HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021.01.13 Exhibit_B_Application
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
City of Aspen
Historic Preservation Commission
c/o Community Development Department
130 South Galena Street, 3rd floor
Aspen, CO 81611
October 30, 2020
Revised January 4, 2021
Re: 1020 East Cooper Project
Dear Historic Preservation Commission and Community Development,
We are proud to submit a 100% affordable housing project (“the 1020 Project”) that complies
with underlying zoning for the historic property located at 1020 East Cooper Ave. The property
is located within the City of Aspen’s Residential Multi-Family Zone District (RMF), surrounded by
multi-family buildings, and is approximately 4,379 sf in size 1. The designated historic structure
was formerly the home of columnist and longtime local Su Lum.
Conversion of this property to an affordable housing project aligns with City Council and
community wide goals to provide deed restricted housing within city limits and to preserve
Aspen’s historic fabric for future generations to experience. As stated in the vision statement of
the 2012 Aspen Area Community Plan “we believe that a strong and diverse year-round
community and a viable and healthy local workforce are fundamental cornerstones for the
sustainability of the Aspen Area community.” We propose a five-unit project that fits into the
existing multi-family neighborhood context, meets zoning requirements, and is walking distance
to downtown.
The 1020 Project follows in the footsteps of other affordable housing projects to bring critical
housing infrastructure to our growing town. The success of the affordable housing program in
Aspen strengthens our community fabric and provides meaningful opportunities for our locals to
thrive in the community they call home. The 2019 Greater Roaring Fork Regional Housing Study
directly addresses the impact of affordable housing on local employers and on local employees:
“In a key finding from the research, there is broad agreement among employers of all sizes that
affordable housing is a problem for residents. This opinion is shared by residents. Most employers
feel that affordable/employee housing is a serious issue, with 28% rating it as ‘the most critical
problem in the area,’ and 48% rating it as ‘one of the more serious problems.’”
1 Neighbors have previously questioned the lot size at 1020 East Cooper which was approved by the City of Aspen in 2019
(Bk126 Pg7). A letter from Holland and Hart included as Exhibit 10 provides further confirmation of the 4,379sf lot size.
Page 2 of 7
1020 East Cooper Project
January 4, 2021
The following reviews are respectfully requested of the Historic Preservation Commission:
Conceptual Major Development Review, Relocation, Demolition, Growth Management Review,
Establishment of Affordable Housing Credits, Parking and Transportation Management, and
Demolition.
Proposal
The 1020 Project will restore the historic miner’s cabin and add a new detached building along the
alley to provide a total of five units on the property. The miner’s cabin will be restored, preserved,
and converted into two housing units with a full basement. Two non-historic sheds located partially
in the alley are proposed to be demolished. The new detached building contains three units. Four
surface parking spaces are located off the alley and exterior storage is provided for each unit.
Figure 1: Proposed project in neighborhood context.
Page 3 of 7
1020 East Cooper Project
January 4, 2021
The project is fully compliant with the Residential Multi-family zone district and is well below the
allowable floor area as demonstrated in Table 1. Calculations and floor plans have been reviewed
with the City Zoning Officer and Building Department for Code compliance.
Table 1: RMF Zone District
RMF Zone District Dimensional Requirement 1020 East Cooper
Project
Lot Size No lot size minimum for historic properties 4,379sf
Floor Area 1:25:1 and 5,474sf 0.98:1 and 4,277.4 sf
Density Allowances • Less than 1 unit/1,500 sf of lot area
= .75:1 FAR
• Equal to or greater than 1
unit/1,500sf of lot area = 1.25:1
FAR
• Equal to or greater than 1
unit/750sf of lot area = 1.5:1 FAR
5 units on 4,379sf lot =
1 unit/ 875.8 sf of lot area
or 1.71 units/1,500sf of
lot area
1.25:1 FAR allowed
Max. height 32 ft 31 ft 8.25in
Front Setback 5 ft 5 ft
Side Setbacks 5 ft 5 ft
Rear Setbacks 5 ft 5 ft
Parking Mitigation for 5 parking spaces - ability to
pay cash in lieu payment for all 5 spaces
4 onsite spaces provided,
cash in lieu payment for 1
space
Min Trash and Recycle
Area size
120 sf 124.72 sf
The neighborhood context as defined by the Land Use Code and zone district allowances includes
free-market and deed-restricted affordable housing multi-family residential units and single
family/duplex homes. There are a handful of 19th century landmarks in the immediate area. The
stated purpose of the RMF Zone District is [emphasis added]:
“to provide for the use of land for intensive long-term residential purposes, short term vacation
rentals, and customary accessory uses. Recreational and institutional uses customarily found
in proximity to residential uses are included as conditional uses. Lands in the Residential Multi-
Family (RMF) Zone District are typically those found in the Aspen infill area, within walking
distance of the center of the City or lands on transit routes and other lands with existing
concentrations of attached residential dwellings and mixed attached and detached residential
dwellings.”
Page 4 of 7
1020 East Cooper Project
January 4, 2021
Development of affordable housing at 1020 East Cooper directly aligns with the purpose of the
zone district for “intensive long term residential purposes.” The GIS map below shows multi-family
properties and historic landmarks in the vicinity of 1020 East Cooper.
Figure 2: Orange outline identifies landmark property. Star identifies 1020 East Cooper. Note the multi-family properties
in the neighborhood.
The proposed project is contextual to the neighborhood in use and in proportion when compared
to the surrounding three story multi-family buildings directly to the east and west, across the alley,
and across Cooper Avenue.
Affordable Housing
The 1020 Project is a voluntary 100% affordable housing project that requests affordable housing
credits in exchange for creating voluntary deed restricting units. Five housing units are proposed –
three 2-bedroom units and two 3-bedroom units. A breakdown of the unit sizes and locations is
provided in Table 2. A total of 12.75 full time equivalents (FTEs) are generated by the 1020 Project.
The units are proposed to be rentals that are sold to Pitkin County employers to rent to APCHA
qualified employees. According to the Land Use Code and APCHA Standards, category designation
will be finalized at the time of deed restriction by the owner but will be at Category 4 or less.
All units have exterior storage, private outdoor space either on a deck or front porch, and are within
the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) size requirements.
Page 5 of 7
1020 East Cooper Project
January 4, 2021
Table 2: Affordable Housing Unit Breakdown
Unit Bed-
room
Basement
Net
Livable
Area (sf)
Ground
Level Net
Livable
Area (sf)
Second
Level Net
Livable
Area (sf)
Third
Level Net
Livable
Area (sf)
Total
Size (sf)
without
storage
Exterior
Storage
landmark
101
2 462.52 450.47 103.9* x 1,016.9 12.41
landmark
102
2 482.85 477.6 101.16* x 1,061.6 12.41
103 2 436.51 471.54 x x 908.1 7.53
201 3 x x 1,011.8 x 1,011.8 43.06
301 3 x x x 1,013.0 1,013.0 43.06
TOTAL Net Livable Area (sf) 5,011.38
*Units 101 and 102 have a storage loft accessed from the ground level.
Parking
The current single family residence does not have any onsite parking. The 1020 Project is required
to mitigate for five parking spaces. Mitigation can be 100% cash in lieu with no onsite parking
spaces, or a mix of onsite and cash in lieu. Recognizing the importance of a percentage of onsite
parking, four onsite spaces, including an ADA compliant space, are proposed in the carport
accessed off the alley. Carshare memberships will be offered to each unit for their first year to
discourage car ownership, in addition to Wecycle memberships, and onsite bike racks. A welcome
packet with alternative forms of transportation, bike and walking trail maps, and bus schedules will
be provided to tenants. All of these measures discourage car ownership and encourage Aspen’s
robust alternative transportation options. The 1020 Project is conveniently located a few blocks
from downtown, bus stops, and trails.
Historic Preservation
1020 East Cooper has been heavily altered over time - upon physical inspection it appears that
two, simple 19th century miner’s cabins were stitched together in an “L” footprint in the 1890s.
Historic framing, gable roof form, and historic siding are evident inside the building.
There are no clear historic photographs showing the property and historic maps do not include
this neighborhood with the exception of the 1896 Willits Town Map (Figure 3). Historic
newspapers and directories list a number of families residing in the home over the years as far
back as 1889, which shows that 1020 East Cooper was a typical miner’s cabin residence as found
throughout Aspen.
Page 6 of 7
1020 East Cooper Project
January 4, 2021
The 1020 Project restores window
openings, clapboard siding, and a
typical open front porch. Historic
structures are found throughout the
neighborhood - the restoration of the
cabin contributes to the character and
pedestrian friendly experience along
Cooper. Historic Preservation Design
Guidelines are addressed in Exhibit 1.
Requests to relocate the landmark to
the 5 feet front setback in accordance
with the Historic Preservation Design
Guidelines, and to demolish the non-
historic and encroaching sheds are
included in Exhibit 1.
Residential Design Standards
Residential Design Standards (RDS) are required for multi-family residential projects that are not
listed on the historic inventory. The new building is subject to RDS and meets all requirements as
demonstrated in Exhibit 6.
Tree
The large spruce tree located within the property boundaries between the rear of the house and
the non-historic sheds has been previously approved for removal by the Parks Department. The
spruce tree that straddles the east property line is not proposed for removal and mitigation unless
consent is received from the Riverside Condominiums because it sits on the shared property line
with roots extending to both properties. A 10’ radius drip line was determined by the City Forester
on July 14, 2020 and is accommodated in the application.
Outreach
Neighborhood engagement is central to the 1020 Project. A project website,
www.1020eastcooperproject.com, was launched in mid-October to serve as a landing site for
information about the project and upcoming outreach events. Before the land use application was
completed, the Applicant mailed project introduction postcards to property owners within 300’
with information about the website, the project team and the upcoming project. The Applicant
also e-mailed this information to neighboring HOAs and other parties who had made comments on
a prior application in earlier hearings. Two online meetings were held between the project team
and neighbors on October 26, 2020 and October 28, 2020 to introduce the project team and to
provide an overview of the project. An online outreach meeting was held on December 1, 2020
with neighbors to review the land use application after it was deemed complete by the City of
Figure 3: 1896 Willits map
Page 7 of 7
1020 East Cooper Project
January 4, 2021
Aspen. Neighborhood engagement is planned throughout the land use review process and the
website will be frequently updated through final Certificate of Occupancy.
Thank you for the opportunity to present this important project that balances many community
goals including affordable housing and historic preservation. Together, as a community, we can
address the lack of housing with thoughtful projects throughout town. As stated in the 2012 Aspen
Area Community Plan “the creation of affordable housing is the responsibility of our entire
community, not just government.” Preserving a historic resource as part of an affordable housing
plan is a welcome challenge that results in an authentic project with genuine character, adaptive
reuse of a historic asset, and lights on vitality.
Sincerely,
Sara Adams, AICP
BendonAdams LLC
Exhibits
1 – Historic Preservation Reviews
1.a Conceptual HP Design Review
1.b Demolition of Non-Historic Sheds
1.c Relocation
2 – Relocation Letter
3 – Growth Management and Establishment
of Housing Credits
4 – Parking and Transportation
5 – Transportation Impact Analysis
6 – Residential Design Standards for non-
historic new building
7 - Pre-application summary
8 - Land Use Application
9 – Proof of Ownership
10 – Letter regarding lot size
11 - Authorization to Represent
12 - Agreement to Pay
13 - Vicinity Map
14 – Mailing List
15 – HOA letter
16 - Survey, Proposed drawing set,
Renderings, and Preliminary Civil Drawings
and Drainage letter
17 – Streetscape
18 - Response to Development Review
Committee comments (provided January 4,
2021)
Exhibit 1
HP Reviews (Dec. 23, 2020)
1020 East Cooper Project
Exhibit 1
Historic Preservation Reviews
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.
b) The procedures for the review of conceptual development plans for major development projects
are as follows:
(1) The Community Development Director shall review the application materials submitted for
conceptual or final development plan approval. If they are determined to be complete, the applicant
will be notified in writing of this and a public hearing before the HPC shall be scheduled. Notice of
the hearing shall be provided pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E.3 Paragraphs a, b and c.
(2) Staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a report that analyzes the project's
conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code sections. This report
will be transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a
recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for
the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence
presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City Historic Preservation
Design Guidelines.
Response: Applicable Design Guidelines are addressed below:
Streetscape
1.1 All projects shall respect the historic development pattern or context of the block, neighborhood or
district.
• Building footprint and location should reinforce the traditional patterns of the neighborhood.
• Allow for some porosity on a site. In a residential project, setback to setback development is
typically uncharacteristic of the historic context. Do not design a project which leaves no useful
open space visible from the street.
Response – The proposed project reinforces the traditional street grid with both buildings perpendicular to
Cooper Street. Open space is provided between the two buildings and in the required setback which comply
with underlying zoning. Visible open space surrounds the historic building, and an existing spruce tree will
be visible directly behind the landmark.
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.
Exhibit 1
HP Reviews (Dec. 23, 2020)
1020 East Cooper Project
• Retain and preserve the variety and character found in historic alleys, including retaining historic
ancillary buildings or constructing new ones.
• Retain and preserve the simple character of historic ditches. Do not plant flowers or add
landscape.
• Abandoning or re-routing a street in a historic area is generally discouraged.
• Consider the value of unpaved alleys in residential areas.
• Opening a platted right of way which was abandoned or never graded may be encouraged on a
case by case basis.
Response – No changes are proposed in the right of way unless required by Engineering and Parks
Departments. Two non-historic sheds sit in the alley and are proposed to be demolished.
1.3 Remove driveways or parking areas accessed directly from the street if they were not part of the
original development of the site.
• Do not introduce new curb cuts on streets.
• Non-historic driveways accessed from the street should be removed if they can be relocated to
the alley.
Response – n/a.
1.4 Design a new driveway or improve an existing driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual impact.
• If an alley exists at the site, the new driveway must be located off it.
• Tracks, gravel, light grey concrete with minimal seams, or similar materials are appropriate for
driveways on Aspen Victorian properties.
Response – All vehicular access is proposed off the alley.
1.5 Maintain the historic hierarchy of spaces.
• Reflect the established progression of public to private spaces from the public sidewalk to a semi-
public walkway, to a semi private entry feature, to private spaces.
Response – A simple straight walkway is proposed from the sidewalk to the front porch of the historic
buildings. A low fence is contemplated across the front of the property. Access to the rear building is
proposed from the alley.
1.6 Provide a simple walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry on residential
projects.
• Meandering walkways are not allowed, except where it is needed to avoid a tree or is typical of
the period of significance.
• Use paving materials that are similar to those used historically for the building style and install
them in the manner that they would have been used historically. For example on an Aspen
Victorian landmark set flagstone pavers in sand, rather than in concrete. Light grey concrete, brick
or red sandstone are appropriate private walkway materials for most landmarks.
Exhibit 1
HP Reviews (Dec. 23, 2020)
1020 East Cooper Project
• The width of a new entry sidewalk should generally be three feet or less for residential properties.
A wider sidewalk may be appropriate for an AspenModern property.
Response – A simple walkway perpendicular from the street to the front porch is proposed off the
sidewalk.
1.7 Provide positive open space within a project site.
• Ensure that open space on site is meaningful and consolidated into a few large spaces rather than
many small unusable areas.
• Open space should be designed to support and complement the historic building.
Response – Open space is preserved around the historic building in compliance with the required setbacks
in the RMF zone district. Communal open space is provided between the buildings and beneath the preserved
spruce tree in the east yard.
1.8 Consider stormwater quality needs early in the design process.
• When included in the initial planning for a project, stormwater quality facilities can be better
integrated into the proposal. All landscape plans presented for HPC review must include at least
a preliminary representation of the stormwater design. A more detailed design must be reviewed
and approved by Planning and Engineering prior to building permit submittal.
• Site designs and stormwater management should provide positive drainage away from the
historic landmark, preserve the use of natural drainage and treatment systems of the site, reduce
the generation of additional stormwater runoff, and increase infiltration into the ground.
Stormwater facilities and conveyances located in front of a landmark should have minimal visual
impact when viewed from the public right of way.
• Refer to City Engineering for additional guidance and requirements.
Response – Storm water design is considered as part of the design and a preliminary plan is included in
the drawing set.
1.9 Landscape development on AspenModern landmarks shall be addressed on a case by case basis.
Response – n/a.
1.10 Built-in furnishings, such as water features, fire pits, grills, and hot tubs, that could interfere with or
block views of historic structures are inappropriate.
• Site furnishings that are added to the historic property should not be intrusive or degrade the
integrity of the neighborhood patterns, site, or existing historic landscape.
• Consolidating and screening these elements is preferred.
Response – A grill is potentially proposed between the two buildings. This location does not impact the
historic building.
1.11 Preserve and maintain historically significant landscaping on site, particularly landmark trees and
shrubs.
• Retaining historic planting beds and landscape features is encouraged.
Exhibit 1
HP Reviews (Dec. 23, 2020)
1020 East Cooper Project
• Protect historically significant vegetation during construction to avoid damage. Removal of
damaged, aged, or diseased trees must be approved by the Parks Department.
• If a significant tree must be removed, replace it with the same or similar species in coordination
with the Parks Department.
• The removal of non-historic planting schemes is encouraged.
• Consider restoring the original landscape if information is available, including original plant
materials.
Response – The spruce tree in the east side yard is proposed to remain based on neighbor comments.
1.12 Provide an appropriate context for historic structures. See diagram.
• Simplicity and restraint are required. Do not overplant a site, or install a landscape which is
overtextured or overly complex in relationship to the historic resource, particularly in Zone A. In
Zone A, new planting shall be species that were used historically or species of similar attributes.
• In areas immediately adjacent to the landmark, Zone A and Zone B, plants up 42” in height, sod,
and low shrubs are often appropriate.
• Contemporary planting, walls and other features are not appropriate in Zone A. A more
contemporary landscape may surround new development or be located in the rear of the
property, in Zone C.
• Do not cover areas which were historically unpaved with hard surfaces, except for a limited patio
where appropriate.
• Where residential structures are being adapted to commercial use, proposals to alter the
landscape will be considered on a case-by-case basis. The residential nature of the building must
be honored.
• In the case of a historic landmark lot split, careful consideration should be given so as not to over
plant either property, or remove all evidence of the landscape characteristics from before the
property was divided.
• Contemporary landscapes that highlight an AspenModern architectural style are encouraged.
Response – Simple landscaping is proposed around the historic structure and will be more developed for
Final Review.
1.13 Additions of plant material to the landscape that could interfere with or block views of historic
structures are inappropriate.
• Low plantings and ground covers are preferred.
• Do not place trees, shrubs, or hedgerows in locations that will obscure, damage, or block
significant architectural features or views to the building. Hedgerows are not allowed as fences.
• Consider mature canopy size when planting new trees adjacent to historic resources. Planting
trees too close to a landmark may result in building deteriorate or blocked views and is
inappropriate.
• Climbing vines can damage historic structures and are not allowed.
Response – Sod and low plants are contemplated around the landmark to not obscure historic
characteristics and to avoid accelerating deterioration of historic material.
Exhibit 1
HP Reviews (Dec. 23, 2020)
1020 East Cooper Project
1.14 Minimize the visual impacts of landscape lighting.
• Landscape and pathway lighting is not permitted in Zone A (refer to diagram) on Aspen Victorian
properties unless an exception is approved by HPC based on safety considerations.
• Landscape, driveway, and pathway lighting on AspenModern properties is addressed on a case-
by-case basis.
• Landscape light fixtures should be carefully selected so that they are compatible with the building,
yet recognizable as a product of their own time.
• Driveway lighting is not permitted on Aspen Victorian properties.
• Landscape uplighting is not allowed.
Response – Landscape lighting is not proposed at this time.
1.15 Preserve original fences.
• Fences which are considered part of the historic significance of a site should not be moved,
removed, or inappropriately altered.
• Replace only those portions of a historic fence that are deteriorated beyond repair.
• Replacement elements must match the existing.
Response – The existing fence is not original and is proposed to be removed and possibly replaced.
1.16 When possible, replicate a missing historic fence based on photographic evidence.
Response – n/a.
1.17 No fence in the front yard is often the most appropriate solution.
• Reserve fences for back yards and behind street facing façades, as the best way to preserve the
character of a property.
Response – A low picket fence is contemplated in the front yard to define the property and frame the
historic building.
1.18 When building an entirely new fence, use materials that are appropriate to the building type and
style.
• The new fence should use materials that were used on similar properties during the period of
significance.
• A wood fence is the appropriate solution in most locations.
• Ornate fences, including wrought iron, may create a false history are not appropriate for Aspen
Victorian landmarks unless there is evidence that a decorative fence historically existed on the
site.
• A modest wire fence was common locally in the early 1900s and is appropriate for Aspen Victorian
properties. This fence type has many desirable characteristics including transparency, a low
height, and a simple design. When this material is used, posts should be simply detailed and not
oversized.
