I
B
L
E
ELEVA
T
I
O
N
:
7
9
3
0
.
1
7
FOUN
D
R
E
B
A
R
&
1
-
1
/
4
"
YELL
O
W
P
L
A
S
T
I
C
CAP L
S
2
4
3
1
2
FOUN
D
N
O
.
5
R
E
B
A
R
FOUN
D
N
A
I
L
&
1
-
1
/
2
"
ALUM
I
N
U
M
T
A
G
A.S.E.
I
L
S
2
5
9
4
7
FFE
7932
.
0
6
FFE
7933.
0
1
1
23
4
LOT
C
LOT
A
LOT
D
LOT K
LOT L
5.
9
'
(T
I
E
)
13
.
8
'
(
T
I
E
)
N
2
3
°
4
6
'
0
6
"
W
7
2
8
7
.
0
9
'
(
T
I
E
)
N6
7
°
0
1
'
2
8
"
W
6
8
1
0
.
4
8
'
(
T
I
E
)
CITY OF ASPEN
GPS CONTROL
MONUMENT #18
CITY OF ASPEN
GPS CONTROL
MONUMENT #S159
PAVE
D
R
O
A
D
W
A
Y
(100'
W
I
D
E
P
U
B
L
I
C
R
I
G
H
T
-
O
F
-
W
A
Y
)
GRAV
E
L
A
L
L
E
Y
UP
P
E
R
DE
C
K
ENTR
Y
DECK
S75°3
3
'
0
0
"
E
3
0
.
0
0
'
PLAT
=
S
7
5
°
0
9
'
1
1
"
E
N1
4
°
5
0
'
4
9
"
E
1
0
0
.
0
0
'
BA
S
I
S
O
F
B
E
A
R
I
N
G
S
N75°4
6
'
1
7
"
W
2
9
.
8
8
'
PLAT
=
S
7
5
°
0
9
'
1
1
"
E
3
0
.
0
0
'
PL
A
T
=
N
1
4
°
5
0
'
4
9
"
E
1
0
0
.
0
0
'
N1
4
°
4
7
'
0
7
"
E
1
0
0
.
1
3
'
LOT B
2,995
±
S
Q
.
F
T
.
0.069
±
A
C
R
E
S
TW
O
S
T
O
R
Y
VI
C
T
O
R
I
A
N
H
O
U
S
E
63
3
W
E
S
T
M
A
I
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
LOT
E
61
7
M
A
I
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
PR
O
F
E
S
S
I
O
N
A
L
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
61
7
W
E
S
T
M
A
I
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
30.3
3
30.8
6
33.3
3
33.3
3
31
.
2
7
30
.
9
4
33.1
4
GARA
G
E
33.0
4
FF
E
-
S
E
C
O
N
D
FL
O
O
R
79
4
3
.
7
3
FFE
7931.
9
4
31.6
0
31.6
0
FF
E
79
3
1
.
9
6
30
.
9
2
12"C
M
P
7929.
0
7
TREN
C
H
DRAI
N
CURB
&
G
U
T
T
E
R
31
.
1
0
31
.
1
5
793
3
7932
793
3
7
9
3
3
793
0
7932
793
1
7930
79
3
0
6T
H
S
T
R
E
E
T
AC
U
N
I
T
5.6'
(TIE)
10
'
F
R
O
N
T
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
5'
S
I
D
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
5'
S
I
D
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
5' RE
A
R
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
DRAIN INLET
TELEPHONE PEDESTAL
ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER
GAS METER
ELECTRICAL METER
G
LEGEND
E
SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATION
IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF, HOWEVER IT
IS NOT A GUARANTY OR WARRANTY, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED. LINEAR ERROR OF CLOSURE IS LESS THAN
1:15,000.
NOTES:
5.THIS PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO RESERVATIONS, RESTRICTIONS, COVENANTS AND EASEMENTS OF RECORD OR IN
PLACE.
6.THIS SURVEY WAS PREPARED WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF A TITLE COMMITMENT, THEREFORE, ANY EXCEPTIONS TO
TITLE THAT MAY AFFECT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HAVE NOT BEEN REVIEWED BY TRUE NORTH COLORADO, LLC.