Exhibit 1
HP Reviews (Dec. 23, 2020)
1020 East Cooper Project
Response – Side yard fencing is not proposed at this time; however, the applicant is in discussions with
the neighboring properties to understand their preference for fencing along the shared lot lines.
1.19 A new fence should have a transparent quality, allowing views into the yard from the street.
• A fence that defines a front yard must be low in height and transparent in nature.
• For a picket fence, spacing between the pickets must be a minimum of 1/2 the width of the picket.
• For Post-WWII properties where a more solid type of fence may be historically appropriate,
proposals will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
• Fence columns or piers should be proportional to the fence segment.
Response – The low picket fence along the front of the property meets these requirements and is
transparent as defined above.
1.20 Any fence taller than 42” should be designed so that it avoids blocking public views of important
features of a designated building.
• A privacy fence should incorporate transparent elements to minimize the possible visual impacts.
Consider staggering the fence boards on either side of the fence rail. This will give the appearance
of a solid plank fence when seen head on. Also consider using lattice, or other transparent
detailing on the upper portions of the fence.
• A privacy fence should allow the building corners and any important architectural features that
are visible from the street to continue to be viewed.
• All hedgerows (trees, shrub bushes, etc.) are prohibited in Zones A and B.
Response – The fence along the front of the property is less than 42” in height.
1.21 Preserve original retaining walls
• Replace only those portions that are deteriorated beyond repair. Any replacement materials
should match the original in color, texture, size and finish.
• Painting or covering a historic masonry retaining wall or covering is not allowed.
• Increasing the height of a retaining wall is inappropriate.
Response – n/a.
1.22 When a new retaining wall is necessary, its height and visibility should be minimized.
• All wall materials, including veneer and mortar, will be reviewed on a case by case basis and should
be compatible with the palette used on the historic structure.
Response – n/a.
1.23 Re-grading the site in a manner that changes historic grade is generally not allowed and will be
reviewed on a case by case basis.
Response – Minor grading of the site is proposed to ensure proper drainage away from the buildings.
Significant regrading is not proposed.
Exhibit 1
HP Reviews (Dec. 23, 2020)
1020 East Cooper Project
1.24 Preserve historically significant landscapes with few or no alterations.
• An analysis of the historic landscape and an assessment of the current condition of the landscape
should be done before the beginning of any project.
• The key features of the historic landscape and its overall design intent must be preserved.
Response – n/a. This property does not have a recognized historically significant landscape.
1.25 New development on these sites should respect the historic design of the landscape and its built
features.
• Do not add features that damage the integrity of the historic landscape.
• Maintain the existing pattern of setbacks and siting of structures.
• Maintain the historic relationship of the built landscape to natural features on the site.
• All additions to these landscapes must be clearly identifiable as recent work.
• New artwork must be subordinate to the designed landscape in terms of placement, height,
material, and overall appearance. Place new art away from significant landscape features.
• Avoid installing utility trenches in cultural landscapes if possible.
Response – n/a. This property does not have a recognized historically significant landscape.
1.26 Preserve the historic circulation system.
• Minimize the impact of new vehicular circulation.
• Minimize the visual impact of new parking.
• Maintain the separation of pedestrian and vehicle which occurred historically.
Response – Parking is located off the alley.
1.27 Preserve and maintain significant landscaping on site.
• Protect established vegetation during any construction.
• If any tree or shrub needs to be removed, replace it with the same or similar species.
• New planting should be of a species used historically or a similar species.
• Maintain and preserve any gardens and/or ornamental planting on the site.
• Maintain and preserve any historic landscape elements.
Response – The preserved spruce tree in the east yard will be protected during construction in accordance
with the City of Aspen Parks Department regulations.
Restoration
Materials
2.1 Preserve original building materials.
• Do not remove siding that is in good condition or that can be repaired in place.
Exhibit 1
HP Reviews (Dec. 23, 2020)
1020 East Cooper Project
• Masonry features that define the overall historic character, such as walls, cornices, pediments,
steps and foundations, should be preserved.
• Avoid rebuilding a major portion of an exterior wall that could be repaired in place.
Reconstruction may result in a building which no longer retains its historic integrity.
• Original AspenModern materials may be replaced in kind if it has been determined that the
weathering detracts from the original design intent or philosophy.
2.2 The finish of materials should be as it would have existed historically.
• Masonry naturally has a water-protective layer to protect it from the elements. Brick or stone
that was not historically painted shall not be painted.
• If masonry that was not painted historically was given a coat of paint at some more recent time,
consider removing it, using appropriate methods.
• Wood should be painted, stained or natural, as appropriate to the style and history of the building.
2.3 Match the original material in composition, scale and finish when replacing materials on primary
surfaces.
• If the original material is wood clapboard for example, then the replacement material must be
wood as well. It should match the original in size, and the amount of exposed lap and finish.
• Replace only the amount required. If a few boards are damaged beyond repair, then only those
should be replaced, not the entire wall. For AspenModern buildings, sometimes the replacement
of a larger area is required to preserve the integrity of the design intent.
2.4 Do not use synthetic materials as replacements for original building materials.
• Original building materials such as wood siding and brick should not be replaced with synthetic
materials.
2.5 Covering original building materials with new materials is inappropriate.
• Regardless of their character, new materials obscure the original, historically significant material.
• Any material that covers historic materials may also trap moisture between the two layers. This
will cause accelerated deterioration to the historic material which may go unnoticed.
2.6 Remove layers that cover the original material.
• Once the non-historic siding is removed, repair the original, underlying material.
Response – Existing conditions beneath the vinyl siding do not show historic siding. Historic siding is found
in the interior of the building where the two historic buildings were stitched together. This siding will be
used to dimension new siding for the exterior of the historic building for discussion during Final Review.
Windows
3.1 Preserve the functional and decorative features of a historic window.
• Features important to the character of a window include its frame, sash, muntins/mullions, sills,
heads, jambs, moldings, operations, and groupings of windows.
Exhibit 1
HP Reviews (Dec. 23, 2020)
1020 East Cooper Project
• Repair frames and sashes rather than replacing them.
• Preserve the original glass. If original Victorian era glass is broken, consider using restoration glass
for the repair.
3.2 Preserve the position, number, and arrangement of historic windows in a building wall.
• Enclosing a historic window is inappropriate.
• Do not change the size of an original window opening.
3.3 Match a replacement window to the original in its design.
• If the original is double-hung, then the replacement window must also be double-hung. If the
sash have divided lights, match that characteristic as well.
3.4 When replacing an original window, use materials that are the same as the original.
3.5 Preserve the size and proportion of a historic window opening.
• Changing the window opening is not permitted.
• Consider restoring an original window opening that was enclosed in the past.
3.6 Match, as closely as possible, the profile of the sash and its components to that of the original
window.
• A historic window often has a complex profile. Within the window’s casing, the sash steps back to
the plane of the glazing (glass) in several increments. These increments, which individually only
measure in eighths or quarters of inches, are important details. They distinguish the actual
window from the surrounding plane of the wall.
• The historic profile on AspenModern properties is typically minimal.
3.7 Adding new openings on a historic structure is generally not allowed.
• Greater flexibility in installing new windows may be considered on rear or secondary walls.
• New windows should be similar in scale to the historic openings on the building, but should in
some way be distinguishable as new, through the use of somewhat different detailing, etc.
• Preserve the historic ratio of window openings to solid wall on a façade.
• Significantly increasing the amount of glass on a character defining façade will negatively affect
the integrity of a structure.
3.8 Use a storm window to enhance energy conservation rather than replace a historic window.
• Install a storm window on the interior, when feasible. This will allow the character of the original
window to be seen from the public way.
• If a storm window is to be installed on the exterior, match the sash design and material of the original
window. It should fit tightly within the window opening without the need for sub-frames or panning
Exhibit 1
HP Reviews (Dec. 23, 2020)
1020 East Cooper Project
around the perimeter. A storm window should not include muntins unless necessary for structure.
Any muntin should be placed to match horizontal or vertical divisions of the historic window.
Response – No original or historic windows exist. Traditional double hung windows are proposed in the
historic building. Framing within the historic building does not clearly demonstrate original openings, but
provides some insight that informs the proposed window locations.
Doors
4.1 Preserve historically significant doors.
• Maintain features important to the character of a historic doorway. These include the door, door
frame, screen door, threshold, glass panes, paneling, hardware, detailing, transoms and flanking
sidelights.
• Do not change the position and function of original front doors and primary entrances.
• If a secondary entrance must be sealed shut, any work that is done must be reversible so that the
door can be used at a later time, if necessary. Also, keep the door in place, in its historic position.
• Previously enclosed original doors should be reopened when possible.
4.2 Maintain the original size of a door and its opening.
• Altering its size and shape is inappropriate. It should not be widened or raised in height.
4.3 When a historic door or screen door is damaged, repair it and maintain its general historic
appearance.
4.4 When replacing a door or screen door, use a design that has an appearance similar to the original
door or a door associated with the style of the building.
• A replica of the original, if evidence exists, is the preferred replacement.
• A historic door or screen door from a similar building also may be considered.
• Simple paneled doors were typical for Aspen Victorian properties.
• Very ornate doors, including stained or leaded glass, are discouraged, unless photographic
evidence can support their use.
4.5 Adding new doors on a historic building is generally not allowed.
• Place new doors in any proposed addition rather than altering the historic resource.
• Greater flexibility in installing a door in a new location may be considered on rear or secondary
walls.
• A new door in a new location should be similar in scale and style to historic openings on the
building and should be a product of its own time.
• Preserve the historic ratio of openings to solid wall on a façade. Significantly increasing the
openings on a character defining façade negatively affects the integrity of a structure.
Exhibit 1
HP Reviews (Dec. 23, 2020)
1020 East Cooper Project
4.6 If energy conservation and heat loss are concerns, use a storm door instead of replacing a historic
entry door.
• Match the material, frame design, character, and color of the primary door.
• Simple features that do not detract from the historic entry door are appropriate for a new storm
door.
• New screen doors should be in character with the primary door.
4.7 Preserve historic hardware.
• When new hardware is needed, it must be in scale with the door and appropriate to the style of
the building.
• On Aspen Victorian properties, conceal any modern elements such as entry key pads.
Response – There are no historic doors on this property. A simple front door is proposed facing Cooper
Avenue.
Porch
5.1 Preserve an original porch or balcony.
• Replace missing posts and railings when necessary. Match the original proportions, material and
spacing of balusters.
• Expanding the size of a historic porch or balcony is inappropriate.
5.2 Avoid removing or covering historic materials and details.
• Removing an original balustrade, for example, is inappropriate.
5.3 Enclosing a porch or balcony is not appropriate.
• Reopening an enclosed porch or balcony is appropriate.
5.4 If reconstruction is necessary, match the original in form, character and detail.
• Match original materials.
• When reconstructing an original porch or balcony without historic photographs, use dimensions
and characteristics found on comparable buildings. Keep style and form simple with minimal, if
any, decorative elements.
5.5 If new steps are to be added, construct them out of the same primary materials used on the original,
and design them to be in scale with the porch or balcony
• Steps should be located in the original location.
• Step width should relate to the scale of entry doors, spacing between posts, depth of deck, etc.
• Brick, red sandstone, grey concrete, or wood are appropriate materials for steps.
Exhibit 1
HP Reviews (Dec. 23, 2020)
1020 East Cooper Project
5.6 Avoid adding handrails or guardrails where they did not exist historically, particularly where visible
from the street.
• If handrails or guardrails are needed according to building code, keep their design simple in
character and different from the historic detailing on the porch or balcony.
Response – A simple traditional open front porch with one step is proposed facing Cooper Avenue. Framing
within the historic building is unclear as to whether the front entry was an open porch or enclosed. An open
porch is proposed at this time since it was a traditional characteristic of 19th century miner’s cabins, and an
open porch aligns with the 1896 Willits map L shaped footprint.
Architectural Details
6.1 Preserve significant architectural features.
• Repair only those features that are deteriorated.
• Patch, piece-in, splice, or consolidate to repair the existing materials, using recognized
preservation methods whenever possible.
• On AspenModern properties, repair is preferred, however, it may be more important to preserve
the integrity of the original design intent, such as crisp edges, rather than to retain heavily
deteriorated material.
6.2 When disassembly of a historic element is necessary for its restoration, use methods that minimize
damage to the original material.
• Document its location so it may be repositioned accurately. Always devise methods of replacing
the disassembled material in its original configuration.
6.3 Remove only the portion of the detail that is deteriorated and must be replaced.
• Match the original in composition, scale, and finish when replacing materials or features.
• If the original detail was made of wood, for example, then the replacement material should be
wood, when feasible. It should match the original in size and finish.
6.4 Repair or replacement of missing or deteriorated features are required to be based on original
designs.
• The design should be substantiated by physical or pictorial evidence to avoid creating a
misrepresentation of the building’s heritage.
• When reconstruction of an element is impossible because there is no historical evidence, develop
a compatible new design that is a simplified interpretation of the original, and maintains similar
scale, proportion and material.
6.5 Do not guess at “historic” designs for replacement parts.
• Where scars on the exterior suggest that architectural features existed, but there is no other
physical or photographic evidence, then new features may be designed that are similar in character
to related buildings.
Exhibit 1
HP Reviews (Dec. 23, 2020)
1020 East Cooper Project
• Using ornate materials on a building or adding new conjectural detailing for which there is no
documentation is inappropriate.
Response – Original architectural details are lost with the exception of the gable end inside the interior of
the historic building. Any relevant historic details on the gable end will be used on the historic building
for review during Final Design. All other details will be simple, traditional, and similar to features found
on other 19th century miner’s cabins.
Roof
7.1 Preserve the original form of a roof.
• Do not alter the angle of a historic roof. Preserve the orientation and slope of the roof as seen from
the street.
• Retain and repair original and decorative roof detailing.
• Where the original roof form has been altered, consider restoration.
7.2 Preserve the original eave depth.
• Overhangs contribute to the scale and detailing of a historic resource.
• AspenModern properties typically have very deep or extremely minimal overhangs that are key
character defining features of the architectural style.
7.3 Minimize the visual impacts of skylights and other rooftop devices.
• Skylights and solar panels are generally not allowed on a historic structure. These elements may
be appropriate on an addition.
7.4 New vents should be minimized, carefully, placed and painted a dark color.
• Direct vents for fireplaces are generally not permitted to be added on historic structures.
• Locate vents on non-street facing facades.
• Use historic chimneys as chases for new flues when possible.
7.5 Preserve original chimneys, even if they are made non-functional.
• Reconstruct a missing chimney when documentation exists.
7.6 A new dormer should remain subordinate to the historic roof in scale and character.
• A new dormer is not appropriate on a primary, character defining façade.
• A new dormer should fit within the existing wall plane. It should be lower than the ridgeline and
set in from the eave. It should also be in proportion with the building.
• The mass and scale of a dormer addition must be subordinate to the scale of the historic building.
• While dormers improve the livability of upper floor spaces where low plate heights exist, they also
complicate the roof and may not be appropriate on very simple structures.
Exhibit 1
HP Reviews (Dec. 23, 2020)
1020 East Cooper Project
New Building
• Dormers are not generally not permitted on AspenModern properties since they are not
characteristics of these building styles.
7.7 Preserve original roof materials.
• Avoid removing historic roofing material that is in good condition. When replacement is
necessary, use a material that is similar to the original in both style as well as physical qualities
and use a color that is similar to that seen historically.
7.8 New or replacement roof materials should convey a scale, color and texture similar to the original.
• If a substitute is used, such as composition shingle, the roof material should be earth tone and
have a matte, non-reflective finish.
• Flashing should be in scale with the roof material.
• Flashing should be tin, lead coated copper, galvanized or painted metal and have a matte, non-
reflective finish.
• Design flashing, such as drip edges, so that architectural details are not obscured.
• A metal roof is inappropriate for an Aspen Victorian primary home but may be appropriate for a
secondary structure from that time period.
• A metal roof material should have a matte, non-reflective finish and match the original seaming.
7.9 Avoid using conjectural features on a roof.
• Adding ornamental cresting, for example, where there is no evidence that it existed, creates a
false impression of the building’s original appearance, and is inappropriate.
7.10 Design gutters so that their visibility on the structure is minimized to the extent possible.
• Downspouts should be placed in locations that are not visible from the street if possible, or in
locations that do not obscure architectural detailing on the building.
• The material used for the gutters should be in character with the style of the building.
Response – The existing roof form is proposed to remain as is. Composite shingles that are low
maintenance and similar in style to wood shingles are proposed to replace the existing asphalt roof.
Gutters, downspouts, and roof penetrations will be presented at Final Design Review.
Building Placement
11.1 Orient the new building to the street.
• AspenVictorian buildings should be arranged parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional
grid pattern.
• AspenModern alignments shall be handled case by case.
Exhibit 1
HP Reviews (Dec. 23, 2020)
1020 East Cooper Project
• Generally, do not set the new structure forward of the historic resource. Alignment of their front
setbacks is preferred. An exception may be made on a corner lot or where a recessed siting for
the new structure is a better preservation outcome.
Response – The new building is located behind the landmark and along the alley. It is parallel to the lot
lines which is consistent with the traditional grid pattern. Setback variances are not requested for the new
building.
Mass and Scale
11.2 In a residential context, clearly define the primary entrance to a new building by using a front
porch.
• The front porch shall be functional, and used as the means of access to the front door.
• A new porch must be similar in size and shape to those seen traditionally.
Response – The entrance to the new building is defined by a front porch at the street facing ground level
unit. The small size and one story nature of the proposed porch is similar to traditional front porches. A
small porch is proposed on the west elevation attached to an existing non-historic addition to the
landmark. This small porch provides a sheltered entrance and access to the rear unit in the historic
building.
11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale and proportion with the historic buildings on a
parcel.
• Subdivide larger masses into smaller “modules” that are similar in size to the historic buildings
on the original site.
• Reflect the heights and proportions that characterize the historic resource.
Response – The proposed L shaped footprint of the new building directly references the historic building’s
footprint. The prominent gable roof form has a similar pitch to the historic building. Material changes
between the ground level and upper levels break up the massing, and dormers along the east and west
facades add living space for the upper level unit while maintaining a prominent gable form. Sliding wood
shutters are proposed to add interest and to break up the façade of the building, and vertical wood board
and batten on the upper levels of the wood building add depth and dimension to the front façade.
Galvanized metal siding is proposed for the first level and as accents on the upper levels to add interest
to the east and west facades that face the neighboring multi-family buildings.
The set back of the new building behind the historic building and site green space very much reduces the
perception and appearance of mass and scale from the sidewalk. See also response to 11.4 below.
A bump out is proposed at the southwest corner of the landmark, in a non-historic location, to allow a
small accessible bathroom at grade which makes this unit visitable under ADA standards. Two small
exterior storage units are proposed on the west elevation of the landmark to provide additional storage.
Exhibit 1
HP Reviews (Dec. 23, 2020)
1020 East Cooper Project
11.4 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building.
• The primary plane of the front shall not appear taller than the historic structure.
Response – The front elevation of the new building is taller than the 15’ 4” one story historic building.
Creative design solutions are proposed to reduce the perception of this height difference. The 10 feet
distance between new and historic construction pushes the new building toward the alley. The building
sits at the 5 feet setback line, and could be pushed further back toward the alley at HPC’s direction to
increase this distance. The new building contextually sits between three story buildings to the east and
west of the 1020 property, and successfully completes the streetscape in this high density residential
neighborhood while preserving a one story historic cabin at the front of the property.
Decks and open stairs are proposed behind the landmark to break up the mass and to provide relief to
the Riverside Condominiums. The preservation of the spruce tree on the shared lot line between 1020
Project and Riverside provides a natural buffer between the properties; however, it also limits the ability
to spread out and step up massing behind the landmark.
11.5 The intent of the historic landmark lot split is to remove most of the development potential from
the historic resource and place it in the new structure.
• This should be kept in mind when determining how floor area will be allocated between
structures proposed as part of a lot split.
Response – A historic lot split is not proposed on this property; however, a new detached building is
proposed that removes development pressure from the landmark into the new construction.
11.6 Design a new structure to be recognized as a product of its own time.
• Consider these three aspects of a new building; form, materials, and fenestration. A project
must relate strongly to the historic resource in at least two of these elements. Departing from
the historic resource in one of these categories allows for creativity and a contemporary design
response.
• When choosing to relate to building form, use forms that are similar to the historic resource.
• When choosing to relate to materials, use materials that appear similar in scale and finish to
those used historically on the site and use building materials that contribute to a traditional
sense of human scale.
• When choosing to relate to fenestration, use windows and doors that are similar in size and
shape to those of the historic resource.
Response – The new building relates to building form and material application. Windows are rectangular
but are contemporary along the front (south) elevation. Building form relates to the landmark in
footprint, roof form, and roof pitch. Wood is proposed as the primary material to relate to the landmark.