7.ELEVATIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED ON NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988 (NAVD 88)
REFERENCED FROM NATIONAL GEODETIC SURVEY (NGS) STATION S159 HAVING AN ELEVATION OF 7720.88
LOT B - BLOCK 25 ORIGINAL TOWNSITE OF ASPEN
SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 85 WEST OF THE 6TH PM
CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO
PARCEL NO. 2735-124-48-010
IMPROVEMENT & TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
TRUE NORTH COLORADO LLC.
A LAND SURVEYING AND MAPPING COMPANY
P.O. BOX 614 - 386 MAIN STREET UNIT 3
NEW CASTLE, COLORADO 81647
(970) 984-0474
www.truenorthcolorado.com
PROJECT NO: 2024-108
DATE:May 10, 2024
DRAWN
RPK
SURVEYED
DJB
SHEET
1 OF 1
TRUENORTH
A LAND SURVEYING AND MAPPING COMPANY
8'
4'12'
SCALE: 1" = 8'
VICINITY MAP
0
NOTICE: ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY
LEGAL ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY WITHIN THREE
YEARS AFTER YOU FIRST DISCOVER SUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVENT MAY ANY
ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY BE COMMENCED MORE
THAN TEN YEARS FROM THE DATE OF CERTIFICATION SHOWN HEREON.
IRRIGATION VALVE BOXIVB
CLEAN-OUT
N
TREE TYPE SIZE DRIP
1 COTTONWOOD 36''50'
2 ASPEN 11''18'
3 ASPEN 10''16'
4 ASPEN 11''18'
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
WATER LINE
SEWER LINE
TELEPHONE LINE
GAS LINE
CATV LINE
ELECTRIC LINE
SITE
N
CITY
OF
ASPEN
WOOD PICKET FENCE
ZONING - MIXED USE (MU)
56
KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS
501 E. HYMAN AVE., SUITE 205 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
P. 970 925 2252 WWW.KIMRAYMONDARCHITECTS.COM
July 18, 2024
Stuart Hayden
Historic Preservation Commission
City of Aspen Community Development Department
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: 627 W. Main Street - Minor Development
Parcel ID: 273512448010
Dear Stuart and Members of the Commission,
Thank you for taking the time to review this project for us. This application is for Minor
Development.
Currently one of the upper level bedrooms can only be accessed via an exterior staircase from
the alley or by walking outside and across an upper level deck. The owners would like to build
a new interior staircase that will allow them and their young children to access the upper level
of the back addition without having to step outside. This will allow the building to function more
as a cohesive home.
This application is seeking approval for the following:
1. Remove exterior staircase on the north side of the property.
2. Build new stair inside the existing footprint, originating from the Mud Room.
3. Raise the roof over the new stairs on the West side of the addition to allow headroom
by adding a shed roof.
4. Replace existing exterior door on the north wall of the Primary Bedroom with a window
that is sized more in keeping with the scale of the building.
5. Remove double door at Mud Room and replace it with a single door.
6. Remove one of the Main Level windows in the Primary Bedroom.
7. Expand the upper level addition north deck to wrap around to the West side door.
8. No work will be done on the historic portion of the home.
57
KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS
501 E. HYMAN AVE., SUITE 205 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
P. 970 925 2252 WWW.KIMRAYMONDARCHITECTS.COM
RELEVANT LAND USE CODE SECTIONS
• SECTION 26.304.030 COMMON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURES;
(1) Please see attached letter of authorization from Adam Stevenson, the owner of 627 W.
Main St.; granting Kim Raymond Architecture + Interiors, authority to act on their behalf
throughout this process.
(2) Please see the attached Vicinity Map with a legal description and directions to the
property.
(3) Please see the attached Title Insurance, Schedule A & B for proof of ownership.
(4) Please see attached Site Plan
(5) Please see the current survey of the property located at 627 W. Main Street.
(6) Please also find attached all the forms for this Land Use Application, including the pre-
application summary letter.
(7) Please see below, the description and summary of the proposed work to be done.
• 26.312.030 NON-CONFORMITIES
Non-Conformities Definition: “… any building or structure that was established pursuant to the
zoning and building laws in effect at the time of its development, but that is no longer in
compliance with the regulations imposed by this Land Use Code”
This building is identified as a non-conformity because the current code is zoned as Mixed Use
(MU), which in current code does not allow for new free market residential units.
However, section 26.710.180.b.13, states that free-market residential units are permitted if
they were legally established prior to the effective date of Ordinance 13 (Series of 2022).”
627 W. Main was originally built in 1892 as a single-family home.
Section 26.312.030(c) and Section 26.312.030(c)1
(c) Extensions. A nonconforming structure shall not be extended by an enlargement or expansion
that increases the nonconformity. A nonconforming structure may be extended or altered in a
manner that does not change or that decreases the nonconformity.
(c)1 Historic structures. The first exception to this requirement shall be for a structure listed on the
Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. Such structures may be extended into
front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, may be extended into the minimum distance between
buildings on a lot and may be enlarged, provided, however, such enlargement does not exceed the
58
KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS
501 E. HYMAN AVE., SUITE 205 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
P. 970 925 2252 WWW.KIMRAYMONDARCHITECTS.COM
allowable floor area of the existing structure by more than five hundred (500) square feet, complies
with all other requirements of this Title and receives development review approval as required
by Chapter 26.415.
The proposal calls for an exterior stair to be removed and the deck above to be extended
around the building above the former stairs. This basically raises (physically) the area of the
stairs up to the level of the upper deck. The only extension of this is the squaring off of the
deck. It adds 8 square feet to the size of the deck, which doesn’t affect the FAR calculations,
as we are still within our allowed deck exemption. Please see floor area calculations. Our 8
square foot extension falls into the first exception of enlargements. It will also allow for more
efficient construction and a cleaner architectural look.
26.415.070.C HISTORIC PRESERVATION- MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
SECTION 26.415.070.C HISTORIC PRESERVATION – MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
26.415.070.C.1 Certificate of appropriateness for minor development
C.1.a. The proposed work is only being enlarge by 8 sq. ft; where up to 250 sq ft are
allowed as minor development.
C.1.b. The work to be performed affects a small section of roof and the change of a couple
of doors and windows, all in the non-historic part of the home.
C.1.d. as noted, all work is being done on the non-historic addition.
26.415.070.C.2.a-e
Please see attached for all requirements of Section 26.304.
Also, see attached scaled floor plans, site plan and elevations that depict accurately the building
materials; and photographs of the existing home. There will be no changes to the exterior
materials.
26.415.070.C.3
This application addresses all of the code sections as outlined in the pre-application summary.
The rest of Section 26.415.070.C does not apply to this project.
26.415.110. Historic Preservation – Benefits
This project is not seeking any variations or benefits from the HPC.
26.430.040. Review Standards for Special Review
The design of these small exterior changes to the existing building have be done in
consideration of the character of the neighborhood and the existing home. There will be no
adverse impacts on the neighborhood or the adjacent neighbors.
59
KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS
501 E. HYMAN AVE., SUITE 205 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
P. 970 925 2252 WWW.KIMRAYMONDARCHITECTS.COM
26.575.020 CALCULATIONS AND MEASUREMENTS
Please see attached FAR calculations
26.710.180 Mixed-Use (MU) Zone District
“Standalone residential uses are permitted on properties as a reflection of the historic residential
nature of the zone district.” This historic home has been on Main Street since the late 1800s;
it is definitely a part of the historic fabric of Main Street. As demonstrated in the previous
section, 26.575.020, this building meets all of the requirements and restrictions that are
relevant to a single family home.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION GUIDELINES
Please keep in mind all work proposed in this application is being done on the non-historic
back of the home. We will address the guidelines that are applicable.
Chapter 2 Building Materials
We will be matching the existing materials; roofing, siding, window/door finishes and all trim.
Chapter 3 Windows
There will be no changes to the existing windows beyond adjusting the windows around the
removed exterior stairs and the new interior stairs. There will be a new window added on the
south side of the building to replace a door that is being removed.
Chapter 4 Doors
We are removing an existing double patio door with a single swing door. This change will
bring the proportion of this door more in line with the verticality of the historic doors and
windows.
Chapter 7 Roofs
The small section of new roof to allow for the proposed internal stairs will match the metal roof
that is existing on the addition part of the home. We don’t want to add additional materials or
call attention to this small roof.
SUMMARY
The existing historic home had a substantial addition constructed in the 1980s. The small
amount of work being proposed on the non-historic portion of this home is pretty insignificant
and will have no visual impact on the Historically landmarked brick Victorian to which it is
attached. The proposal will give the alley facing side of the home a cleaner look with the stairs
being moved to the interior. We have addressed any of the historic preservation guidelines
that apply to this project and feel like the improvements will only make for the better “re-use”
of this historic home for the couple that is currently raising their children there.