The style and application of wood siding recalls historic woodsheds along Aspen’s alleys and is similar to
the some of the historic wood found within the walls of the 1020 landmark. Durability and low
maintenance are a primary consideration in the selection of weathered wood and galvanized metal on
the rear building.
11.7 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged.
Exhibit 1
HP Reviews (Dec. 23, 2020)
1020 East Cooper Project
• This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings.
• Overall, details shall be modest in character.
Response – The new building is clearly a product of its own time while simultaneously supporting and
highlighting the historic landmark. Details are subtle in nature and materials are durable to limit capital
expenses for the affordable housing residents.
26.415.080. Demolition of designated historic properties or properties within a
historic district.
It is the intent of this Chapter to preserve the historic and architectural resources that have demonstrated
significance to the community. Consequently no demolition of properties designated on the Aspen
Inventory of Historic Landmark Site and Structures or properties within a Historic District will be allowed
unless approved by the HPC in accordance with the standards set forth in this Section.
4. The HPC shall review the application, the staff report and hear evidence presented by the property
owners, parties of interest and members of the general public to determine if the standards for
demolition approval have been met. Demolition shall be approved if it is demonstrated that the
application meets any one of the following criteria:
a) The property has been determined by the City to be an imminent hazard to public safety and
the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely manner,
b) The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly
maintain the structure,
c) The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen or
d) No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic,
architectura l, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance and
Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met:
a) The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or Historic District in which it
is located and
b) The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the
Historic District or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated
properties and
c) Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the
area.
Response – Two non-historic sheds are located partly on the 1020 property and partly within the alley. The
sheds are not shown on the Willits Map or any other 19th century aerial photographs. As such, the two
sheds are not related to the period of significance of the miner’s cabin and are requested to be demolished.
26.415.090. Relocation of designated historic properties.
The intent of this Chapter is to preserve designated historic properties in their original locations as much
of their significance is embodied in their setting and physical relationship to their surroundings as well as
Exhibit 1
HP Reviews (Dec. 23, 2020)
1020 East Cooper Project
their association with events and people with ties to particular site. However, it is recognized that
occasionally the relocation of a property may be appropriate as it provides an alternative to demolition or
because it only has a limited impact on the attributes that make it significant.
C. Standards for the relocation of designated properties. Relocation for a building, structure or object
will be approved if it is determined that it meets any one of the following standards:
1. It is considered a noncontributing element of a historic district and its relocation will not affect the
character of the historic district; or
2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on which it is located
and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the Historic District or property; or
3. The owner has obtained a certificate of economic hardship; or
4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given the
character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not adversely affect the
integrity of the Historic District in which it was originally located or diminish the historic,
architectural or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated properties; and
Additionally, for approval to relocate all of the following criteria must be met:
1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding the physical
impacts of relocation;
2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and
3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and preservation of
the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary financial security.
Response – The historic landmark is proposed to be stabilized and moved to the 5 feet front setback toward
Cooper Avenue. The landmark is not part of a historic district and its relocation forward provides better
visibility of the restored miner’s cabin along Cooper Avenue. The context and setting of the landmark have
significantly changed over time with three story large condominium buildings to the east and west of the
property. Pulling the landmark forward gives it street presence and positively contributes to the streetscape.
The standard $30,000 letter of credit or similar form of financial assurance is acceptable to the owner to
ensure safe relocation of the landmark.
Design guidelines are addressed below:
9.1 Developing a basement by underpinning and excavating while the historic structure remains in place
may help to preserve the historic fabric.
• This activity will require the same level of documentation, structural assessment, and posting of
financial assurances as a building relocation.
Response – n/a. The historic building is proposed to be relocated on the site.
9.2 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
Exhibit 1
HP Reviews (Dec. 23, 2020)
1020 East Cooper Project
• In general, on-site relocation has less of an impact on individual landmark structures than those
in a historic district.
• In a district, where numerous adjacent historic structures may exist, the way that buildings were
placed on the site historically, and the open yards visible from the street are characteristics that
should be respected in new development.
• Provide a figure ground study of the surrounding parcels to demonstrate the effects of a building
relocation.
• In some cases, the historic significance of the structure, the context of the site, the construction
technique, and the architectural style may make on-site relocation too impactful to be
appropriate. It must be demonstrated that on-site relocation is the best preservation alternative
in order for approval to be granted.
• If relocation would result in the need to reconstruct a substantial area of the original exterior
surface of the building above grade, it is not an appropriate preservation option.
Response – Relocating the house forward on the lot brings the landmark into closer relationship to buildings
along the block that meet the required 5 feet setback. A more prominent location on the property highlights
the landmark in a high density neighborhood.
9.3 Site a relocated structure in a position similar to its historic orientation.
• It must face the same direction and have a relatively similar setback. In general, a forward
movement, rather than a lateral movement is preferred. HPC will consider setback variations
where appropriate.
• A primary structure may not be moved to the rear of the parcel to accommodate a new building in
front of it.
• Be aware of potential restrictions against locating buildings too close to mature trees. Consult with
the City Forester early in the design process. Do not relocate a building so that it becomes obscured
by trees.
Response – The structure is proposed to be moved to comply with the 5 feet side setbacks and the 5 feet
front yard setback. The perpendicular orientation of the building to Cooper Avenue is maintained which
reinforces the traditional street grid and traditional siting of historic buildings.
9.4 Position a relocated structure at its historic elevation above grade.
• Raising the finished floor of the building slightly above its original elevation is acceptable if needed
to address drainage issues. A substantial change in position relative to grade is inappropriate.
• Avoid making design decisions that require code related alterations which could have been avoided.
In particular, consider how the relationship to grade could result in non-historic guardrails, etc.
Response – There are challenging grades on the property, as noted on the improvement survey. A slight
increase in height is proposed for the landmark to accommodate a single step to the front porch and to
promote positive drainage away from the historic resource.
Exhibit 1
HP Reviews (Dec. 23, 2020)
1020 East Cooper Project
9.5 A new foundation shall appear similar in design and materials to the historic foundation.
• On modest structures, a simple foundation is appropriate. Constructing a stone foundation on a
miner’s cottage where there is no evidence that one existed historically is out of character and is
not allowed.
• Exposed concrete or painted metal flashing are generally appropriate.
• Where a stone or brick foundation existed historically, it must be replicated, ideally using stone
salvaged from the original foundation as a veneer. The replacement must be similar in the cut of
the stone and design of the mortar joints.
• New AspenModern foundations shall be handled on a case by case basis to ensure preservation
of the design intent.
Response – The new foundation will be exposed concrete or painted metal flashing.
9.6 Minimize the visual impact of lightwells.
• The size of any lightwell that faces a street should be minimized.
• Lightwells must be placed so that they are not immediately adjacent to character defining
features, such as front porches.
• Lightwells must be protected with a flat grate, rather than a railing or may not be visible from a
street.
• Lightwells that face a street must abut the building foundation and generally may not “float” in
the landscape except where they are screened, or on an AspenModern site.
Response – Lightwells are the minimum 3 x 3 size for egress, and are minimized to the greatest extend
possible while still provided natural light to below grade bedrooms.
9.7 All relocations of designated structures shall be performed by contractors who specialize in moving
historic buildings, or can document adequate experience in successfully relocating such buildings.
• The specific methodology to be used in relocating the structure must be approved by the HPC.
• During the relocation process, panels must be mounted on the exterior of the building to protect
existing openings and historic glass. Special care shall be taken to keep from damaging door and
window frames and sashes in the process of covering the openings. Significant architectural
details may need to be removed and securely stored until restoration.
• The structure is expected to be stored on its original site during the construction process.
Proposals for temporary storage on a different parcel will be considered on a case by case basis
and may require special conditions of approval.
• A historic resource may not be relocated outside of the City of Aspen.
Response – A letter from a licensed engineer is included as Exhibit 2. A house mover has inspected the
historic building and proposed relocation and is confident in a successful relocation.
Exhibit 1
HP Reviews (Dec. 23, 2020)
1020 East Cooper Project
9.8 Proposals to relocate a building to a new site are highly discouraged.
• Permanently relocating a structure from where it was built to a new site is only allowed for special
circumstances, where it is demonstrated to be the only preservation alternative.
Response – n/a.
MIKE THELE, P.E.
S t r u c t u r a I E n g i n e e r i n g S e r v i c e s, I n c.
0296 Seven Oaks Road : Carbondale, Colorado 81623
(970) 963-3181 : Toll Free (888) 845-3911 : Fax (970) 963-3182
mike@mikethelepe.com
October 27, 2020
Collin Frank, AIA
DJ Architects
119 South Spring St. Ste. 203
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: 1020 East Cooper Project
Aspen, Colorado
Dear Collin,
This is in regards to proposed improvements to the existing residence at 1020 East Cooper Street in
Aspen. Current plans by your office indicate that the existing building is to be moved on the site to
facilitate construction of a full basement and building additions placed to the north. On May 30,
2019 I visited the project site to observe and review the existing residence in regards to its
soundness, ability to withstand the physical move and its rehabilitation needs after the move.
The existing residence is a single story wood framed structure with gable roofs and a framed floor
over a shallow crawl space. I understand that the south portion of the residence including the living
room and two bedrooms is the original construction and is considered historic. The north portion
including the kitchen, dining and an additional bedroom are a subsequent addition to the original.
The addition appears to have a concrete foundation. The crawlspace below the original construction
was not accessible. Portions of the building may have experienced some settlement considering the
limited function of some doors and windows.
Based on observations the existing building structure appears to be basically sound and should be
able to withstand the physical move. I understand that the Covered Patio along the north side of the
building is to be demolished prior to the move. The physical move of the building should be
conducted by a qualified building mover with appropriate experience in stabilizing and moving
similar structures.
Rehabilitation needs will include a full review and analysis of the existing building structure to
determine if the structure meets current building code requirements and to coordinate with the
proposed new construction plans. The existing roof structure will likely need improvements to meet
current roof snow load demands. The existing floor structure may need to be replaced or modified to
exhibit 2
1020 East Cooper Project
October 27, 2020
Page two
coordinate with the new basement plans. Complete construction documents would be required for
the proposed remodel and additions.
The conclusions of this review are based on visual observations only. No finish materials were
removed to observe concealed conditions and no measurements or analyses were provided.
Regards,
Exhibit 3
Growth Management Review + Affordable Housing Credits (Dec. 23, 2020)
1020 East Cooper Project
Exhibit 3
Growth Management
Establishment of Housing Credits
Growth Management
26.470.050.B General Requirements: All development applications for growth management review shall
comply with the following standards. The reviewing body shall approve, approve with conditions or deny
and application for growth management review based on the following generally applicable criteria and
the review criteria applicable to the specific type of development:
1. Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the proposed
development, pursuant to Subsection 26.470.030.D. Applications for multi-year allotments, pursuant to
Paragraph 26.470.090.1 shall not be required to meet this standard.
Response – Five affordable housing allotments are requested. According to Land Use Code Section
26.470.030.D, no annual limit applies to affordable housing.
2. The proposed development is compatible with land uses in the surrounding area, as well as with
any applicable adopted regulatory master plan.
Response - The high density residential neighborhood is multi-family residential buildings with some single
family buildings. The proposed affordable housing units are consistent with the residential uses in this
neighborhood and the intent of the Residential Multi-Family Zone District.
3. The development conforms to the requirements and limitations of the zone district.
Response - The development conforms to the Residential Multi-Family Zone District.
4. The proposed development is consistent with the Conceptual Historic Preservation Commission
approval, the Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval and the Planned Development – Project
Review approval, as applicable.
Response - Conceptual HPC review is requested as part of this application.
5. Unless otherwise specified in this Chapter, sixty percent (60%) of the employees generated by the
additional commercial or lodge development, according to Subsection 26.470.100.A, Employee generation
rates, are mitigated through the provision of affordable housing. The employee generation mitigation plan
shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing, at Category 4 rate as defined
in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide
mitigation units at a lower category designation. If an applicant chooses to use a Certificate of Affordable
Housing Credit as mitigation, pursuant to Chapter 26.540, such Certificate shall be extinguished pursuant
to Chapter 26.540.90 Criteria for Administrative Extinguishment of the Certificate.
Response - Not applicable.
Exhibit 3
Growth Management Review + Affordable Housing Credits (Dec. 23, 2020)
1020 East Cooper Project
6. Affordable housing net livable area, for which the finished floor level is at or above natural or
finished grade, whichever is higher, shall be provided in an amount equal to at least thirty percent (30%)
of the additional free-market residential net livable area, for which the finished floor level is at or above
natural or finished grade, whichever is higher.
Affordable housing shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing, and be
restricted to a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as
amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. Affordable
housing units that are being provided absent a requirement ("voluntary units") may be deed-restricted at
any level of affordability, including residential occupied. If an applicant chooses to use a Certificate of
Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation, pursuant to Chapter 26.540, such Certificate shall be extinguished
pursuant to Chapter 26.540.90 Criteria for Administrative Extinguishment of the Certificate, utilizing the
calculations in Section 26.470.100 Employee/Square Footage Conversion.
Response - Not applicable.
7. The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure, or such additional
demand is mitigated through improvement proposed as part of the project. Public infrastructure includes,
but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment, energy and communication utilities, drainage
control, fire and police protection, solid waste disposal, parking and road and transit services.
Response - The property is already developed. Additional public infrastructure will be upgraded as needed
by the applicant.
26.470.070.4 Affordable housing. The development of affordable housing deed-restricted in accordance
with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines shall be approved, approved with conditions or
denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the following criteria:
a. The proposed units comply with the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. A
recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be required for this standard. The
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority may choose to hold a public hearing with the Board of Directors.
Response - The proposed units comply with the APCHA Guidelines as shown below:
Exhibit 3
Growth Management Review + Affordable Housing Credits (Dec. 23, 2020)
1020 East Cooper Project
Table 1: Affordable Housing Unit Breakdown
Unit Bed-
room
Basement
Net
Livable
Area (sf)
Ground
Level Net
Livable
Area (sf)
Second
Level Net
Livable
Area (sf)
Third
Level Net
Livable
Area (sf)
Extra
Storage
Total
Size (sf)
Excluding
storage
Size
range(sf)
Private
Deck
Stacked
Unit
landmark
101
2 462.52 450.47 103.9* x 12.41 1,016.9 900 -720 y y
landmark
102
2 482.85 477.6 101.16* x 12.41 1,061.6 900 -720 y y
103 2 436.51 471.54 x x 7.53 908.1 900-720 y y
201 3 x x 1,026.90 x 43.06 1,011.8 1200-
960
y n
301 3 x x x 1,028.15 43.06 1,013.0 1200-
960
y n
TOTAL Net Livable Area (sf) 118.5 5,011.4
*Units 101 and 102 have lofted interior storage.
A total of 12.75 FTEs are proposed. Each unit has assigned storage, private outdoor space, and interior
washer/dryers. A bike rack is proposed on the property. Two units are slightly smaller than the
minimum size listed in the APCHA Affordable Housing Development Policy. Criteria to grant a reduction
to the minimum net livable square footage is addressed below.
Permitted Adjustments to Net Minimum Livable Square Footage
The approval of the city or county of Net Minimum Livable square footage of affordable
housing units for construction or conversion must be obtained prior to the issuance of a
building permit. Any adjustment is subject to the approval of the city or county.
1. Permitted Reduction of Square Footage
Net Minimum Livable Square Footage may be reduced by the city or county based on the
specific criteria identified below, and if the permit applicant sufficiently demonstrates that
construction requires accommodation for physical conditions of the property or in
consideration of design for livability, common storage, amenities, location and site design,
including but not limited to provisions for the following:
• Significant storage space located outside the unit;
Response – Extra storage units are provided for Unit 201 and 301 on the basement level.
Exhibit 3
Growth Management Review + Affordable Housing Credits (Dec. 23, 2020)
1020 East Cooper Project
• Above average natural light, i.e. more windows than required by code;
Response – All units have above average natural light.
• Efficient, flexible layout with limited hall and staircase space;
Response – The two 3-bedroom units that require a reduction in size are both a single story to
maximize useable space and limit halls and stairways.
• Availability of site amenities, such as pool or proximity to park or open space;
Response – The project is located within close walking distance to downtown, the local grocery
store, the Roaring Fork River, and multiple bike and walking trails. Open space is provided onsite in
the side yards and between the buildings. The project is near a RFTA bus stop on Cooper.
• Unit location within the development, i.e. above ground location versus ground level or
below ground; and/or
Response – The 3-bedroom units are located above grade.
• Possibility that project can achieve higher density of deed restricted units with a reduction
variance.
Response – The project is able to achieve a higher density of units with a reduction in unit size.
b. Affordable housing required for mitigation purposes shall be in the form of actual newly built units or
buy-down units. Off-site units shall be provided within the City limits. Units outside the City limits may be
accepted as mitigation by the City Council, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.2. If the mitigation
requirement is less than one (1) full unit, a fee-in-lieu payment may be accepted by the Planning and Zoning
Commission upon a recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. If the mitigation
requirement is one (1) or more units, a fee-in-lieu payment shall require City Council approval, pursuant to
Paragraph 26.470.090.3. A Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit may be used to satisfy mitigation
requirements by approval of the Community Development Department Director, pursuant to Section
26.540.080 Extinguishment of the Certificate. Required affordable housing may be provided through a mix
of these methods.
Response - The proposed deed restricted units are not required for mitigation purposes.
c. Each unit provided shall be designed such that the finished floor level of fifty percent (50%) or more of
the unit's net livable area is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher. This dimensional
requirement may be varied through Special Review, Pursuant to Chapter 26.430.
Response – All units comply with the 50% requirement as shown on the drawing set.
d. The proposed units shall be deed-restricted as "for sale" units and transferred to qualified purchasers
according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. The owner may be entitled to select
the first purchasers, subject to the aforementioned qualifications, with approval from the Aspen/Pitkin
Exhibit 3
Growth Management Review + Affordable Housing Credits (Dec. 23, 2020)
1020 East Cooper Project
County Housing Authority. The deed restriction shall authorize the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority
or the City to own the unit and rent it to qualified renters as defined in the Affordable Housing Guidelines
established by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, as amended. The proposed units may be rental
units, including but not limited to rental units owned by an employer or nonprofit organization, if a legal
instrument in a form acceptable to the City Attorney ensures permanent affordability of the units. The City
encourages affordable housing units required for lodge development to be rental units associated with the
lodge operation and contributing to the long-term viability of the lodge. Units owned by the Aspen/Pitkin
County Housing Authority, the City of Aspen, Pitkin County or other similar governmental or quasi-
municipal agency shall not be subject to this mandatory "for sale" provision.
Response - The applicant proposes a 100% rental project with the intention of selling the units to employers
to rent to qualified employees. The owner respectfully requests to designate category at the time of deed
restriction with the understanding that units will be Category 4 or lower.
e. Non-Mitigation Affordable Housing. Affordable housing units that are not required for mitigation, but
meet the requirements of Section 26.470.070.4(a-d). The owner of such non-mitigation affordable housing
is eligible to receive a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit pursuant to Chapter 26.540.
Response - The affordable housing units are all voluntary units which are eligible for affordable housing
credits.
Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit
The project proposes 5 deed restricted rental units, which equals 12.75 affordable housing credit certificate
as calculated in Table 1 above.
26.540.070 Review criteria for establishing an affordable housing credit. An Affordable Housing Credit may
be established by the Planning and Zoning Commission if all of the following criteria are met. The proposed
units do not need to be constructed prior to this review.
A. The proposed affordable housing unit(s) comply with the review standards of Section 26.470.070.4(a-d).
Response –These standards are addressed above.
B. The affordable housing unit(s) are not an obligation of a Development Order and are not otherwise
required by this Title to mitigate the impacts of development.
Response – The proposed units are not affected by a Development Order and are not committed to satisfy
mitigation requirements for any other development.
Exhibit 4
Parking/Transportation
1020 East Cooper Project
Exhibit 4
Transportation
Transportation and Parking Management
26.515.060.C. Review Criteria. All development and redevelopment projects are required to submit a
Mobility Plan, which shall include and describe a project’s mitigations for TIA and Parking Requirements.
The Engineering, Transportation, and Community Development Department staff shall determine whether
the project conforms to this Chapter requirements using the following standards:
1. Project TIA and the resulting mitigation program meets requirements for exempt, minor or
major project categories as outlined in the TIA Guidelines.
Response – A completed TIA is attached.
2. Project provides full mitigation for the Parking Requirements pursuant to Section 26.515.050.
Response –The Residential Multi-family Zone District allows 100% of the parking mitigation
be provided through cash in lieu. Four parking spaces are provided, including an ADA
compliant space for the five affordable housing units. A mix of onsite and cash in lieu is
proposed to promote alternative forms of transportation and to address the need for onsite
parking. Four onsite spaces and cash in lieu for one parking space mitigates for the 5
parking spaces in accordance with Code.