60
KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS
501 E. HYMAN AVE., SUITE 205 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
P. 970 925 2252 WWW.KIMRAYMONDARCHITECTS.COM
We are just asking for the Certificate of Appropriateness for a Minor Development; no variances
or bonuses are being sought.
Thank you for the time and consideration of this application. We are excited to keep our
momentum and submit the permit application so as to begin construction on the remodel of
the home for this family.
Thank you for your consideration and approval.
Respectfully yours,
Kim Raymond
Kim Raymond
Kim Raymond Architecture + Interiors
61
D D
C C
B B
A A
8
8
7
7
6
6
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
5
5
N
2
A 3.1
2
A 3.1
2
A
3
.
1
2
A
3
.
1
1
A 5.3
1
A 5.3
4
A 5.3
4
A 5.3
30
'
-
0
"
5'
-
0
"
5'
-
0
"
5'-0"10'-0"
100'-0"
PROPERTY LINE
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
PROPERTY LINE
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
2
A.
4
.
0
1
2
A.
4
.
0
1
3
A.
4
.
0
2
3
A.
4
.
0
2
00 PROPOSED SITE PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0"
62
MATERIALS
STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF –
CHARCOAL GREY
627 W. MAIN STREET
PROPOSED MATERIALS:
WOOD SIDING – MATCH EXISTING COLOR
63
MATERIALS
STANDING SEAM SPECIFICATION SHEET
627 W. MAIN STREET
PROPOSED MATERIALS:
64
501 E. Hyman Ave. Suite 205- Aspen, CO 81611
www.kimraymondarchitects.com
July 2024
627 W. MAIN ST.
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
65
EXISTING: NORTH SIDE
YEAR: 2023
CURRENT HOME REFERENCE
627 W. MAIN STREET 66
EXISTING: WEST SIDE
YEAR: 2023
CURRENT HOME REFERENCE
627 W. MAIN STREET
- WOOD SIDING
- DOUBLE DOOR
- WINDOW
67
EXISTING: SOUTH SIDE
YEAR: 2023
CURRENT HOME REFERENCE
627 W. MAIN STREET
- WOOD SIDING
- EXISTING UPPER LEVEL DECK
- EXISTING EXTERIOR STAIR
68
Scale: AS NOTED
ISSUE
PERMIT SET
PRINTED ON:
1" ACTUAL
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL
HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR
REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL
LABELED SCALES.
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS
AND PLANS INDICATED BY THESE
DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE
THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KIM
RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND
SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER
WORK NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER
PERSON FOR ANY USE WHATSOEVER
WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE
P R E C E D E N C E O V E R S C A L E D
DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT
T H E S I T E . A N Y D I M E N S I O N A L
DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO
THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT
PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
A.1.02
2/5/25
FAR:
CALCULATIONS
DATE
w
w
w
.
k
i
m
r
a
y
m
o
n
d
a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
s
.
c
o
m
9
7
0
-
9
2
5
-
2
2
5
2
62
7
W
.
M
A
I
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
AS
P
E
N
,
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
KI
T
C
H
E
N
R
E
M
O
D
E
L
07/30/2023
2/5/25
27.58 sq ft EXEMPTSTREET FACING PORCH
SHOWER
DWTRASH/
REC
BUFFET
ENTRY
CONSOLE
BENCH
TUB
AL
L
E
Y
1,288.81 sq ft 320.93 sq ft GARAGE
DW
27.58 sq ft EXEMPTSTREET FACING PORCH
AL
L
E
Y
UP
1,288.81 sq ft 320.93 sq ft GARAGE
611.38 sq ft 134.23 sq ft DECK
210.63 sq ftDECK & OPEN STAIR446.34 sq ft
DN.
446.34 sq ft611.38 sq ft 134.23 sq ft DECK 218.32 sq ft DECK
71.45 sq ft
47
.
3
4
s
q
f
t
MECHANICAL CRAWL SPACE
CEILING HEIGHT = 5'-2"
ALL BELOW GRADE
126.72 sq ft
71.45 sq ft
47
.