3. If existing development is expanded, additional Parking Requirements shall be provided for that
increment of the expansion.
Response – n/a.
4. If existing development is redeveloped, on-site parking deficits may not be maintained unless
all parking, or at least 20 spaces are provided as Public Parking.
Response – n/a.
DRAWING ISSUE
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:1907
CPF
HPC APPLICATION 10/28/2020
BI
M
c
l
o
u
d
:
BI
M
S
e
r
v
e
r
-
BI
M
c
l
o
u
d
Ba
s
i
c
fo
r
AR
C
H
I
C
A
D
24
/10
2
0
Co
o
p
e
r
_ We
d
n
e
s
d
a
y
,
Oc
t
o
b
e
r
28
,
20
2
0
12
:35
PM
|
AS
P
E
N
CO
10
2
0
E.
CO
O
P
E
R
PR
O
J
E
C
T
119 South Spring St. | Suite 203
Aspen, CO 81611
T 970-925-3444
www.djarchitects.com
A1.03
SITE PLAN | TIA | 3/16"
All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
owned by and are the property of David
Johnston Architects, PC and developed for use
and in conjunction with the specified project.
None of the ideas, designs, arrangements or
plans shall be used by or disclosed for any
purpose whatsoever without the written
authorization of David Johnston Architects, PC.
Sheet No.
10
'
-
0
"
19
'
-
0
"
5'
-
0
"
5'-0"
5'
-
0
"
2'
-
2
"
4'-10
3/4"
EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN-
10' DRIPLINE
BIKE AREA
ACCESS
POINT
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
LI
N
E
SETBACK
SE
T
B
A
C
K
SE
T
B
A
C
K
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
LI
N
E
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
3 0 ' CROW
FLIES DISTAN
C
E
40' WALKING DISTANCE
UP
9'-0"8'-1115/16"9'-01/16"8'-0"8'-11/2"67/16"
5'-0"
SETBACK
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"1 TIA SITE PLAN
0 4'8'12'
N
DATE:
PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT ADDRESS:
APPLICANT CONTACT
INFORMATION:
NAME, COMPANY,
ADDRESS, PHONE, EMAIL
Peak Hour Max Trips Generated MMLOS TDM Total Trips Mitigated
PM 3.6 8 0.02 8.02 0.00
A bike rack is proposed on the property. A bear proof trash can is proposed for the Mountain Valley RFTA bus stop as suggested by the
Transportation Department.
TDM
Provide details in the space provided for the proposed carshare participation. Carshare programs have been linked to increased use of
alternative transportation modes and reduced SOV trips. The successful project will provide access to Aspen’s CAR TO GO carshare program.
Trip reduction potential will depend on the level to which the development participates. Car share memberships can be provided to all
employees or residents of new developments.
A year membership will be provided to all initial and eligible tenants in the project. A year membership promotes use of the carshare program
and discourages car ownership.
Project Description
In the space below provide a description of the proposed project.
A single family home is proposed to be converted into a 5-unit affordable housing project. Four onsite parking spaces are proposed. A bike rack
is provided for residents and a year membership to the City's car-to-go program is proposed for each unit to promote alternative forms of
transportation and to discourage car ownership.
MMLOS
Include any additional information that pertains to the MMLOS plan in the space provided below.
Sara Adams
BendonAdams
300 S. Spring St. #202, Aspen CO 81621
970-925-2855
sara@bendonadams.com
Summary and Narrative:
Narrative:
10/30/2020
1020 East Cooper Project
1020 East Cooper Avenue
Trip Generation
SUMMARY
Trip Mitigation NET TRIPS TO BE
MITIGATED
Click on the "Generate Narrative" Button to the right.
Respond to each of the prompts in the space provided.
Each response should cover the following:
1. Explain the selected measure.
2. Call out where the measure is located.
3. Demonstrate how the selected measure is appropriate to enhance the project site
and reduce traffic impacts.
4. Explain the Enforcement and Financing Plan for the selected measure.
5. Explain the scheduling and implementation responsibility of the mitigation measure.
6. Attach any additional information and a site map to the narrative report.
exhibit 5
Provide an overview of the Enforcement and Financing plan for the proposed transportation mitigation measures.
Transportation measures will be implemented at the time of unit occupation.
Monitoring and Reporting
Provide a monitoring and reporting plan. Refer to page 17 in the Transportation Analysis Guidelines for a list of monitoring plan
requirements. Components of a Monitoring and Reporting Plan should include (1) Assessment of compliance with guidelines, (2) Results and
effectiveness of implemented measures, (3) Identification of additional strategies, and (4) Surveys and other supporting data.
The TIA can be audited by the City of Aspen or APCHA to confirm compliance.
Enforcement and Financing
Enforcement is the responsibility of the City and APCHA. Financing for the carshare program will be through the employers that own the unit.
Scheduling and Implementation Responsibility of Mitigation Measures
Provide an overview of the scheduling and implementation responsibility for the proposed transportation mitigation measures.
Slopes Between Back of Curb and Sidewalk
2% Slope at Pedestrian Driveway Crossings
Pedestrian Directness Factor (See callout number 9 on the MMLOS sheet for an example)
Bicycle Parking
Bus Stop Trash Recepticle
Alternative forms of transporation, RFTA schedules and information, bike/trail maps, and information about Wecycle will be included in a
welcome package for new renters.
Include any additional information that pertains to the TDM plan in the space provided below.
We are open to other options for a 100% residential project.
MMLOS Site Plan Requirements
Include the following on a site plan. Clearly call out and label each measure. Attach the site plan to the TIA submittal.
Explain the proposed trip reduction marketing/incentive program in the space provided. A trip reduction marketing programs should include
a number of the following strategies: orientation to trip reduction programs and benefits; orientation to specific alternative transportation
modes such as bus service information, bike/walk route maps, etc.; publishing of web or traditional informational materials; events and
contests such as commuter fairs, new employee orientations, bike to work days, etc.; educational opportunities such bicycle commute/repair
classes; web or traditional materials aimed at guests/customers such as bike/walk maps, free transit day passes, etc.; incentive programs
such as prizes, rewards or discounts for alternative commuting.
= input= calculation
DATE:
PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT ADDRESS:
APPLICANT CONTACT
INFORMATION:
NAME, COMPANY,
ADDRESS, PHONE, EMAIL
Minor
Entering Exiting Total Entering Exiting Total
Commercial (sf)0.0 sf 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Free-Market Housing (Units)-1 Units -0.19 -0.48 -0.67 -0.46 -0.36 -0.82
Affordable Housing (Units)5 Units 1.80 1.95 3.75 2.45 2.00 4.45
Lodging (Units)0 Units 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Essential Public Facility (sf)0.0 sf 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.61 1.47 3.08 1.99 1.64 3.63
Land Use Trip Rate %Entering %Exiting Trip Rate %Entering %Exiting
Commercial 2.27 0.69 0.31 4.14 0.4 0.6
Free-Market Housing 0.67 0.29 0.71 0.82 0.56 0.44
Affordable Housing 0.75 0.48 0.52 0.89 0.55 0.45
Lodging 0.25 0.57 0.43 0.31 0.52 0.48
Essential Public Facility 0.86 0.62 0.38 1.66 0.4 0.6
Sara Adams
BendonAdams
300 S. Spring St. #202, Aspen CO 81621
970-925-2855
sara@bendonadams.com
Trip Generation
10/30/2020
AM Peak Average PM Peak Average
Trips Generated
AM Peak-Hour PM Peak-Hour
TOTAL NEW TRIPS
ASSUMPTIONS
ASPEN TRIP GENERATION
Is this a major or minor project?
1020 East Cooper Avenue
1020 East Cooper Project
Net New
Units/Square Feet of
the Proposed ProjectProposed Land Use
*For mixed-use (at least two of the established land uses) sites, a 4% reduction for AM Peak-Hour and a 14% reduction for PM Peak-Hour is applied to
the trip generation.
Instructions:
IMPORTANT: Turn on Macros: In order for code to run correctly the security settings need to be altered. Click "File"
and then click "Excel Options." In the "Trust Center"category, click "Trust Center Settings", and then click the "Macro
Settings"category. Beneath "Macro Settings" select "Enable all Macros."
Sheet 1. Trip Generation: Enter the project's square footage and/or unit counts under Proposed Land Use. The
numbers should reflect the net change in land use between existing and proposed conditions. If a landuse is to be
reduced put a negative number of units or square feet.
Sheet 2. MMLOS: Answer Yes, No, or Not Applicable under each of the Pedestrian, Bike and Transit sections.Points are
only awarded for proposed (not existing) and confirmed aspects of the project.
Sheet 3. TDM: Choose the mitigation measures that are appropriate for your project.
Sheet 4. Summary and Narrative: Review the summary of the project's mitigated trips and provide a narrative which
explains the measures selected for the project. Click on "Generate Narrative" and individually explain each measure
that was chosen and how it enhances the site or mitigates vehicle traffic. Ensure each selected measure make sense for
Minor Development -Inside the Roundabout
Major Development -Outside the Roundabout
Helpful Hints:
1. Refer to the Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines for information on the use of this tool.
2. Refer to TIA Frequently Asked Questions for a quick overview.
2. Hover over red corner tags for additional information on individual measures.
3. Proposed TDM or MMLOS measures should be new and/or an improvement of existing conditions. A project will not
receive credit for measures already in place. Proposed TDM or MMLOS measures should also make sense in the context
of project location and future use.
Transportation Impact Analysis
TIA Frequently Asked Questions
= input
= calculation
8
Category Sub.Measure Number Question Answer Points
1
Does the project propose a detached sidewalk where an attached
sidewalk currently exists? Does the proposed sidewalk and buffer
meet standard minimum widths?
No 0
2 Is the proposed effective sidewalk width greater than the standard
minimum width?No 0
3 Does the project propose a landscape buffer greater than the
standard minimum width?No 0
0
4
Does the project propose a detached sidewalk on an adjacent
block? Does the proposed sidewalk and buffer meet standard
minimum widths?
No 0
5 Is the proposed effective sidewalk width on an adjacent block
greater than the standard minimum width?No 0
6 Is the proposed landscape buffer on an adjacent block greater than
the standard minimum width?No 0
0
7 Are slopes between back of curb and sidewalk equal to or less than
5%?Yes 0
8 Are curbs equal to (or less than) 6 inches?Yes 0
9
Is new large-scale landscaping proposed that improves the
pedestrian experience? Properties within the Core do not have ample
area to provide the level of landscaping required to receive credit in
this category.
No 0
10 Does the project propose an improved crosswalk? This measure must
get City approval before receiving credit. No 0
0
11 Are existing driveways removed from the street?No 0
12 Is pedestrian and/or vehicle visibility unchanged by new structure or
column?Yes 0
13 Is the grade (where pedestrians cross) on cross-slope of driveway 2%
or less?Yes 0
14
Does the project propose enhanced pedestrian access points from
the ROW? This includes improvements to ADA ramps or creating new
access points which prevent pedestrians from crossing a street.
No 0
15 Does the project propose enhanced pedestrian or bicyclist interaction
with vehicles at driveway areas?No 0
0
16 Is the project's pedestrian directness factor less than 1.5?Yes 0
17
Does the project propose new improvements which reduce the
pedestrian directness factor to less than 1.2? A site which has an
existing pedestrian directness factor less than 1.2 cannot receive
credit in this category.
No 0
18 Is the project proposing an off site improvement that results in a
pedestrian directness factor below 1.2?* No 0
19 Are traffic calming features proposed that are part of an approved
plan (speed humps, rapid flash)?*No 0
MMLOS Input Page
Subtotal
Subtotal
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
on
A
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
B
l
o
c
k
s
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
on
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
F
r
o
n
t
a
g
e
Subtotal
Instructions: Answer Yes, No, or Not Applicable to each measure under the Pedestrian, Bike and Transit sections.
Subtotal
Pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
TOTAL NUMBER OF TRIPS MITIGATED:
Pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
R
o
u
t
e
s
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
C
a
l
m
i
n
g
a
n
d
Pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
N
e
t
w
o
r
k
Dr
i
v
e
w
a
y
s
,
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
,
a
n
d
A
c
c
e
s
s
Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
0
20
Are additional minor improvements proposed which benefit the
pedestrian experience and have been agreed upon with City of Aspen
staff?
No 0
21
Are additional major improvements proposed which benefit the
pedestrian experience and have been agreed upon with City of Aspen
staff?
No 0
0
0
Category Sub.Measure Number Question Answer Points
22 Is a new bicycle path being implemented with City approved design?No 0
23 Do new bike paths allow access without crossing a street or
driveway?No 0
24 Is there proposed landscaping, striping, or signage improvements to
an existing bicycle path?No 0
25 Does the project propose additional minor bicycle improvements
which have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff?No 0
26 Does the project propose additional major bicycle improvements
which have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff?No 0
0
Bi
c
y
c
l
e
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
27 Is the project providing bicycle parking?Yes 5
5
5
Category Sub.Measure Number Question Answer Points
28 Is seating/bench proposed?No 0
29 Is a trash receptacle proposed?Yes 3
30 Is transit system information (signage) proposed?NA 0
31 Is shelter/shade proposed?No 0
32 Is enhanced pedestrian-scale lighting proposed?No 0
33 Is real-time transit information proposed?No 0
34 Is bicycle parking/storage proposed specifically for bus stop use?No 0
35 Are ADA improvements proposed?No 0
3
36 Is a bus pull-out proposed at an existing stop?No 0
37 Is relocation of a bus stop to improve transit accessibility or roadway
operations proposed?No 0
38 Is a new bus stop proposed (with minimum of two basic amenities)?No 0
0
3
Pedestrian Total*
Bicycles Total*
Transit Total*
Bi
c
y
c
l
e
s
Mo
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
B
i
c
y
c
l
e
Pa
t
h
s
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
Ba
s
i
c
A
m
e
n
i
t
i
e
s
Subtotal
Subtotal
Subtotal
En
h
a
n
c
e
d
Am
e
n
i
t
i
e
s
Subtotal
Subtotal
Subtotal
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
Category Measure
Number Sub. Question Answer Strategy VMT
Reductions
Will an onsite ammenities strategy be implemented?No
Which onsite ammenities will be implemented?
Will a shared shuttle service strategy be implemented?NA
What is the degree of implementation?
What is the company size?
What percentage of customers are eligible?
3 Nonmotorized Zones Will a nonmotorized zones strategy be implemented?NA 0.00%
0.00%
Category Measure
Number Sub. Question Answer Strategy VMT
Reductions
Will a network expansion stragtegy be implemented?NA
What is the percentage increase of transit network coverage?
What is the existing transit mode share as a % of total daily trips?
Will a service frequency/speed strategy be implemented?NA
What is the percentage reduction in headways (increase in frequency)?
What is the existing transit mode share as a % of total daily trips?
What is the level of implementation?
Will a transit access improvement strategy be implemented?NA
What is the extent of access improvements?
7 Intercept Lot Will an intercept lot strategy be implemented?NA 0.00%
0.00%
Category Measure
Number Sub. Question Answer Strategy VMT
Reductions
Will there be participation in TOP?No
What percentage of employees are eligible?100%
Is a transit fare subsidy strategy implemented?NA
What percentage of employees are eligible?
What is the amount of transit subsidy per passenger (daily equivalent)?
Is an employee parking cash-out strategy being implemented?NA
What percentage of employees are eligible?
Is a workplace parking pricing strategy implemented?NA
What is the daily parking charge?
What percentage of employees are subject to priced parking?
Is a compressed work weeks strategy implemented?NA
What percentage of employees are participating?
What is the workweek schedule?
Is an employer sponsered shuttle program implemented?NA
What is the employer size?
What percentage of employees are eligible?
Is a carpool matching strategy implemented?NA
What percentage of employees are eligble?
Is carshare participation being implemented?Yes
How many employee memberships have been purchased?<100
What percentage of employees are eligble?100%
Is participation in the bikeshare program WE-cycle being implemented?NA
How many memberships have been purchased?<100
What percentage of employees/guests are eligble?100%
Is an end of trip facilities strategy being implemented?NA
What is the degree of implementation?
What is the employer size?
Is a self-funded emergency ride home strategy being implemented?NA
What percentage of employees are eligible?
Is a carpool/vanpool priority parking strategy being implemented?NA
What is the employer size?
What number of parking spots are available for the program?
Is a private employer shuttle strategy being implemented?NA
What is the employer size?
What percentage of employees are eligible?
Is a trip reduction marketing/incentive program implemented?Yes
What percentage of employees/guests are eligible?
0.44%
0.00%
0.44%
1. 22% work trips represents a mixed-used site (SF Bay Area Travel Survey). See Assumptions Tab for more detail.
Maximum Reduction Allowed in CategoryTr
a
n
s
i
t
S
y
s
t
e
m
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
St
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
1
2
4
5
6
8
9
10
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Maximum Reduction Allowed in Category
Maximum Reduction Allowed in Category
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
2.00%
Bikeshare Program
0.00%
TDM Input Page
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Co
m
m
u
t
e
T
r
i
p
R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
Onsite Servicing
Shared Shuttle Service
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
/
S
i
t
e
En
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
0.00%
0.00%
Network Expansion
Service Frequency/Speed
Transit Access Improvement
Participation in TOP
Transit Fare Subsidy
Employee Parking Cash-Out
Workplace Parking Pricing
Compressed Work Weeks
Employer Sponsored Vanpool
Carpool Matching
Carshare Program
Self-funded Emergency Ride Home
Carpool/Vanpool Priority Parking
Private Employer Shuttle
Trip Reduction Marketing/Incentive
Program
End of Trip Facilities
Cross Category Maximum Reduction, Neighborhood and Transit
Global Maximum VMT Reductions
11
12
13
14
15
21
16
17
18
19
20
Instructions TDM: Choose the mitigation measures that are appropriate for your project. Proposed TDM or
MMLOS measures should be new and/or an improvement of existing conditions. A project will not receive credit for
measures already in place. Proposed TDM or MMLOS measures should also make sense in the context of project
location and future use.
Residential Design Standards
Administrative Compliance Review Applicant Checklist - Multi-family Development
Standard Complies Alternative
Compliance N/A Sheet #(s)/Notes
B.1.Building Orientation
(Flexible)
B.2.Garage Access
(Non-flexible)
B.3.Garage Placement
(Non-flexible)
B.4.Entry Connection
(Non-flexible)
B.5Principle Window
(Flexible)
Instructions: Please fill out the checklist below, marking whether the proposed design complies with the applicable standard as written or is requesting Alternative Compliance (only
permitted for Flexible standards). Also include the sheet #(s) demonstrating the applicable standard. If a standard does not apply, please mark N/A and include in the Notes section why
it does not apply. If Alternative Compliance is requested for a Flexible standard, include in the Notes section how the proposed design meets the intent of the standard(s). Additional
sheets/graphics may be attached.
Disclaimer: This application is only valid for the attached design. If any element of the design subject to Residential Design Standards changes prior to or during building permit review, the
applicant shall be required to apply for a new Administrative Compliance Review.
Address:
Parcel ID:
Zone District/PD:
Representative:
Email:
Phone:
Page 1 of 1
exhibit 6
1020 East Cooper Avenue Sara Adams, BendonAdams
2737-182-32-006 sara@bendonadams.com
RMF 970-925-2855 x2
Sheet A1.024
4 Sheet A1.02, access from alley to carport
4 Sheet A1.02
4 Sheet A1.08
4 Sheet A2.01
Note: RDS only applies to the detached rear structure. The landmark is exempt from RDS.
PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PLANNER: Amy Simon, amy.simon@cityofaspen.com
DATE: August 27, 2019
PROJECT LOCATION: 1020 E. Cooper Avenue
REQUEST: Major Development, Demolition, Relocation, Growth Management, Affordable Housing Credits
REPRESENTATIVE: Sara Adams, sara@bendonadams.com
DESCRIPTION: 1020 E. Cooper is a landmark designated property which contains a heavily altered Victorian
era single family home. Two outbuildings, date of construction unknown, sit at the rear of the site. The lot
is 4,379 square feet in size and is located in the RMF zone district. Because the minimum lot area for the
zone district is 6,000 square feet, 1020 E. Cooper is considered to be a non-conforming lot of record.
Landmark designation permits the site to be developed with any of the allowed RMF uses, according to
Section 26.312 of the Municipal Code.
A potential purchaser in interested in creating multi-family housing and affordable housing credits. This will
require review by the Historic Preservation Commission which is likely to include a proposal to demolish the
sheds at the rear of the site, to demolish non-historic additions to the miner’s cottage, to re-position the
miner’s cottage and to expand above and below grade. Setback variations may be requested. A tree that
straddles the east property line is to be protected and retained in the redevelopment.