3
4
s
q
f
t
MECHANICAL CRAWL SPACE
CEILING HEIGHT = 5'-2"
ALL BELOW GRADE
126.72 sq ft
1 EXISTING FAR: LOWER LEVEL 1/8" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED FAR: MAIN LEVEL 1/8" = 1'-0"
2 EXISTING FAR: UPPER LEVEL 1/8" = 1'-0"2 PROPOSED FAR: UPPER LEVEL 1/8" = 1'-0"
0 PROPOSED FAR: LOWER LEVEL 1/8" = 1'-0"0 EXISTING FAR: MAIN LEVEL 1/8" = 1'-0"
69
SITE PLAN
PROPOSED
EXISTING
SITE PLANS
Sc ale: A S N O TED
ISSU E
SCHEMATIC DESIGN
PRINTED ON:
1" ACTUAL
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL
HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR
REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL
LABELED SCALES.
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS
AND PLANS INDICATED BY THESE
DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE
THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KIM
RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND
SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER
WORK NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER
PERSON FOR ANY USE WHATSOEVER
WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE
P R E C E D E N C E O V E R S C A L E D
DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT
T H E S I T E . A N Y D I M E N S I O N A L
DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO
THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT
PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
A .1 .01
10/6/23
SI TE PL A N
DATE
w
w
w
.
k
i
m
r
a
y
m
o
n
d
a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
s
.
c
o
m
9
7
0
-
9
2
5
-
2
2
5
2
6
2
7
W
.
M
A
IN
STREET
ASPEN, CO 81611
KITCHEN REMODEL
07/27/2023
10/6/23
D D
C C
B B
A A
8
8
7
7
6
6
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
5
5
N
2
A 3.1
2
A 3.1
2
A 3.1
2
A 3.1
1
A 5.3
1
A 5.3
4
A 5.3
4
A 5.3
30
'-0"
5
'-0"
5'-0"
5'-0"10'-0 "
100'-0"
W. M
AIN
STREET
ALLEY
PRO PERTY LIN E
PRO
PERTY LIN
E
PRO PERTY LIN E
PRO
PERTY LIN
E
2
A.4.01
2
A.4.01
3
A.4.02
3
A.4.02
NEW SHED ROO F OVER IN TERIOR STAIRS
EXTEN D DECK TO WRAP ARO UND
D D
C C
B B
A A
8
8
7
7
6
6
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
5
5
N
2
A 3.1
2
A 3.1
2
A 3.1
2
A 3.1
1
A 5.3
1
A 5.3
4
A 5.3
4
A 5.3
30
'-0"
5
'-0"
5'-0
"
5'-0"10'-0 "
100'-0"
W. M
AIN
STREET
ALLEY
PRO PERTY LIN E
PRO
PERTY LIN
E
PRO PERTY LIN E
PRO
PERTY LIN
E
2
A.4.01
2
A.4.01
3
A.4.02
3
A.4.02
1 PRO PO SED: SI TE PL A N 3/ 16" = 1'-0"
1 EXISTIN G : SI TE PL A N 3/ 16" = 1'-0"
Sc ale: A S N O TED
ISSU E
SCHEMATIC DESIGN
PRINTED ON:
1" ACTUAL
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL
HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR
REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL
LABELED SCALES.
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS
AND PLANS INDICATED BY THESE
DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE
THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KIM
RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND
SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER
WORK NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER
PERSON FOR ANY USE WHATSOEVER
WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE
P R E C E D E N C E O V E R S C A L E D
DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT
T H E S I T E . A N Y D I M E N S I O N A L
DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO
THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT
PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
A .1 .01
10/6/23
SI TE PL A N
DATE
w
w
w
.
k
i
m
r
a
y
m
o
n
d
a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
s
.
c
o
m
9
7
0
-
9
2
5
-
2
2
5
2
6
27
W
.
M
A
IN
STREET
ASPEN, CO 81611
KITCHEN REMODEL
07/27/2023
10/6/23
D D
C C
B B
A A
8
8
7
7
6
6
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
5
5
N
2
A 3.1
2
A 3.1
2
A 3.1
2
A 3.1
1
A 5.3
1
A 5.3
4
A 5.3
4
A 5.3
3
0'-0
"
5'-0
"
5
'-0"
5'-0"10'-0 "
10 0'-0 "
W. M
AIN
STREET
ALLEY
PRO PERTY LIN E
PRO
PERTY LIN
E
PRO PERTY LIN E
PRO
PERTY LIN
E
2
A.4.01
2
A
.4.01
3
A.4.02
3
A.4.02
NEW SHED ROO F OVER IN TERIO R STAIRS
EXTEN D DECK TO WRAP ARO UND
D D
C C
B B
A A
8
8
7
7
6
6
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
5
5
N
2
A 3.1
2
A 3.1
2
A 3.1
2
A 3.1
1
A 5.3
1
A 5.3
4
A 5.3
4
A 5.3
30'-0"
5'-0"
5'-0
"
5'-0"10'-0 "
10 0'-0 "
W. M
AIN
STREET
A
LLEY
PRO PERTY LIN E
PRO
PERTY LIN
E
PRO PERTY LIN E
PRO
PERTY LIN
E
2
A.4.01
2
A.4.01
3
A.4.02
3
A.4.02
1 PRO PO SED: SI TE PL A N 3/ 16" = 1'-0"
1 EXISTIN G : SI TE PL A N 3/ 16" = 1'-0"
627 W. MAIN STREET 70
MAIN LEVEL
PROPOSED
EXISTING
MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
Scale: A S N O TED
ISSUE
SCHEMATIC DESIGN
PRINTED ON:
1 " ACTU A L
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL
HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR
REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL
LABELED SCALES.
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTSAND PLANS INDICATED BY THESEDRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARETHE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KIMRAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. ANDSHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHERWORK NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHERPERSON FOR ANY USE WHATSOEVERWITHOUT WRI T TE N P E RMISSION.WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKEPRECEDENCE O V E R S C A L E DDIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED ATTHE S I T E . A N Y D I M E N S I O N A LDISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TOTHE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECTPRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
0 1
10/4/23
EXISTIN G
FLO O R
PLA N S
DATE www.kimraymondarchitects.com 970-925-2252627 W. MAIN STREET ASPEN, CO 81611 KITCHEN REMODEL
07/27/2023
10/4/23
GARAGE
POW DER
PANTRY
104
110
SHO W ER
M ASTER
BEDRO O M
M A STER
CLO SET
M ASTER
BATHRO O M
GA RAG E
KITCHEN
LIVIN G
M UD RO O M
STAIR
103102
101
105
10 6
108
107
109
110
200
EXTERIO R STAIR
DWTRASH/
REC
BUFFET
ENTRY
CONSOLE
DIN IN G
BEN CH
TUB
W
. M
A
IN
STREET
A
LLEY
PO RCH
BEDRO O M 1 BEDRO O M 2BATHROOM 1 DECK BEDRO O M 3BATHROOM 2 DECKEXTERIORSTAIRSTAIROFFICECLOSETCLOSET204200201202203205206CLST.208 207 209 30'-0"5'-0"5'-0"5'-0 "10 '-0"10 0 '-0 "PRO PERTY LIN EPROPERTY LINE PRO PERTY LIN E PROPERTY LINESLOPE1:1SLOPE1:1 SLO PE1:1SLOPE1:1 SLOPE 1:1SLOPE1:1
1 EXISTIN G : M A IN LEVEL 3 /16 " = 1 '-0 "
2 EXISTIN G : UPPER LEVEL 3 /16 " = 1 '-0 "
3 EXI STI N G : RO O F PLA N 3 /16 " = 1 '-0 "
627 W. MAIN STREET
71
UPPER LEVEL
PROPOSED
EXISTING
UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
Scale: A S N O TED
ISSUE
SCHEMATIC DESIGN
PRINTED ON:
1 " ACTU A L
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL
HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR
REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL
LABELED SCALES.
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTSAND PLANS INDICATED BY THESEDRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARETHE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KIMRAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. ANDSHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHERWORK NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHERPERSON FOR ANY USE WHATSOEVERWITHOUT WRI T TE N P E RMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE
P R E C E D E N C E O V E R S C A L E D
DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT
T H E S I T E . A N Y D I M E N S I O N A L
DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO
THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT
PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
0 1
10/4/23
EXISTIN G
FLO O R
PLA N S
DATE
www.kimraymondarchitects.com 970-925-2252
6
2
7
W
.