Please refer to the RMF zone district for guidance on dimensional requirements. The parking requirement is
1 parking unit per dwelling unit which may be provided as a mix of on-site parking, TIA measures and cash-
in-lieu. At least one on-site space would likely need to be accessible and approximately twice the width of
a standard parking space. In addition, the alley frontage will need to include adequate trash and recycling
storage and utilities.
Prior to the preparation of a recommendation to HPC, staff will refer the application to other City
Departments for comments and proposed conditions of approval. The applicant will be required to prepare
a Transportation Impact Analysis for Engineering Review.
The first review step will be Conceptual design, Demolition, Relocation, Variations, Growth Management,
and Affordable Housing Credits. Following Conceptual approval, staff will inform Council of HPC’s
decision, allowing them the opportunity to “call up” any aspects of the approval that they find require
additional discussion. This is standard practice for all significant reviews before HPC.
The last step is Final design review.
RELEVANT LAND USE CODE SECTIONS:
Section Number Section Title
26.304 Common Development Review Procedures
26.304.035 Neighborhood Outreach
exhibit 7
26.312.050 Nonconforming Lots of Record
26.415.070.D Major Development
26.415.080 Demolition
26.415.090 Relocation
26.415.110.C Historic Preservation Variations, Benefits
26.470.080 General Review Standards: Affordable Housing
26.470.100.C Planning and Zoning Commission Applications, Affordable Housing
26.515 Transportation and Parking Management
26.540.070 Review Criteria for Establishing an Affordable Housing Credit
26.575.020 Calculations and Measurements
26.600 Impact Fees
26.620 School Land Dedication
26.710.090 Residential Multi-Family (RMF) Zone District
12.10.050 Trash Storage Space Required for Multi-Family Developments
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 recommendations
HPC for determinations
Public Hearing: Yes
Neighborhood Outreach: Yes
Referrals: Yes, Engineering, Parks, APCHA, Environmental Health
Fees: Conceptual- $3,250 for 10 billable hours of planning staff time plus referral
fees in the amount of $325 deposit for 1 hour of Engineering Review, a $975
flat fee for Parks, a $975 flat fee for APCHA and a $975 flat fee for
Environmental Health for a total of $6,500. (Additional/ lesser deposit hours
will be billed/ refunded at a rate of $325 per hour)
Final- $1,950 for 6 billable hours of planning staff time. (Additional/
lesser deposit hours will be billed/ refunded at a rate of $325 per hour)
APPLICATION CHECKLIST: Below is a list of submittal requirements. Please email the application as one
pdf to amy.simon@cityofaspen.com for an initial determination of completeness.
Completed Land Use Application and signed Fee Agreement.
Pre-application Conference Summary (this document).
Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of
a current (no older than 6 months) certificate from a title insurance company, an ownership and
encumbrance report, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all
owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements
affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner’s right to apply for the Development Application.
Applicant’s name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant that states the name,
address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant.
HOA Compliance form
List of adjacent property owners for both properties within 300’ for public hearing.
An 8 1/2” by 11” vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen.
Site improvement survey including topography and vegetation showing the current status, certified by a
registered land surveyor, licensed in the state of Colorado.
A written description of the proposal and an explanation of how the proposed development complies
with the relevant review standards and design guidelines (please note that landmarks are except from the
Residential Design Standards.)
Scaled site plan and drawings of all proposed structures or additions.
A written report from a licensed engineer or architect regarding the soundness of the miner’s cottage to
be relocated.
Evidence of the financial ability to undertake the safe relocation, preservation and repair of the miner’s
cottage through the posting of bonds or other financial measures deemed appropriate.
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.
The net livable square footage of each residential unit in the development.
If applicable, the conditions under which reductions from net minimum livable square footage
requirements are requested according to APCHA guidelines.
Proposed Category Designation of sale or rental restriction for each unit in the development.
Proposed employees housed by the affordable housing unit in increments of no less than one one-
hundredth (0.01) according to Section 26.470.100.2- Employees Housed.
A mobility plan meeting the requirements of Chapter 26.515 of the Aspen Municipal Code.
For Conceptual the following items will need to be submitted in addition to the items listed above:
• Graphics identifying preliminary selection of primary exterior building materials.
• A preliminary stormwater design.
For Final the following items will need to be submitted in addition to the items listed above:
• Drawings of the street facing facades must be provided at ¼” scale.
• Final selection of all exterior materials and sample or clearly illustrated photographs.
• A lighting plan and landscape plan, including any visible stormwater mitigation features.
Once the copy is deemed complete by staff, the application fee will be requested.
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.
CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
City of Aspen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5090 April 2020
DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM
Complete only if required by the PreApplication checklist
Project and Location
Applicant:
Zone District: Gross Lot Area: Net Lot Area:
**Please refer to section 26.575.020 for information on how to calculate Net Lot Area
Please fill out all relevant dimensions
Single Family and Duplex Residential
1) Floor Area (square feet)
2) Maximum Height
3) Front Setback
4) Rear Setback
5) Side Setbacks
6) Combined Side Setbacks
7) % Site Coverage
Existing Allowed Proposed Multi-family Residential
1) Number of Units
2) Parcel Density (see 26.710.090.C.10)
3) FAR (Floor Area Ratio)
4) Floor Area (square feet)
4) Maximum Height
5) Front Setback
6) Rear Setback
Existing Allowed Proposed
8) Minimum distance between buildings
Proposed % of demolition
7) Side Setbacks
Proposed % of demolition
Commercial
Proposed Use(s)
Existing Allowed Proposed
1) FAR (Floor Area Ratio)
2) Floor Area (square feet)
3) Maximum Height
4) Off-Street Parking Spaces
5) Second Tier (square feet)
6) Pedestrian Amenity (square feet)
Proposed % of demolition
Existing non-conformities or encroachments:
Variations requested:
Lodge
Additional Use(s)
1) FAR (Floor Area Ratio)
2) Floor Area (square feet)
3) Maximum Height
4) Free Market Residential(square feet)
4) Front setback
5) Rear setback
6) Side setbacks
7) Off-Street Parking Spaces
8) Pedestrian Amenity (square feet)
Proposed % of demolition
Existing Allowed Proposed
1020 East Cooper Avenue
1020 Cooper LLC, represented by BendonAdams
RMF 4,379sf 4,379sf
Please refer to Table
1 in the cover letter
for allowed and
proposed dimensions.
Sheds encroach into alley, east side yard setback encroachment, no onsite parking.
NONE.
1,075sf
14'8.75"
17.3'
0'
E- 2.5' W- 10'11"
13'5"
n/a
varies
n/a
exhibit 8
CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
City of Aspen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5090 April 2020
LAND USE APPLICATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTIVATIVE:
Description: Existing and Proposed Conditions
Review: Administrative or Board Review
Required Land Use Review(s):
Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) required fields:
Net Leasable square footage Lodge Pillows Free Market dwelling units
Affordable Housing dwelling units Essential Public Facility square footage
Have you included the following? FEES DUE: $
Pre-Application Conference Summary
Signed Fee Agreement
HOA Compliance form
All items listed in checklist on PreApplication Conference Summary
Name:
Address:
Phone#: email:
Address:
Phone #: email:
Name:
Project Name and Address:
Parcel ID # (REQUIRED)
1020 East Cooper Project; 1020 East Cooper Avenue
2737-182-32-006
1020 Cooper LLC
jeanncoulter@gmail.com
BendonAdams
300 S. Spring Street, #202, Aspen CO 81611
970-925-2855 x2 sara@bendonadams.com
Currently the property contains a single family residence that is designated a historic landmark. The 1020 East Cooper Project proposes to restore
the historic landmark and to construct a detached building at the rear of the property. The property is proposed to be converted into a 100%
affordable housing project with a total of 5 housing units - 2 in the landmark and 3 in the new detached building. A basement is proposed beneath
the landmark after it is relocated forward on the lot toward Cooper Avenue. Affordable housing credits are requested for the voluntary deed
restricted units.
HP Major Development (conceptual); GMQS, Parking and Transportation, Relocation, Demolition, Establishment
of Housing Credits
n/a n/a 0
5 n/a
6500
x
x
x
x
PO Box 12393, Aspen, CO 81612
303-882-0702
exhibit 8
Holland & Hart LLP Attorneys at Law
Phone (970) 925-3476 Fax (970) 925-9367 www.hollandhart.com
600 East Main Street, Suite 104 Aspen, CO 81611-1991
Aspen Billings Boise Boulder Carson City Cheyenne Colorado Springs Denver Denver Tech Center Jackson Hole Las Vegas Reno Salt Lake City Santa Fe Washington, D.C.
Thomas J. Todd
Phone (970) 925-3476
Fax (970) 925-9367
ttodd@hollandhart.com
November 20, 2020
Ms. Amy Simon
Community Development Department
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Proof of Ownership in Support of Development Application for the East 13.79’ of Lot O and
all of Lot P, Block 34, East Aspen Addition to the City of Aspen, also known as 1020 East
Cooper Avenue, Aspen Colorado 81611
Dear Amy:
Holland & Hart represents 1020 Cooper LLC, a Colorado limited liability company. The
undersigned has been requested by our client to provide you with proof of ownership of the above
referenced real property (the “Property”).
The undersigned, an attorney licensed in the State of Colorado, hereby informs you that the
record owner of the Property is 1020 Cooper LLC, a Colorado limited liability company. 1020 Cooper
LLC has full right, power and authority to apply for this Development Application. The complete legal
description of the Property is as follows:
The East 13.79’ of Lot O and all of Lot P, Block 34, East Aspen Addition to the City of Aspen
County of Pitkin, State of Colorado.
The Property is subject to the liens, encumbrances, easements, and restrictions listed on Exhibit “A”
attached hereto.
Please contact the undersigned if you have any questions or need additional information.
Sincerely,
Thomas J. Todd
of Holland & Hart LLP
TJT/sm
Attachment
cc: 1020 Cooper LLC
Ms. Sara Adams, BendonAdams
exhibit 9
2
EXHIBIT “A”
List of Liens, Encumbrances, Easements and Restrictions
(Note: All recording information is based on the Pitkin County, State of Colorado real
property records.)
1. Taxes and assessments for the year 2020 and subsequent years only, a lien not yet
due or payable.
2. Reservations and exceptions contained in the U. S. Patent recorded October 21, 1955
in Book 180 at Page 454.
3. Reservations and exceptions contained in U. S. Patent recorded August 29, 1958 in
Book 185 at Page 69.
4. Easements, conditions, covenants, restrictions, reservations and notes on the Plat of
East Aspen Addition to the City of Aspen recorded August 24, 1959 in Plat Book 2A
at Page 252
5. Easements, conditions, covenants, restrictions, reservations and notes on the Plat of
1020 E Cooper Lot Line Adjustment/Subdivision Exemption Recorded October 8,
2019 in Plat Book 126 at Page 7.
6. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in City of Aspen Historic
Preservation Commission Resolution No. 21, Series of 2019 recorded December 26,
2019 at Reception No. 661468.
15614683_v3
T 970.925.3476 F 970.925.9367
600 East Main Street, Suite 104
Aspen, CO 81611-1991
www.hollandhart.com
Alaska
Colorado
Idaho
Montana
Nevada
New Mexico
Utah
Washington, D.C.
Wyoming
Thomas J. Todd
Phone (970) 925-3476
Fax (970) 925-9367
ttodd@hollandhart.com
October 30, 2020
Via E-Mail
Ms. Amy Simon
Historic Preservation Officer
Community Development Office
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
James R. True, Esq.
City Attorney
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Pending Historic Preservation Commission Application for 1020 E. Cooper
Avenue, Aspen, Colorado 8161, aka the East 13.79’ of Lot O and all of Lot P,
East Aspen Addition to City of Aspen
Dear Amy and Jim:
Holland & Hart LLP represents 1020 Cooper LLC, the owner of the above referenced
property (the “Subject Property”).
This letter is in response to the comments contained in the September 8, 2020 letter
submitted by counsel for Cooper Avenue Victorian Condominium unit owner Bukk Carleton
relative to the Lot Line Adjustment/Subdivision Exemption Plat for the Subject Property,
recorded on October 8, 2019 at Plat Book 126 at Page 7 under Reception No. 659373 of the
Pitkin County real property records (the “Boundary Adjustment Plat”).
By way of background, the prior owner of the Subject Property, longtime Aspen
journalist Su Lum, acquired the Subject Property in 1972 and owned it until her death in 2017.
The 3.79’ wide strip of land that serves as the western portion of the Subject Property (the “Strip
of Land”) was the subject of a quiet title action brought by Ms. Lum against the Cooper Avenue
Victorian Condominiums which settled in 2006, resulting in the owners of all five condominium
units within the Cooper Avenue Victorian Condominiums and Cooper Avenue Victorian
Condominium Association, Inc. quit claiming their interests in the Strip of land to Ms. Lum.
As part of the disposition of the Subject Property from the Estate of Su Lum, 1020
Cooper LLC processed with the City of Aspen the Boundary Adjustment Plat to confirm the
exhibit 10
Ms. Amy Simon
Historic Preservation Officer
October 30, 2020
Page 2
www.hollandhart.com
Alaska
Colorado
Idaho
Montana
Nevada
New Mexico
Utah
Washington, D.C.
Wyoming
inclusion of the Strip of Land together with the eastern 10’ of Lot O within the historically
recognized boundaries of the Subject Property.
The Boundary Adjustment Plat process was specifically prescribed by Community
Development office staff and an application for a Boundary Adjustment under the
Administrative Subdivision procedures in Section 26.480.050(c) of the Municipal Code was
submitted and duly processed, resulting in the City-approved and recorded Boundary Adjustment
Plat referenced above. Thus, no application for a Major Subdivision Approval was applicable or
required.
It is also worth noting that Cooper Avenue Victorian Condominium Association, Inc.
caused to be recorded a First Amended Condominium Map on December 13, 2011 in Plat Book
98 at Page 93 under Reception No. 585047 (also administratively approved by the City of
Aspen) which expressly recognized the Strip of Land as being excluded from the Cooper Avenue
Victorian Condominiums General Common Elements, noting the 2006 quit claim conveyances
of the Strip of Land described above.
Any time period for challenging the processing and approval of the Boundary Adjustment
Plat has long passed and the Cooper Avenue Victorian Condominium Association and the
individual unit owners therein have absolutely no claim or interest in the Strip of Land, and they
have no basis for challenging the composition or description of the Subject Property as set forth
in the Boundary Adjustment Plat. Accordingly, we view the neighbor’s objections to the
inclusion of this westerly portion of the Subject Property with the pending HPC application to be
unsupported and wholly without merit.
Please contact the undersigned if you have any questions or desire additional information.
Sincerely,
Thomas J. Todd
for Holland & Hart LLP
TJT
cc: 1020 Cooper LLC
Sara Adams, BendonAdams
15605911_v1
exhibit 11
exhibit 12
10221014
1039
1039
1039
1039
1039
1039
1039
1039
1039
1039
1039
1039
1039
1039
1039
1039
1039
1039
1039
1101
1034
1024
1020
1034
1034
1024
1034
1034
1031
1022
1024
1015
1034
1034
1010
1015
1024
1034
1034
1024
1034
1015
1034
1016
1034
1024
1034
1020
1024
1034
10341033
1034
1024
1015
1024
1034
1034
1018
1024
1015
203
1039
1004
950 1039
1001
1039
1020
1020
960
1039
960
1020
1039
1020
1004
1039
1039
1020
960
1039
1001
1039
1004
1039
1039
1039
1020
1020
1039
960
1039
950
926
900
926926
926
926
923
926926900
950
947
1001
943
1001
917
1001
1012
943
1001
933
1012
1012
1001
927
1012
1001
1012
1006
945
909
922
901
901
909
1007
1007
928
901
901
1007
1007
909
901
926
909
909
1007
1006
1006
1001
909
901
941
901
1007
1001
935
901
909
901
1007
909
1000
939
914
909
901
901
909
909
1020
909
910
900
934
901
901
909
901
949
924
909
1007
909
PD
PD
PD
R-15
R/MF
E CO
O
P
E
R
A
V
E
E DU
R
A
N
T
A
V
E
CLE
V
E
L
A
N
D
S
T
E CO
O
P
E
R
A
V
E
CLE
V
E
L
A
N
D
S
T
E CO
O
P
E
R
A
V
E
E HY
M
A
N
A
V
E
E HY
M
A
N
A
V
E
Date: 10/1/2020
Geographic Information Systems
This map/drawing/image is a graphical
representation of the features
depicted and is not a legal representation.
The accuracy may change
depending on the enlargement or reduction.
Copyright 2020 City of Aspen GIS
0 0.01 0.020.01
mi
When printed at 8.5"x11"
4
Legend
Urban Growth Boundary (UGB)
Emissions Inventory Boundary
(EIB)
City of Aspen
Greenline 8040
Stream Margin
Hallam Bluff ESA
Historic Sites
Historic Districts
Parcels
Zone Overlay
DRAINAGE
LP PD
DRAIN/TRANS
GCS PD
L PD
LP
PD
Zoning
R-3 High Density Residential
AH Affordable Housing
R/MF Residential/Multi-Family
R/MFA Residential/Multi-Family
R-6 Medium Density Residential
R-15 Moderate Density
Residential
R-15-A Moderate Density
Residential
R-15B Moderate Density
Residential
R-30 Low Density Residential
RR Rural Residential
L Lodge
CL Commercial Lodge
CC Commercial Core
C-1 Commercial
SCI Service Commercial
Industrial
NC Neighborhood Commercial
MU Mixed Use
SKI Ski Area Base
C Conservation
OS Open Space
P Park
Scale: 1:1,349
1020 E Cooper
Vicinity Map
1020 East Cooper
exhibit 13
Pitkin County Mailing List of 300 Feet Radius
Pitkin County GIS presents the information and data on this web
site as a service to the public. Every effort has been made to
ensure that the information and data contained in this electronic
system is accurate, but the accuracy may change. Mineral
estate ownership is not included in this mailing list. Pitkin County
does not maintain a database of mineral estate owners.
Pitkin County GIS makes no warranty or guarantee concerning
the completeness, accuracy, or reliability of the content at this
site or at other sites to which we link. Assessing accuracy and
reliability of information and data is the sole responsibility of the
user. The user understands he or she is solely responsible and
liable for use, modification, or distribution of any information or
data obtained on this web site.
This document contains a Mailing List formatted to be
printed on Avery 5160 Labels. If printing, DO NOT "fit to
page" or "shrink oversized pages." This will manipulate the
margins such that they no longer line up on the labels
sheet. Print actual size.
From Parcel: 273718232006 on 10/29/2020
Instructions:
Disclaimer:
http://www.pitkinmapsandmore.com
exhibit 14
TROUSDALE JEAN VICK LVG TRUST
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 9983
WEISS BERNIE
ASPEN, CO 81611
625 E MAIN ST 102B #211
ASPEN VILLAGER LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
1001 E COOPER AVE # 6
BALDWIN MELINDA LLC
WINNETKA, IL 60093
835 ASH ST
MEAD GEORGE
WISCONSIN RAPIDS, WI 54404
550 THIRD ST SO
VINCENTI CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
1015 E HYMAN AVE
PARGITER SALLY J
ASPEN, CO 81611
943 E COOPER #C
PHARR MARK R TIGER III & ALLYSON
LAFAYETTE, LA 70508
101 BONNER DR
SCHULTZ BRIAN & ELIZABETH
DALLAS, TX 75220
9301 MEADOWBROOK DR
UTE 202 LLC
TAMARAC, FL 33321
7457 GRANVILLE DR #301
PRESUTTI DANA
ASPEN, CO 816112119
1001 E COOPER AVE #4
HYMAN AVENUE VICTORIAN CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
COMMON AREA
990 E HYMAN AVE
CHILES JAMES T & JENNIFER ALBRECHT
DALLAS, TX 75202
901 MAIN #2600
SUNRISE CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
1007 E HYMAN AVE
HORWITZ LEONARD REV TRUST
KANSAS CITY, MO 641113413
720 W 44TH ST #2006
BLUE SKYE DAISY BROOKE PARTNERSHIP LLLP
ASPEN, CO 81611
1024 E HOPKINS #17
EHRMAN HOPE J
LAKE FOREST, IL 60045
170 MARION AVE
MEYERSTEIN FAMILY TRUST
ASPEN, CO 81611
115 BOOMERANG RD #5103
PALMERO KEN
CARBONDALE , CO 81623
11 OLD ORCHARD RD
MONTGOMERY JOHN
MEMPHIS, TN 38103
41 UNION AVE #200
MAYOTTE MONICA & TERRY
BOCA RATON, FL 33486
860 SW 21ST ST
MATHIESON MICHAEL
DENVER, CO 80206
155 STEELE ST #617
BOUSTEAD DOUGLAS
ADIRONDACK, NY 12808
PO BOX 186
1039 E COOPER LLC
COLORADO SPRINGS, CO 80906
2003 PINE GROVE AVE
ASPEN RIVERSIDE LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
1039 E COOPER AVE #15A
POLICARO FRANCO G
ASPEN, CO 81611
1004 E DURANT AVE #2
LITZENBERGER JOHN
ASHEVILLE, NC 28804
125 HOWLAND RD
PORTER FRANK H JR
CHAGRIN FALLS, OH 44022
33970 MEADOW LN
HOLSTEIN MATTHEW & KATE
ASPEN, CO 81611
947 E COOPER AVE
COOPER AVE VICTORIAN CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
1012 E COOPER AVE
WISE PEGGY S QPRT
WINNETKA, IL 60093
1401 TOWER RD
NORTHROCK HOLDINGS LLC
WARWICK WK 06 BERMUDA,
UNIT 22 MIZZENTOP
MIZZENTOP DR
BAYLEY LORI A
MALDEN, MA 02148
2 BOWER ST
LUMEN LLC
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105
455 MARKET ST 23RD FLOOR
KANIPE J STEPHEN & PATRICIA
ASPEN, CO 81611
1015 E HYMAN AVE #3
TACHE MARK C
ASPEN, CO 81611
1001 E HYMAN
SILVER GLEN TOWNHOUSES CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
COMMON AREA
E HYMAN AVE
26 EAU CLAIRE LLC
NEW ORLEANS, LA 70130
600 PORT OF NEW ORLEANS PL #9F
PACK R MICHAEL
SAN DIEGO, CA 92108
5005 TEXAS ST STE 305
BERNI SHAEL MORGAN
GREENWICH, CT 06830
660 STEAMBOAT RD 4TH FL
NARK WILSON JANIS A
ASPEN, CO 81611-4117
1039 E COOPER #5
KESSLER CONDOS ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
950/960 E DURANT AVE
ROARING FORK 70 LLC
MIAMI BEACH, FL 33140
3103 N BAY RD
JACOBSON DAVID & ANDREA LYNN
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48302
5255 PONVALLEY RD
WUSLICH DIANE S
ASPEN, CO 81611
1007 E HYMAN AVE #8
ARKIN JONATHAN
ASPEN, CO 816111935
625 E MAIN ST #102B
EUBANK CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
COMMON AREA
1022 E HYMAN AVE
RANGER LIVING TRUST
CHESTERFIELD, MO 63017
445 WHITESTONE FARM DR
RK PARTNERS LLC
SHORT HILLS, NJ 07078
31 WASHINGTON AVE
PETITIE ROCHE CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
COMMON AREA
926 E COOPER AVE
TWO PANTHER LLC
DENVER, CO 80209
1020 S GILPIN ST
NAGER DEBBIE TRUST
LEAWOOD, KS 66209
4803 W 120TH PL
TENG NANCY H TRUST
ELMHURST, IL 60126
1050 S EUCLID AVE #5108
MCGAFFEY FAMILY & CO NO C LLC
SEATTLE, WA 98109
2465 NOB HILL AVE NORTH
ASPEN VALLEY LAND TRUST
CARBONDALE, CO 81623
320 MAIN ST #204
LERNER JAY R & BOBETTE S
OMAHA, NE 68154
10855 W DODGE RD #270
SMILIOS PENNY WHITE
ASPEN, CO 81611
1007 E HYMAN AVE #2
306 ASSOCIATES LLC
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48302
PO BOX 7067
GERBER-MCMANUS SUE
EL CAJON, CA 92020
1111 CRYSTAL LN
ALLEN JENNIFER C
AUSTIN, TX 78746
6613 WHITEMARSH VALLEY WALK
CHATEAU EAU CLAIRE CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
1034 E COOPER ST
GERDA HOLDINGS LLC
LIGHTHOUSE POINT, FL 33074
PO BOX 50424
BARBERA IVANA
CHATTANOOGA, TN 37405
345 FRAZIER AVE #206
CHATEAU ROARING FORK LLC
NEW ALBANY, OH 43054
8000 WALTON PKWY #100
THOMPSON ARTHUR JR & HASSELINE
TUSCALOOSA, AL 35406
7200 COMMODORE DR
PLATINUM IRREV TRUST
SAN DIEGO, CA 92123
5482 COMPLEX ST # 113
ASPENEYES LLC
HOUSTON, TX 77079
13410 TAYLORCREST RD
IRREVOCABLE TRUST
WEST LEBANON, NH 03784
21 TECHNOLOGY DR #6
LIB LLC
PALO ALTO , CA 94301
314 LYTTON AVE #200
1016 EAST HYMAN HOLDINGS LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
730 E DURANT AVE #200
NOORI ABDUL RASOL & MANDANA
CARBONDALE, CO 81623
330 MILBURN
COLETTA CAROL
MEMPHIS, TN 38103
41 UNION AVE #200
CRF TOWNHOUSE LLC
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 4450
BELSHER ELIZABETH S TRUST
PHOENIX, AZ 85018
4919 E GRANDVIEW LN
VILLAGER TOWNHOUSE CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
1001 E COOPER AVE
HANDZUS MICHAL
HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254
123 29TH ST
LASHER KELLY G
ASPEN, CO 816121127
PO BOX 1127
PORTNOY GERALD A REV TRUST
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 554145138
222 2ND ST SE #701
PBIA & CO
PALM SPRINGS, FL 33461
1732 S CONGRESS AVE #323
CHATEAU EAU CLAIRE CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
1034 E COOPER ST
KARASIK CHARLES
SIOUX FALLS, SD 57186
BOX 00794325
PARADIGM PARTNERS
DENVER, CO 80202
1543 WAZEE ST #400
INDEPENDENCE CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
COMMON AREA
1104 DALE AVE
VAN DEUSEN CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
COMMON AREA
1006 E HYMAN AVE
PINE GLEN TOWNHOUSE CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
COMMON AREA
MOLNY CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
COMMON AREA
1020 E HYMAN AVE
PETERS JULIE
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 1643
JOHNSON SALLYANNE C
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 5050
DI LORENZO MICHAEL
OAKWOOD, OH 45419
609 GARDEN RD
CHATEAU ROARING FORK CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
1039 E COOPER AVE
211 ASHLEY PROJECT LLC
CHARLESTON, SC 29413
PO BOX 22424
FISHER JAMES B
JAMESTOWN , NC 27282
2709 ST ANDREWS CT
ZOE FUTURES LLC
DALLAS, TX 75205
4144 SAN CARLOS
DERBY INVESTMENT INC
WICHITA, KS 672181032
4601 E DOUGLAS AVE #111
HANDELIN MARY M LIVING TRUST
FORT BRAGG, CA 95437
16299 PEARSON LN
ILLMER NANCY & RICHARD
DALLAS, TX 75201
1918 N OLIVE ST #1003
BGC III IRREVOCABLE TRUST
WEST LEBANON, NH 03784
21 TECHNOLOGY DR #6
LEAL FAMILY INVESTMENTS LLC
COCOA, FL 32926
3224 FAIRFAX LN
BERENS MARILYN REV TRUST
MIAMI BEACH, FL 33140
4925 COLLINS AVE #6A
SUSI MARILEE E REV TRUST
BOCA RATON, FL 33496
7806 CHARNEY LN
CITY OF ASPEN
ASPEN, CO 81611
130 S GALENA ST
MURACO JULIE DECLARATION TRUST
NEW YORK , NY 10023
41 CENTRAL PARK W #10E
ADAMS GILBERT C III
MALDEN, MA 02148
2 BOWER ST
WOOD JEFFREY R & SHANA B
HOUSTON, TX 77056
4900 WOODWAY DR #880
IPMD 2018 PROPERTY TRUST
TORONTO ONTARIO CANADA M9P1R5,
10 WESTMOUNT PARK RD
GRANTHAM CHARLES EDWARD
RALEIGH, NC 27617
5849 LEASE LN
926 DURANT LLC
WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33401
915 S DIXIE HWY
TEN SIXTEEN EAST HYMAN
SPEN, CO 81611
COMMON AREA
1016 E HYMAN AVE
EXETER 20454 WY LLC
CHEYENNE, WY 82009
205 STOREY BLVD #200
GML ASPEN PROPERTY LLC
FT WORTH, TX 76107
3815 LISBON ST #203
LEVY MITCHELL & ELISSA
SANTA MONICA, CA 90402
201 OCEAN AVE #1203P
PEARLSTONE RICHARD
ASPEN, CO 81611
1001 E COOPER AVE #2
TRT OF COLORADO LLC
TUSCALOOSA, AL 35406
7200 COMMODORE DR
STEEL JOAN E TRUST
CHICAGO, IL 60611-6690
161 E CHICAGO AVE #60N4
HENRY CASADY M
ASPEN, CO 81611
525 W HALLAM ST
OLSON PETER W & CANDICE C
ASPEN , CO 81611
1022 E HYMAN AVE UNIT 1
BARASH JAMES ROBERT & BETTEANNE
COLORADO SPRINGS, CO 80906
50 W CHEYENNE MTN BLVD
TYE MARK M TRUST
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 8992
THREE BEES LLC
BAY SHORE, NY 11706
103 HARBOUR LN
SCHULTZ BRIAN & ELIZABETH
DALLAS, TX 75220
9301 MEADOWBROOK DR
FISHER WINSTON & JESSICA
NEW YORK, NY 10171
299 PARK AVE 42ND FL
BMB 1 LLC
DALLAS, TX 75248
6923 SPANKY BRANCH CT
CHATEAU ROARING FORK CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
1039 E COOPER AVE
OZIER FAMILY COLORADO LP
WICHITA FALLS, TX 76310
2896 WRANGLERS RETREAT
YPSI ANN ASSOCIATES
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48304
39577 WOODWARD AVE #300
ASPEN PAD LLC
MIAMI BEACH, FL 33119
PO BOX 190754
WEIL LORNE
NEW YORK , NY 10107
250 WEST 57TH STREET #2223
SEID MELVIN C REV TRUST
ASPEN, CO 81611
1104 DALE AVE
STOVER RAYMOND J H JR & MARY L
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 1941
VGCT VENTURES LLC
ATLANTA, GA 30305
8 CHEROKEE RD NW
HICKS LESLIE
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 8225
MAXON PATRICIA ANNE TRUST
TELLURIDE, CO 81435
240 S MAHONEY DR #1
COHEN SYDNEY G
MIAMI BEACH, FL 33140
2401 COLLINS AVE #1601
ARKIN ERIC
ASPEN, CO 816111935
625 E MAIN ST #102B
GOLDSTEIN BARRY J
DENVER, CO 80246
950 S CHERRY #320
SILVERSTREAM TOWNHOMES CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 49
PIERCE ANITA M
DAVENPORT, IA 52801
102 S HARRISON ST #200
SANDELL LINDA JO
SAINT LOUIS, MO 63108
4624 PERSHING PL
MURPHY RICHARD P & MARY K
OMAHA, NE 68132
6720 DAVENPORT ST
WW-WPB LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
570 S RIVERSIDE AVE
ABELMAN STEPHEN C & HELENE P
SAINT PETERSBURG, FL 33703
400 BAY LAUREL CT NE
LITTLE JEWEL CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
COMMON AREA
1004 E DURANT AVE
GREGORY-CONZELMAN GWEN TRUST
LAKE FOREST, IL 60045
410 LEXINGTON
MCPHEE SHARON S 1985 TRUST
HONOLULU, HI 968211173
4389 MALIA ST #463
OLSON PETER W & CANDICE C
ASPEN , CO 81611
1022 E HYMAN AVE UNIT 1
AC ONE LLC
LITTLE ROCK, AR 72203
PO BOX 3417
SCHONWALD ALEXANDER REV TRUST
SAINT LOUIS, MO 63124
828 CELLA RD
POLICARO DOMINIC FRANK
ASPEN, CO 81611
1004 E DURANT #3
CHATEAU ROARING FORK CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
1039 E COOPER AVE
MCDONOUGH JOELLE
ASPEN, CO 81611
1007 E HYMAN AVE #7
MORK HALBERT L FAMILY TRUST
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
77 ASPEN WY
KANTOR MITCHELL A TRUST
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48301
5595 SHADOW LN
CHATEAU ROARING FORK CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
1039 E COOPER AVE
WILMERDING PATSY R REV TRUST
ASPEN, CO 81611
203 S CLEVELAND
SEGUIN WILLIAM L REV TRUST
ASPEN, CO 81611
1001 E COOPER AVE #7
DORNEMANN MICHAEL
GREENWICH, CT 06830
390 LAKE AVE
TAT TRUST
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 7813
3 PEAKS LLC
SUNFISH LAKE, MN 55118
260 SALEM CHURCH RD
GUTNICK ERIC I LIVING TRUST
FORT BRAGG, CA 95437
16299 PEARSON LN
WEAVER WENDY WILLMANN
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 2477
EAST COOPER COURT CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 2021
BARBERA LAURA
CHATTANOOGA, TN 37405
345 FRAZIER AVE #206
GLEASON FAMILY LLC
SIDNEY, OH 45365
235 OVERLAND DR
JPS NEVADA TRUST
HENDERSON, NV 890745991
1701 N GREEN VALLEY PKWY #9C
PURINS ANSIS
ASPEN, CO 81611
1001 E COOPER AVE #4
NORMAN JEFFREY L & ANNA M
ASPEN, CO 81611
730 E DURANT AVE
THOMPSON MARGARET M REV LVG TRUST
ASPEN, CO 81611
1020 E DURANT AVE # 103
FISHER ELIZABETH B
CHAPEL HILL, NC 275178502
23120 UMSTEAD
GILLIAM KRISTI
ASPEN, CO 81611
1024 E COOPER #8
KANTOR MITCHELL A TRUST
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48301
5595 SHADOW LN
KANTOR NANCY L TRUST
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48302
5595 SHADOW LN
HUCKELBUTT HOUSE LLC
DALLAS, TX 75225
3924 SOUTHWESTERN BLVD
SILVERSTREAM TOWNHOMES CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 49
CARSON YOST EXEMPT LIFETIME TRUST
FORT WORTH, TX 76107
116 RIVERCREST DR
ABELMAN STEPHEN C & HELENE P
SAINT PETERSBURG, FL 33703
400 BAY LAUREL CT NE
LEAL FAMILY PARTNERS LTD
COCOA , FL 32926
3224 FAIRFAX LANE
OGBURN TOM & CAROLYN
WESTLAKE, TX 762624804
2000 BRAZOS CT
DORAN MICHAEL H ASP TEST TRST
NORCROSS, GA 30092
4280 GUNNIN RD
WEISS LYNN
ASPEN, CO 816111935
625 E MAIN ST #102B
COOPER TACHE CHRISTEN
ASPEN, CO 81611
1001 E HYMAN
SYLVESTER JAMES W
POUGHKEEPSIE, NY 12603
758 FREEDOM PLAINS RD
SCHRAGER TERRI L
OMAHA, NE 68127
3217 S 101ST ST
THOMPSON BRAD H REV LVG TRUST
ASPEN, CO 81611
1020 E DURANT AVE # 103
RIVERSIDE CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
1024 E COOPER AVE
SMITH MICHAEL B & TIFFANY S
HOUSTON, TX 77057
6134 WILLERS WAY
TCDC HOLDINGS INC
KANSAS CITY, MO 64108
2345 GRAND BLVD #2400
VANHEES JOANNE G & ARNOLD
NEW YORK, NY 10014
95 HORATIO ST #9K
MCCORMICK MURIEL E
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 3515
SCHROY BRIAN
BOULDER, CO 803025824
441 ARAPAHOE AVE
TYE MARK M TRUST
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 8992
UTE CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
1020 E DURANT AVE
WHITE JALEH REV TRUST
ASPEN, CO 816112053
960 E DURANT AVE #7
ERNEMANN MICHAEL FREDERICH
LONDON EC #2A 4LX ENGLAND,
LONDON FLAT 4 GALAXY HOUSE
32 LEONARD ST
INDEPENDENCE GATE CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
COMMON AREA
922 E COOPER AVE
26 EAU CLAIRE LLC
NEW ORLEANS, LA 70130
550 BIENVILLE ST
CAULFIELD JENNIFER & JOHN
ASPEN, CO 81611
1020 E DURANT AVE #101
SHAPIRO GANT LLC
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55436
5704 DEVILLE DR
MJB GST TRUST
SHAWNEE MISSION, KS 66208
5651 OAKWOOD RD
913 NEVADA TRUST
LAS VEGAS , NV 89148
9589 COMISKY CT
COLETTA BRANDY
MEMPHIS, TN 38103
41 UNION AVE #200
CHADVALE REALTY INC
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 11976
SEGUIN MARILYN A REV TRUST
ASPEN, CO 81611
1001 E COOPER AVE #7
KANTOR NANCY L TRUST
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48302
5595 SHADOW LN
MCDONALD SCOTT
PARK CITY, UT 84098
4666 MCKINNEY CT
WICKAM BRENTON M
SAN MATEO, CA 944012509
215 CHESTERTON PL
VILLAGER 3 LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
625 E HYMAN #201
DOLGINOW SCOTT TRUST
ASPEN, CO 81611
203 S CLEVELAND
HANN SANG E DR & ANN K
LAKE FOREST, IL 60045
555 MAYFLOWER RD
LITZENBERGER DREW & VIRGINIA
ASHEVILLE, NC 28804
125 HOWLAND RD
KOFFRON ROBERT & PAULETTE
FARMINGTON HILLS, MI 48331
28009 HICKORY DR
PORTER FRANCES H
CHAGRIN FALLS, OH 440222778
305 FALLS WALK WAY
PULLEN CLAUDIA
CHATTANOOGA, TN 37405
345 FRAZIER AVE #206
SEID MELVIN C REV TRUST
ASPEN, CO 81611
1104 DALE AVE
FREEMAN HEATH
ASPEN, CO 81611
1039 E COOPER AVE #17A
HINMAN JACQUELINE C REV TRUST
ENGLEWOOD, CO 80113
15 CHERRY HILLS FARM DR
COATES NELIGH C JR REV TRUST
SAN ANTONIO, TX 782303045
2702 CEMBALO BLVD #308
L & E PROPERTIES LTD
DENVER, CO 80237
3701 S NARCISSUS WAY
PONDROM CYRENA N & LEE G
MADISON, WI 53705
210 PRINCETON AVE
ELLSWEIG DAVID
ASPEN, CO 81611
1020 E DURANT AVE #102
MARTIN MONICA A
NEW YORK, NY 10021
301 E 79TH ST #35P
exhibit 15
1020 E Cooper Street- Engineering Letter HPC Application October 15, 2020
502 Main Street • Suite A3 • Carbondale, CO 81623 • (970)704 -0311• Fax (970)704 -0313
S OPRIS E NGINEERING • LLC civil consultants
Bendon Adams
c/o Sara Adams
300 S. Spring Street, Ste 202
Aspen, CO 81611
sara@bendonadams.com
RE: 1020 E Cooper Street-Conceptual Engineering Report
Sopris Engineering, LLC Job No. 30111.02
Dear Sara,
Sopris Engineering, LLC (SE) has prepared this letter to summarize the Civil Engineering requirements and
recommendations in support of the potential redevelopment of 1020 E. Cooper Street located in Aspen, CO.
It is our understanding that the project is seeking approval from HPC in support of an affordable housing project on
the subject property. This letter is specific to utility extensions, conceptual site grading and stormwater mitigation
options for the project team to further evaluate as the design progresses towards Building Permit Application.
Conceptual Grading & Drainage, Utility and Drainage Mitigation Plans have been provided as an attachment for
illustrative support of this document.
Background & Existing Conditions
The subject property is located at 1020 E. Cooper Street in Aspen, CO (Parcel ID#273718232006) and according to
Pitkin County Assessor’s webpage the existing building was constructed in 1888 with an effective year built of 1964
and was originally constructed as a single family residence.
Based on our review of the existing conditions survey and site visits the property consists of an existing single story
wood frame house with a building footprint at ground elevation of approximately 1,100 sf. Existing ground cover
includes various concrete walkways and intermittent lawn area/vegetation. Two detached shed structures front the
alley to the north. The total existing onsite impervious area has been estimated at 1,945+/- sf which includes the
existing residence, out structures and concrete pathways. Surface grades and existing drainage patterns generally
slope from the southeast to the northwest across the site with relatively flat landscape grades around the residence.
Existing gutters and a downspout appear to discharge directly to the adjacent ground. As such, tributary roof
drainage appears to be conveyed over the existing ground towards the alley north of the subject property. No other
onsite stormwater improvements were observed during our site visit or indicated on the existing conditions survey.
It should be noted that the site does lies slightly below E. Cooper Street. The design of the improvements
considered raising the sidewalk to coincide with the top back of curb but since this approach would require
improvements on the neighboring property to the east it was not pursued. Instead, offsite basins associated E.
Cooper Street were evaluated to determine whether there were any drainage concerns given this existing condition.
Our findings related to this are further discussed below within the Existing Offsite Basins section.