M
A
IN
STREET
ASPEN, CO 81611
KITCHEN REMODEL
07/27/2023
10/4/23
GARAGE
POW DER
PANTRY
104
110
SHO W ER
M ASTER
BEDRO O M
M A STER
CLO SET
M ASTER
BATHRO O M
GA RAG E
KITCHEN
LIVIN G
M UD RO O M
STAIR
103102
101
105
10 6
108
107
109
110
200
EXTERIO R STAIR
DWTRASH/
REC
BUFFET
ENTRY
CONSOLE
DIN IN G
BEN CH
TUB
W. M
A
IN
STREET
A
LLEY
PO RCH
BEDRO O M 1
BEDRO O M 2
BATHRO O M 1
DECK
BEDRO O M 3
BATHRO O M 2
DECK
EXTERIO R
STA IR
STAIR
O FFICE
CLO SET CLO SET
204
200
201
202
203
2 05
206
CLST.
208 207
209
30'-0"5'-0"
5
'-0"
5'-0 "10 '-0"10 0 '-0 "PRO PERTY LIN E
PRO
PERTY LINE
PRO PERTY LIN E
PRO
PERTY LINESLOPE1:1SLOPE1:1 SLO PE1:1SLOPE1:1 SLOPE 1:1SLOPE1:1
1 EXISTIN G : M A IN LEVEL 3 /16 " = 1 '-0 "
2 EXISTIN G : UPPER LEVEL 3 /16 " = 1 '-0 "
3 EXI STI N G : RO O F PLA N 3 /16 " = 1 '-0 "
627 W. MAIN STREET
72
ROOF PLAN
PROPOSED
EXISTING
ROOF PLAN Scale: A S N O TED
ISSUE
SCHEMATIC DESIGN
PRINTED ON:
1 " ACTUAL
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL
HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR
REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL
LABELED SCALES.
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS
AND PLANS INDICATED BY THESE
DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE
THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KIM
RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND
SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER
WORK NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER
PERSON FOR ANY USE WHATSOEVER
WI T HOUT WRITTEN PERMISSI ON.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE
P R E C E D E N C E O V E R S C A L E D
DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT
T H E S I T E . A N Y D I M E N S I O N A L
DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO
THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT
PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
0 1
10/4/23
EXISTIN G
FLO O R
PLA N S
DATE
w
w
w
.
k
i
m
r
a
y
m
o
n
d
a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
s
.
c
o
m
9
7
0
-
9
2
5
-
2
2
5
2
6
2
7
W
.
M
A
IN
STREET
ASPEN, CO 81611
KITCHEN REMODEL
07/27/2023
10/4/23
GARAGE
PO W DER
PANTRY
104
110
SHOW ER
M A STER
BEDRO O M
M A STER
CLO SET
M A STER
BATHRO O M
GA RAGE
KITCHEN
LIVIN G
M UD RO O M
STAIR
103102
101
105
106
108
107
109
110
200
EXTERIO R STAIR
DWTRASH/
REC
BUFFET
ENTRY
CONSOLE
DIN IN G
BEN CH
TUB
W. M
A
IN
STREET
A
LLEY
PO RCH
BEDRO O M 1
BEDRO O M 2
BATHRO O M 1
DECK
BEDRO O M 3
BATHRO O M 2
DECK
EXTERIO R
STAIR
STA IR
O FFICE
CLO SET CLO SET
204
200
201
202
203
205
206
CLST.
208 207
209
3
0'-0
"
5
'-0
"
5
'-0
"
5 '-0 "10'-0 "
10 0 '-0 "
PRO PERTY LIN E
PRO
PERTY LIN
E
PRO PERTY LIN E
PRO
PERTY LIN
E
SLO
PE
1
:1
SLO
PE
1:1
SLO PE
1:1
SLO PE
1:1
SLO
PE
1:1
SLO
PE
1:1
1 EXISTIN G : M A IN LEVEL 3 /16 " = 1 '-0 "
2 EXISTIN G : U PPER LEVEL 3 /16 " = 1 '-0 "
3 EXISTIN G : RO O F PLA N 3 /16 " = 1 '-0 "
627 W. MAIN STREET 73
SOUTH ELEVATION:
ELEVATIONS
PROPOSEDEXISTING
627 W. MAIN STREET
74
ELEVATIONS
PROPOSED
EXISTING
627 W. MAIN STREET
WEST ELEVATION:
75
MATERIALS
STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF –
CHARCOAL GREY
627 W. MAIN STREET
PROPOSED MATERIALS:
WOOD SIDING – MATCH EXISTING COLOR
76
MATERIALS
STANDING SEAM SPECIFICATION SHEET
627 W. MAIN STREET
PROPOSED MATERIALS:
77