According to Figure 3.1 of the City’s Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP) the underlying soils likely consist of
Type B Soils which have moderate infiltration rates. This will be confirmed once geotechnical exploration work has
been performed. The subject property falls within Zone X as identified on FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map Panel
#08097C0366E, effective date August 15, 2019. Zone X includes areas determined to be outside the 500-year flood
plain.
exhibit 16
1020 E Cooper Street- Engineering Letter HPC Application October 15, 2020
Page 2
502 Main Street • Suite A3 • Carbondale, CO 81623 • (970)704 -0311• Fax (970)704 -0313
S OPRIS E NGINEERIN G • LLC civil consultants
The subject property falls within Drainage System 1, Basin 12 as described within the City’s Surface Drainage
Master Plan (SDMP), dated November 2001 prepared by WRC Engineering, Inc. Drainage System 1 currently
consists of street curb and gutter, roadside ditches and a network of storm sewer pipes. According to the SDMP
there is an existing 18” HDPE storm sewer beneath E. Cooper Street, directly south of the subject property.
Preliminary investigation of this existing storm sewer collection system revealed the shallow depths prohibitive for
direct connection of the development’s anticipated stormwater mitigation infrastructure.
An existing electric and communications utility easement (Rec. # 659373) is located at the northeast corner of the
property and accommodates portions of an existing 4’x4’ transformer vault as well as the COA Electric clearance
requirements. Further discussion of the existing easement as it relates to this and future development can be found
in the Site Utilities section of this letter. There is also a 2’x8’ electric easement at the northwest corner of the site
that accommodates an existing transformer located on the neighboring property.
Lastly, according to Figure 7.1a of the City’s URMP the subject property falls outside Aspen Mountain’s mudflow
zone, however it should be noted that the City is in the process of updating mudflow studies and regulations which
may influence any potential mudflow requirements for the subject property.
Existing Offsite Basins
As mentioned above the subject property lies slightly below the flowline elevation of E. Cooper Street and therefore
corresponding offsite drainage basins were evaluated to assess the risk of offsite stormwater runoff entering the
subject property. Based on site visits and our review of the City’s SDMP, Basin 12 was subdivided into several sub-
basins to estimate peak runoff rates and corresponding conveyance capacities. These drainage basins are further
described below and supporting calculations are provided as an attachment to this letter.
Basin OS-1 is an existing basin within E. Cooper Street directly south and east of the subject property. An
existing at grade access to the Chateau Eu Claire and the associated northern edge of the E Cooper Street
attached site walk serves as the northern boundary for the basin. An existing low point and associated inlet was
observed just west of the E Cooper Street bridge crossing of the Roaring Fork River. As such, the eastern limits
of the basin were established by the breakline tributary to this inlet. The southern extent of the basin was
established at the crown of E Cooper Street. Overall imperviousness is estimated to be 100% based on existing
ground cover.
Runoff generated within the basin is collected within a 4’ concrete drain pan directly south of the Riverside
Townhomes. Surface runoff collected within this drain pan continues west within the concrete flowline into a
formal curb and gutter system in front of the subject property (Basin OS-2). The drain pan was field measured to
have an approximate 0.2’ available flow depth and approximately 1.5% longitudinal slope. Based on this
information, runoff generated from a 100 year storm event is estimated to be fully contained within the drain pan
at an approximate 0.14’ flow depth. This analysis concludes that no existing offsite runoff will be tributary to the
site from the north side of the E. Cooper Street right of way east of the subject property.
Basin OS-2 is an existing basin within E. Cooper Street directly south of the subject property. The northern limit
of the basin was established to be the top of curb on the north side of E. Copper Street. The basin is bound by
Basin OS-1 to the east and the projected subject property line to the west. The southern extent of the basin was
established at the crown of E. Cooper Street. Overall imperviousness is estimated to be 100% based on existing
ground cover.
1020 E Cooper Street- Engineering Letter HPC Application October 15, 2020
Page 3
502 Main Street • Suite A3 • Carbondale, CO 81623 • (970)704 -0311• Fax (970)704 -0313
S OPRIS E NGINEERIN G • LLC civil consultants
Runoff generated within the basin is collected within an existing curb and gutter system on the north side of E.
Cooper Street. Surface runoff then continues west within the gutter flowline to a curb inlet west of the subject
property, near the intersection with S. Cleveland Street. Portions of the existing curb will be replaced with COA
compliant curb & gutter with this project, however the existing curb height was measured for conservative
analysis. The curb height was field measured to have an approximate 4.5” height, 2” gutter drop and average
1.5% longitudinal slope. Based on this information, the 100 year storm event is estimated to be fully contained
within existing parking lane at an approximate 0.13’ flow depth. This analysis concludes that runoff from the
basin will not overtop the curb and no existing offsite runoff will be tributary to the site from the north side of E.
Cooper Street in front of the subject property.
Basin OS-3 is an existing basin within E. Cooper Street detached sidewalk directly south of the subject property.
The northern limit of the basin was established to be the northern edge of the sidewalk adjacent to the
development. The basin is bound by Basin OS-1 to the east and the projected subject property line to the west.
The southern extent of the basin was established at top back of curb on the north side of E Cooper Street. A
small portion of existing sidewalk from the adjacent Riverside Condo property to the east was additionally
included within the basin limits. Overall imperviousness is estimated to be 75% based on existing ground cover.
Runoff generated within this small basin runs along the southern edge of sidewalk towards the west and likely
evaporates and/or percolates into the adjacent landscape area. Drainage conveyance calculations indicate that
this existing conveyance has adequate capacity and the runoff from this small basin does not enter the subject
property.
Basin OS-4 is an existing basin comprised of the various properties south of E. Cooper Street that contribute
surface runoff to the south side of E. Cooper Street in front of the subject property. This basin was evaluated to
determine whether or not tributary flows would overtop the crown of the road. Overall imperviousness is
estimated to be 85% based on existing ground cover. In addition, a conservative 5-minute time of concentration
was used to estimate peak runoff rates for this larger basin.
Runoff generated within this basin is ultimately collected within the existing curb and gutter system on the south
side of E. Cooper Street. Surface runoff then continues west within the gutter flowline to a curb inlet west of the
subject property. The existing curb height was field measured to have an approximate 5.5” height, 2” gutter drop
and 1.5% longitudinal slope. Based on this information, the 100 year storm event is estimated to be fully
contained within the existing parking lane at an approximate 0.41’ flow depth. This analysis concludes that runoff
from the basin will not overtop the crown of E. Cooper Street and no existing offsite runoff will be tributary to the
site from the south side of E Cooper Street.
To conclude, based on the offsite drainage analysis associated with E. Cooper Street, it has been determined
that offsite flows do not adversely impact the subject property and that the existing condition is found to be
acceptable for redevelopment. Estimated offsite peak runoff rates are summarized within Table 1. In addition,
supporting calculations and a drainage basin delineation plan are included as attachments to this letter.
Table 1 – Existing Peak Runoff Values
10-yr 100-yr 10-yr 100-yr 10-yr 100-yr
OS-1 0.076 100%0.86 0.89 5.0 3.72 6.32 0.24 0.43
OS-2 0.032 100%0.86 0.89 5.0 3.72 6.32 0.10 0.18
OS-3 0.013 75%0.66 0.77 5.0 3.72 6.32 0.03 0.06
OS-4 0.984 85%0.74 0.82 5.0 3.72 6.32 2.71 5.10
Subcatchment
Name
Area
(ac)
Percent
Impervious
ness
Runoff Coefficient, C Selected
tc (min)
Rainfall Intensity,I(in/hr)Peak Flow, Q (cfs)
1020 E Cooper Street- Engineering Letter HPC Application October 15, 2020
Page 4
502 Main Street • Suite A3 • Carbondale, CO 81623 • (970)704 -0311• Fax (970)704 -0313
S OPRIS E NGINEERIN G • LLC civil consultants
Proposed Development, Stormwater Requirements and Stormwater Mitigation
It is our understanding that the project will include a remodel and relocation of the existing residence and an
expansion to accommodate multiple affordable housing units. Additional improvements include off-alley parking
along the north side of the property, various walkways, bicycle racks, trash enclosure, landscaping, stormwater
mitigation infrastructure and utility service extensions.
Based on the proposed improvements the project will be classified as a “Major Project” as identified within the City’s
URMP. Based on the location of the subject property the stormwater mitigation requirements will include water
quality treatment for all exposed impervious areas. Onsite stormwater detention is not required for the proposed
improvements as conveyance to the City’s street gutter system will be provided via an improved alley way. Surface
runoff will then sheet flow west down the gravel alley consistent with the analysis provided in the City’s SDMP
prepared by WRC Engineering.
Water Quality Treatment: Based on the estimated total impervious area, the resulting required water quality
treatment volume will be approximately 59 cf. Preliminary investigation for integrating permeable pavers, green roofs
and/or bioretention basins has proven challenging given the nature of the affordable housing development. The
gable type roofs and historic nature of the project prevents utilizing green roofs and the density of the site would
place permeable pavers and bioretention gardens very close to the proposed structures which will require
impermeable liners and underdrain piping that come at an additional cost and these underdrains would end up in the
dry well regardless given the inability to connect directly to the City’s storm drain system. Based on these constraints
a dry well is being proposed for water quality treatment. Dry Wells are a stormwater mitigation BMP that
incorporates manhole structures with perforated barrels at the deeper depths. Washed screened rock is installed
around the exterior of the perforated sections. When sub-soils are capable of moderate to high infiltration rates, dry
wells are considered to be a viable BMP. They dramatically reduce the increased runoff and volume of stormwater
generated from surrounding impervious areas and promote infiltration; thereby improving the water quality of
stormwater runoff.
The required water quality capture volume for a dry well shall be 150% of the design water quality capture volume as
outlined within Chapter 8 of the City’s URMP. Per the City’s URMP dry wells shall not be located within 10-ft of any
structure or 10-ft from a private property line. Based on these criteria there is only one potential location for a dry
well as illustrated on the attached conceptual civil drawings; unless a variance request is pursued. The resulting
anticipated water quality capture volume based on the anticipated proposed impervious areas and a 1.5 factor of
safety is estimated to be 89 cf. Given the minimum depths required to meet Section 8.5.4.2 of the City’s URMP
there will be an additional 60 cf of capacity within the dry well which will provide additional detention and attenuation
of stormwater runoff. Conceptual civil plans are included as an attachment for illustrative support of the proposed
site plan and stormwater mitigation design.
Site Utilities
Coordination with the various utility providers has taken place to verify layouts, routing, and feasibility of serving the
proposed improvements. This section describes our findings. Preliminary utility plans have been included within the
attached civil drawings for illustrative support. Additional details and finalized design will be submitted when a
Building Permit Application is pursued.
Water Service & Fire Flow Analysis
The City of Aspen Water Department is the provider of potable water for the subject property. Currently the site is
served off the existing 14 inch DIP main that runs down E. Cooper Avenue. The existing service size is unknown but
1020 E Cooper Street- Engineering Letter HPC Application October 15, 2020
Page 5
502 Main Street • Suite A3 • Carbondale, CO 81623 • (970)704 -0311• Fax (970)704 -0313
S OPRIS E NGINEERIN G • LLC civil consultants
the service is to be capped and abandoned if determined to be inadequate to support the proposed improvements.
A new service tap meeting the fire and domestic demands will be provided per COA Water Department Standards.
The water service is anticipated to be routed to a water entry room near the southeast corner of the historic landmark
building, beneath a proposed porch. The master meter will be located within a tempered space and entrance will be
provided through an access hatch integrated within the porch in compliance with Section 5.8 of the Water
Distribution Standards. A common service line agreement may be pursued by the development to facilitate separate
service feeds to the various units. This will be determined in support of a future building permit application if
necessary.
Final size of the service line will be coordinated with the Water Department staff based on anticipated building
program demands and fire sprinkler suppression requirements. Final fixture counts and resulting consumptive
demands will be determined by the Mechanical Engineer and coordinated with City staff prior to pursuing a Building
Permit Application.
Sanitary Sewer
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD) is the supplier of sanitary sewer service to the subject property and
surrounding area. An existing 8” collector line exists in the alley to the north of the proposed building. There is an
existing service from this line to the existing residence. A shared sewer service will likely be provided for the
proposed development and a new tap and service line is anticipated. The final size of the service line will be
determined by the project MEP in support of building permit design. A small ejector vault and pump system will be
required in order to lift below grade spaces up to the District’s system within the alley. The ejector system is
anticipated to be located exterior of the structure(s) and located on the north side of the development. The design of
the system will be provided in support of any future building permit application.
Shallow Utilities
The shallow utilities proposed to serve 1020 E. Cooper Avenue include electric, cable, and telephone. An existing
gas main does run along the alley however natural gas service is not being proposed at this time. The information
provided within this section includes utility locates obtained during the improvement survey as well as discussions
with the individual utility providers.
City of Aspen Electric currently serves the subject property via a transformer located within an existing dedicated
easement (Rec. # 659373) near the northeast corner of the subject property. The existing transformer and vault
is primarily located on the adjacent property to the east, however a small portion of the transformer and vault lie
within the City’s Right of Way. The size and location of the existing transformer was discussed and coordinated
with City Engineering Staff. Relocating the existing transformer would require an additional splice vault within
the alley. City Staff decided additional infrastructure was not desirable and determined a new 4-ft diameter vault
is to be centered beneath the existing transformer. A new 5’x5’ transformer lid and upgraded transformer will be
placed atop the vault and portions of the upgraded infrastructure will remain within the alley. However, City
Engineering did request an easement on the subject property be provided to accommodate shifting the
transformer to the south and out of the right-of-way should the City pursue this in the future. After further review
of this option it has been determined that the existing onsite electric easement at the northeast corner is
adequate to comply with the separation requirements if/when the transformer is ever moved further to the south.
Comcast Cable service is currently provided via a pedestal located within an existing easement on the property
directly adjacent to the west. The upgraded service is proposed to come from this same pedestal and will follow
1020 E Cooper Street- Engineering Letter HPC Application October 15, 2020
Page 6
502 Main Street • Suite A3 • Carbondale, CO 81623 • (970)704 -0311• Fax (970)704 -0313
S OPRIS E NGINEERIN G • LLC civil consultants
a similar alignment to the existing line. Cable service is anticipated to be routed below grade directly to the north
building and routed internal to the building to serve the various units.
Century Link service is currently provided via an existing pedestal located near the northwest corner of the
property. New service to meet the development’s needs is anticipated to originate from this existing pedestal.
A Conceptual Utility Plan has been included as an attachment (C-2.0) for illustrative support. A final Utility Plan will
be submitted in support of any future building permit.
Conclusion
Based on our evaluation of the existing site conditions and proposed development the project has a viable option for
providing water quality mitigation that complies with City standards and offsite drainage basins will not have any
adverse impacts to the proposed development. In addition, utilities necessary to serve the project are available.
The design of all onsite stormwater mitigation infrastructure, water quality treatment facilities, and utility service
extensions, to include size and location, will be further analyzed as the project design progresses. Final designs will
be provided with any future building permit application.
If you have any questions or need any additional information please don’t hesitate contacting our office.
Sincerely,
SOPRIS ENGINEERING, LLC
Jesse K Swann, PE
Project Manager
Encl: C-1.0- Conceptual Grading & Drainage Plan, C-2.0- Conceptual Utility Plan, C-3.0- Conceptual Drainage
Mitigation Plan, Hyraflow Calculations
XGAS
X
G
A
S
XG
A
S
XG
A
S
XG
A
S
XG
A
S
XG
A
S
XG
A
S
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V XTV
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTV
XTV
XTV
XU
T
XU
T
XUT
XUT
XUT
XUT
XUT
XU
T
XUTXUTXUTXUT
X
U
T
XU
T
XU
T
XU
T
XU
T
XU
T
XU
T
XU
T
XU
T
XU
T
XU
T
XU
T
XU
T
XU
T
XUT
XU
T
XU
T
XU
T
XU
T
XU
T
XUT
XUT
XUT
XUT
XUT
XU
T
XUT
XU
T
XUT XUT XUT XUT
XW
L
XW
L
XW
L
XW
L
XW
L
XW
L
XW
L
XWL
XWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLX
W
L
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL XEL
XELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXEL
XEL
x
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
XGAS
XGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGAS
XGAS
XGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGAS
XSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XSA
TE
L
TEL
TEL TEL
TV
TV
TV
TV
TV TV
svc sa svc sa svc sa svc sa svc sa svc sa svc
UE
L
UE
L
UEL UEL UEL UEL
WLSVC
>>>>>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>
>
SUBJECT PROPERTY
PARCEL #273718232006
1020 E COOPER AVE
RIVERSIDE CONDO ASSOC
PARCEL #273718127801
1024 E COOPER AVE
(NOT PART OF PROJECT)
COOPER AVE VICTORIAN CONDO ASSOC
PARCEL #273718232802
1012 E COOPER AVE
(NOT PART OF PROJECT)
PROJECT BENCHMARK
FOUND #5 REBAR & RED
PLASTIC CAP PLS 33638
0.2' ABOVE GRADE
ELEV=7946.3
20.00'
ALLEY
73.70'
RIGHT OF WAY
ME: 42.8'±
M
E
:
4
3
.
3
'
±
M
E
:
4
2
.
9
'
±
M
E
:
4
2
.
9
'
±
ME: 44.8'±ME: 44.7'±ME: 44.9'±
ME: 45.2'±
ME: 45.2'±
ME: 44.8'±
ME: 44.5'±
ME: 44.9'±
ME: 44.1'±ME: 44.1'±
EX: 43.8'±
EX: 45.3'±EX: 45.8'±
EX: 45.8'±
EX: 44.0'±
EX: 43.3'±
EX: 42.9'±EX: 42.8'±EX: 42.4'±
1.
0
%
4.0%
FG: 43.53
FG: 43.26
FG: 43.71
2.0%1.8%
2.0%1.8%4.2%4.2%1.4%
0.7%4.2%4.2%
2.0%
FG: 43.16 FG: 43.78
FG: 43.92
FG: 44.21
2.4%
FG: 43.79
FG: 44.25
FG: 43.63FG: 43.25
FG: 43.66
FG: 43.72
FG: 43.22
FG: 43.28
FFE:7943.28'
FG: 44.00
FG: 43.96
FG: 43.95
FG: 43.78
FG: 44.51
FG: 44.61
FG: 45.68
FG: 44.57
FG: 44.66
FG: 45.68
FG: 45.78
FG: 45.04
FG: 45.68
3.9%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.
0
%
1.4%
1.
5
%
2.0%
2.0%
1.7%
0.9%
2.0%
8.
0
%
FG: 43.92 0.
8
%
0.
8
%
3.8%
5.1%
3.8%
4.0%
1.0%
1.2%
0.9%
1.1%
TC: 44.18
TBC: 44.93
FL: 44.50
TC: 44.72 ME: 44.9'±
TC: 44.49
TBC: 45.08
FL: 44.71
TC: 44.91
ME: 45.1'±
PROPOSED DRY WELL
RIM: 43.06
SEWER
CLEANOUT
RIM: 43.42
SEWER EJECTOR
VAULT RIM: 43.36
INLET RIM: 42.83
REPLACE 50 L.F.
EXISTING CURB AND
GUTTER TO MATCH
EXISTING SIZE AND
GRADES.
PROTECT EXISTING TREE
DURING CONSTRUCTION
REPLACE EXISTING
ASPHALT IN KIND
PROPERTY LINE
PROPOSED 2"
ASPHALT OVERLAY
(12" MIN WIDTH)
PROPOSED FULL
DEPTH SAWCUT
E.
C
O
O
P
E
R
A
V
E
.
2 STEPS (UP)
6" RISE
79
4
5
79
4
3
7
9
4
4
FG: 43.72
FG: 43.85
FG: 44.42
FG: 43.28
FG: 44.47
FG: 43.79
LP/RIM: 43.60
LP/RIM: 44.37
FFE:7944.00'
FFE:7945.78'
EX: 44.3'±
FG: 43.82
FG: 43.58
FG: 43.85
2.
3
%
1.
5
%
1.
0
%
EX: 44.6'±
STAIRS
DOWN
DO
W
N
2.
0
%
FG: 44.22 FG: 44.12
EX: 44.1'±
EX: 43.5'±
EX: 43.6'±
EX: 44.1'±
1.
0
%
2.
0
%
1.
0
%
1.0%
INLET RIM: 44.97
TRENCH DRAIN
RIM: 44.57
TRENCH DRAIN
RIM: 44.53
TRENCH DRAIN
RIM: 44.26
TRENCH DRAIN
RIM: 44.23
LP/RIM: 43.67
LP/RIM: 44.00
10
.
0
%
10
.
0
%
FG: 45.78
FG: 44.82
1.6%
2.0%
1.
9
%
FG: 44.36
3.3%7.3%
2.0%
2.
0
%
2.
0
%
2.
0
%
3.9%
2.0%
1.
5
%
TBC: 44.08 TBC: 44.28
1.
5
%
1.
6
%
1.7%
2.
0
%
4.
8
%
1.5%
1.5%5.0%
6" CURB ALONG EDGE
OF WALKWAY.
TBC: 43.66
TBC: 43.43
TBC: 42.93
FG: 42.93 TBC: 44.42 TBC: 44.29 TBC: 44.22
TBC: 44.82
TBC: 44.20
FG: 44.32
EXTERIOR CLOSET TO AVOID
IMPACTS TO EXISTING TREE
STORM PIPE SHALL BE ROUTED
ROUTED BELOW SLAB ON GRADE
PROPOSED CONCEPTUAL STORM
PIPE LAYOUT. MATERIAL, SIZE,
SLOPE & ALIGNMENT TO BE
FINALIZED IN SUPPORT OF
FUTURE BUILDING PERMIT (TYP)10.6'
TO PROPERTY
LINE
13.1'
TO PROPOSED BUILDING
10.1'
BETWEEN STRUCTURES
3-FT WIDE CONCRETE
DRAIN PAN
REPLACED ELECTRIC
VAULT & TRANSFORMER.
VAULT LID SET 6" ABOVE
FINAL/EXISTING GRADES
REPLACE EXISTING
SIDEWALK ADJOINING
SUBJECT PROPERTY
REPLACE EXISTING CURB
& GUTTER IN FRONT OF
SUBJECT PROPERTY
AREA DRAIN OR SLOT DRAIN AT
ENTRANCE & ROUTED THROUGH
STRUCTURE TO DRY WELL (AREA
LOCATED ABOVE STRUCTURE)
PROPOSED AREA INLET. SIZE &
LOCATION TO BE FINALIZED IN SUPPORT
OF FUTURE BUILDING PERMIT (TYP)
OPRIS ESNGINEERING, LLC.
CIVIL CONSULTANTS
JOB NO.
DATE:
502 MAIN STREET
CARBONDALE, CO 81623
(970) 704-0311
FAX: (970)-704-0313
DESIGNED BY
DRAWN BY
CHECKED BY
DATE REVISION
C-1.0
DRAWING NO.
TITLE
G:
\
2
0
2
0
\
3
0
1
1
1
\
C
I
V
I
L
\
C
I
V
I
L
D
W
G
S
\
P
L
O
T
\
3
0
1
1
1
-
G
&
D
P
L
A
N
.
D
W
G
-
O
c
t
1
4
,
2
0
2
0
-
2
:
5
7
p
m
DRAINAGE DIRECTION/SLOPE
SPOT ELEVATION
EXAMPLE: TOP OF CONCRETE @ 7945.00' =
BOW = BOTTOM OF WALL
EOA = EDGE OF ASPHALT
EX = EXISTING GRADE
FFE = FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION
FG = FINISHED GRADE
FL = FLOW LINE
HP = HIGH POINT
LP = LOW POINT
MATCH EX = MATCH EXISTING
RIM = RIM ELEVATION
TBC = TOP BACK OF CURB
TOC = TOP OF CONCRETE
CONCEPTUAL
GRADING &
DRAINAGE PLANBASIS OF ELEVATION: THE 1998 CITY OF ASPEN DREXEL BARREL
CONTROL DATUM, WHICH IS BASED ON AN ELEVATION OF
7720.88' (NAVD 1998) ON THE NGS STATION "S-159".
THIS ESTABLISHED A SITE BENCHMARK LOCATED AT THE
SOUTHWEST PROPERTY CORNER. LS# 33638, ELEV: 7946.3' PER
SURVEY PREPARED BY SOPRIS ENGINEERING INC.
SPOT ELEVATION LEGEND
SITE BENCHMARK
MEMBER UTILITIES
FOR THE MARKING OF UNDERGROUND
BEFORE YOU DIG, GRADE, OR EXCAVATE
CALL 2-BUSINESS DAYS IN ADVANCE
Know what's below.
before you dig.Call
R
NORTH
1 inch = ft.
( IN FEET )
GRAPHIC SCALE
05 5 10
5
202.5
PROPOSED DRAINAGE DRY-WELL
PROPOSED SEWER MANHOLE
PROPOSED WATER VALVE
PROPOSED CURB STOP
PROPOSED GAS METER/VALVE
PROPOSED ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER
PROPOSED SEWER CLEANOUT
PROPOSED STORM INLET
PROPOSED 8" WATER MAIN8''WL
PROPOSED 8" SANITARY SEWER MAIN
PROPOSED TELEPHONE
PROPOSED UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC
PROPOSED CABLE
PROPOSED STORM SEWER
TEL TEL
UE
TV TV
8''SA
EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT
EXISTING WATER VALVE
EXISTING CURB STOP
EXISTING GAS METER
EXISTING ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER
EXISTING TELEPHONE PEDESTAL
EXISTING CATV PEDESTAL
EXISTING SEWER CLEANOUT
EXISTING 8" WATER MAINXWLXWL
EXISTING 8" SANITARY SEWER MAIN
EXISTING GAS
EXISTING TELEPHONE
XGAS XGAS
EXISTING UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC
EXISTING CABLE
XUT XUT
XEL XEL
XTV XTV
EXISTING IRRIGATION PIPEXIRRXIRR
XSA XSA
30111
10-15-20
CJB 10/01/20
CJB 10/01/20
JKS 10/14/20
CO
N
C
E
P
T
U
A
L
D
E
S
I
G
N
10
2
0
E
.
C
O
O
P
E
R
A
V
E
N
U
E
AS
P
E
N
,
C
O
L
O
R
A
D
O
CO
N
C
E
P
T
U
A
L
H
P
C
A
P
P
R
O
V
A
L
PROPOSED SAWCUT
PROPOSED FULL DEPTH ASPHALT
PROPOSED 2" ASPHALT OVERLAY
PROPOSED CONCRETE
PROPOSED LEGEND
UTILITY LEGEND
VICINITY MAP
SITE
SCALE: 1" = 2,000'
NO
R
T
H
XX: XX.XX
2.0%
FG: 45.00
NOTE:
THESE PLANS ARE CONCEPTUAL OR ILLUSTRATIVE IN NATURE. PRECISE INFORMATION SHALL BE PROVIDED AS
PART OF THE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION, AND IN SITUATIONS WHERE THE FINAL HPC APPROVAL PLANS
AND APPROVED BUILDING PERMIT DIFFER, THE APPROVED BUILDING PERMIT SHALL RULE.
PROPOSED GRAVEL
PROPOSED PORCH
PROPOSED PLANTING BED
PROPOSED LAWN AREA
REDUCED FOR
ATTACHMENT TO REPORT
XGAS
X
G
A
S
XG
A
S
XG
A
S
XG
A
S
XG
A
S
XG
A
S
XG
A
S
XTV
XTV
X
T
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XTV
XTV
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
X
T
V
XTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTV
XTV
XTV
XU
T
XU
T
XU
T
XUT
XUT
XUT
XUT
XUT
XU
T
XUTXUTXUTXUT
X
U
T
XU
T
XU
T
XU
T
XU
T
XU
T
XU
T
XU
T
XU
T
XU
T
XU
T
XU
T
XU
T
XU
T
XU
T
XU
T
XU
T
XU
T
XU
T
XU
T
XUT
XUT
XUT
XUT
XUT
XUT
XUT
XUT
XU
T
XU
T
XUT XUT XUT XUT
XW
L
XW
L
XW
L
XW
L
XW
L
XW
L
XW
L
XWL
XWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLX
W
L
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
X
E
L
XE
L
XE
L
XE
L
XE
L
XE
L
XE
L
XE
L
XE
L
XE
L
XE
L
XE
L
XE
L
XE
L
XE
L
XEL
XEL
XEL XEL
XELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXEL
XEL
x
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
XG
A
S
XG
A
S
XG
A
S
XG
A
S
XG
A
S
XG
A
S
XG
A
S
XG
A
S
XG
A
S
XG
A
S
XG
A
S
XG
A
S
XG
A
S
XG
A
S
XG
A
S
XG
A
S
XGAS
XGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGAS
XGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGAS
XS
A
XS
A
XS
A
XS
A
XS
A
XS
A
XS
A
XS
A
XS
A
XS
A
XS
A
XS
A
XS
A
XS
A
XS
A
XS
A
XS
A
XSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XSA
TE
L
TEL
TEL TEL
TV
TV
TV
TV
TV TV
sa svc sa svc sa svc sa svc sa svc sa svc sa svc
UE
L
U
E
L
UEL UEL UEL UEL
WLSVC
INSTALL (2) 4" PVC CONDUITS
TO BUILDING FOR TELEPHONE
AND CABLE SERVICE.
INSTALL & EXTEND NEW WATER
SERVICE PER COA WATER
DEPARTMENT STANDARDS TO
PROPOSED WATER ENTRY ROOM
EXISTING 14" WATER MAIN
LOCATION AND SIZE OF WATER TAP TO BE
CONFIRMED PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT.
(NOTE: ALL UTILITY WORK WITHIN CDOT'S ROW
SHALL BE PERFORMED UNDER AN APPROVED CDOT
SPECIAL USE PERMIT)
REPLACE 50 L.F. EXISTING CURB AND
GUTTER TO MATCH EXISTING SIZE
AND GRADES. SEE G&D SHEET C1.0
PROTECT EXISTING TREE
DURING CONSTRUCTIONCONTRACTOR TO ABANDON EXISTING
UTILITY LINES SERVING THE SUBJECT
PROPERT (1020 E COOPER AVENUE)
CONTRACTOR TO SAWCUT AND
PATCH PER TRENCH DETAIL ON
THIS SHEET
REPLACE EXISTING ASPHALT IN KIND.
PROPOSED LOCATION OF ELECTRIC
METERS & DISTRIBUTION PANEL
PROPOSED UTILITIES TO BE INSTALLED WITH 2' MINIMUM
VERTICAL SEPARATION FROM STORM DRAIN. INSTALL
UTILITY LOCATE TAPE ABOVE CONDUIT. FINAL DESIGN TO
BE PROVIDED IN SUPPORT OF FUTURE BUILDING PERMIT
PROPOSED 33 L.F. GRAVITY SDR 26 SEWER SERVICE
AT 2% MINIMUM SLOPE (SIZE TO BE DETERMINED
PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT)
INVERT AT CLEANOUT=7939.0±
INSTALL 2-WAY CLEANOUT W/ FRAME & GRATE
EXISTING TRANSFORMER TO BE
PROTECTED THROUGH ALL PHASES OF
CONSTRUCTION
EX. TRANSFORMER
TO BE REPLACED
PROPERTY (TYP)
NEW SECONDARY ELECTRIC SERVICE
(ESTIMATE: 600 AMP SERVICE. ACTUAL
ELECTRIC DEMAND TO BE CONFIRMED
PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT)
EXISTING WATER SERVICE TO BE ABANDONED AT THE
MAIN PER COA WATER DEPARTMENT STANDARDS.
CONTRACTOR TO UTILIZE A MANHOLE TRENCH BOX
FOR ABANDONMENT TO LIMIT OVERALL
DISTURBANCE. ALL UTILITY WORK WITHIN CDOT'S
ROW SHALL BE PERFORMED UNDER AN APPROVED
CDOT SPECIAL USE PERMIT
NEW CABLE SERVICE LINE
EXTENDED FROM EXISTING
CABLE PEDESTAL PER COMCAST
STANDARDS
EXISTING CABLE
PEDESTAL
EXISTING BOLLARDS
(TO BE REMOVED)
NEW TELEPHONE SERVICE PULLED
FROM EXISTING PEDESTAL PER
CENTURY LINK STANDARDS
PROPOSED 2"
ASPHALT OVERLAY
(12" MIN WIDTH)
PROPOSED FULL DEPTH SAWCUT
NEW BOLLARDS @ EACH
CORNER OF VAULT
E.
C
O
O
P
E
R
A
V
E
.
(S
T
A
T
E
H
I
G
H
W
A
Y
8
2
)
20.00'
ALLEY
EXISTING 3.5'X8'
ELEC. EASEMENT
PROPOSED 4' DIA. VAULT W/
5'X5' LID CENTERED OVER
EXISTING TRANSFORMER.
INSTALL NEW TRANSFORMER
HATCHED AREA REFLECTS
REQUIRED SEPARATION/EASEMENT
SUBJECT PROPERTY
PARCEL #273718232006
1020 E COOPER AVE
RIVERSIDE CONDO ASSOC
PARCEL #273718127801
1024 E COOPER AVE
(NOT PART OF PROJECT)
COOPER AVE VICTORIAN CONDO ASSOC
PARCEL #273718232802
1012 E COOPER AVE
(NOT PART OF PROJECT)
PROPOSED SEWER EJECTOR PIT
DESIGNED BY MEP IN SUPPORT
OF FUTURE BUILDING PERMIT
APPLICATION
EXISTING TELEPHONE
PEDESTAL
CONTRACTOR TO INSPECT EXISTING SEWER TAP &
COORDINATE WITH ASPEN CONSOLIDATED SANITATION
DISTRICT & ENGINEER OF RECORD ON WHETHER A NEW
TAP WILL BE REQUIRED.
EXTEND NEW SDR 26 SHARED SEWER SERVICE (SIZE TBD)
TO PROJECT AND REMOVE/ABANDON EXISTING 4" VCP
SHARED SERVICE AGREEMENT TO BE REQUESTED PRIOR
TO BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION
INV OF MAIN LINE=7937.3±
INVERT OF SEWER SERVICE=7938.3±
CONNECT FORCE MAIN TO
MAINLINE GRAVITY SEWER
SERVICE
PROPOSED GRAVITY SEWER
SERVICE TO EJECTOR PUMP
EN
T
R
Y
P
O
R
C
H
W
/
W
A
T
E
R
E
N
T
R
Y
R
O
O
M
LO
C
A
T
E
D
B
E
L
O
W
W
/
I
N
C
R
A
W
L
S
P
A
C
E
ACCESS HATCH TO
CRAWLSPACE & WATER
ENTRY ROOM
8.0'
3.5'
8.0'
ADA
PARKING
STALL
8.0'
ACCESS AISLE
PROPOSED
DRY WELL
PROPOSED
AREA INLET
5' WIDE SIDEWALK
TO BE REPLACED IN
KIND
EXISTING UTILITY EASEMENT
(10'x9.4') PER BK 98 PG 93
EXISTING ELEC. EASEMENT
(2'x8') PER BK 126 PG 7
CONCEPTUAL STORM DRAIN LAYOUT.
FINAL SIZE, SLOPE & ALIGNMENT TO BE
DETERMINED IN SUPPORT OF FUTURE
BUILDING PERMIT (TYP)
PROPOSED DRAINAGE DRY-WELL
PROPOSED SEWER MANHOLE
PROPOSED WATER VALVE
PROPOSED ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER
PROPOSED SEWER CLEANOUT
PROPOSED STORM INLET
PROPOSED 8" WATER MAIN8''WL
PROPOSED 8" SANITARY SEWER MAIN
PROPOSED TELEPHONE
PROPOSED UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC
PROPOSED CABLE
PROPOSED STORM SEWER
TEL TEL
UE
TV TV
8''SA
EXISTING WATER VALVE
EXISTING ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER
EXISTING TELEPHONE PEDESTAL
EXISTING CATV PEDESTAL
EXISTING WATER MAINXWLXWL
EXISTING 8" SANITARY SEWER MAIN
EXISTING GAS
EXISTING TELEPHONE
XGAS XGAS
EXISTING UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC
EXISTING CABLE
XUT XUT
XEL XEL
XTV XTV
EXISTING IRRIGATION PIPEXIRRXIRR
XSA XSA
OPRIS ESNGINEERING, LLC.
CIVIL CONSULTANTS
30111JOB NO.
DATE:10-15-20
502 MAIN STREET
CARBONDALE, CO 81623
(970) 704-0311
FAX: (970)-704-0313
DESIGNED BY
DRAWN BY
CHECKED BY
CJB 10/01/20
CJB 10/01/20
JKS 10/14/20
DATE REVISION
C-2.0
DRAWING NO.
TITLE
G:
\
2
0
2
0
\
3
0
1
1
1
\
C
I
V
I
L
\
C
I
V
I
L
D
W
G
S
\
P
L
O
T
\
3
0
1
1
1
-
U
T
I
L
P
L
A
N
.
D
W
G
-
O
c
t
1
4
,
2
0
2
0
-
2
:
5
6
p
m
NORTH
CONCEPTUAL
UTILITY PLAN
CO
N
C
E
P
T
U
A
L
D
E
S
I
G
N
10
2
0
E
.
C
O
O
P
E
R
A
V
E
N
U
E
AS
P
E
N
,
C
O
L
O
R
A
D
O
HP
C
C
O
N
C
E
P
T
U
A
L
A
P
P
R
O
V
A
L
1 inch = ft.
( IN FEET )
GRAPHIC SCALE
05 5 10
5
202.5
UTILITY PLAN LEGEND
MEMBER UTILITIES
FOR THE MARKING OF UNDERGROUND
BEFORE YOU DIG, GRADE, OR EXCAVATE
CALL 2-BUSINESS DAYS IN ADVANCE
Know what's below.
before you dig.Call
R
1.ALL MINIMUM DEPTHS, SEPARATION DISTANCES, MATERIALS AND/OR USE OF CONDUIT SHALL
BE CONFIRMED AND COORDINATED WITH THE UTILITY PROVIDER PER UTILITY AGREEMENTS.
2.ALL UTILITY LINES AND/OR CONDUITS TO BE BACKFILLED WITH SUITABLE MATERIAL FREE OF
ROCKS >1 1/2" Ø. USE CLASS 6 AGGREGATE BASE MATERIAL FOR BEDDING, AND/OR SUITABLE
ONSITE MATERIAL. INSTALL PER UTILITY PROVIDER SPECIFICATIONS. BACKFILL TRENCHES
WITH SUITABLE ONSITE MATERIALS. MINIMUM COMPACTION 95% IN PAVED AREAS.
3.GAS AND ELECTRIC TO BE INSTALLED IN SEPARATE TRENCHES. SEWER SERVICES TO BE
INSTALLED A MINIMUM 10' FROM WATER SERVICES AS FEASIBLE. COMMUNICATIONS MAY BE
INSTALLED IN COMBINED TRENCHES PER CONSTRUCTION FEASIBILITY AS LONG AS MINIMUM
SEPARATION DISTANCES AND DEPTHS OF BURY ARE MAINTAINED. INSTALL WARNING TAPE
OVER ALL UTILITY LINES.
UTILITY SERVICE MINIMUM DEPTH
WATER--------------------------------7.0'
SEWER--------------------------------5.0'
ELECTRIC----------------------------3.0'
CABLE TV----------------------------3.0'
PHONE--------------------------------3.0'
GAS----------------------------------- 2.0'
1.CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE ABANDONMENT, RELOCATION, AND BURIAL OF THE EXISTING UTILITIES WITH
THE UTILITY PROVIDERS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.
2.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTAIN HIS CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS WITHIN THE LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION.
CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT OPERATE OUTSIDE THIS AREA WITHOUT THE PRIOR CONSENT OF THE PROPERTY
OWNER(S) INVOLVED.
3.THE LOCATIONS OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES HAVE BEEN PLOTTED BASED ON UTILITY MAPS, LOCATES OR
OTHER INFORMATION PROVIDED BY UTILITY COMPANIES AND ACTUAL FIELD LOCATIONS IN SOME INSTANCES.
THESE UTILITIES, AS SHOWN MAY NOT REPRESENT ACTUAL FIELD CONDITIONS. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF
THE CONTRACTOR TO CONTACT ALL UTILITY COMPANIES FOR FIELD LOCATION OF UTILITIES PRIOR TO
CONSTRUCTION.
4.ALL UTILITIES, BOTH UNDERGROUND AND OVERHEAD, SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN CONTINUOUS SERVICE
THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE AND LIABLE
FOR ANY DAMAGES TO, OR INTERRUPTION OF, SERVICES CAUSED BY THE CONSTRUCTION.
5.ALL SITE AND UTILITY WORK SHALL BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH CITY OF ASPEN RULES & REGULATIONS. A
PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
6.EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY PROVIDED BY SOPRIS ENGINEERING, LLC.
7.CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT ALL EXISTING TREES THAT ARE TO REMAIN. A TREE PROTECTION PLAN MUST BE
APPROVED BY CITY PARKS DEPARTMENT AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCING CONSTRUCTION.
8.ALL UTILITY METER LOCATIONS SHOWN FOR REFERENCE. REFER TO MEP PLANS FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
GENERAL UTILITY NOTES:
SHALLOW UTILITY NOTES:
NOTE:
THESE PLANS ARE CONCEPTUAL OR ILLUSTRATIVE IN NATURE. PRECISE INFORMATION SHALL BE PROVIDED AS
PART OF THE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION, AND IN SITUATIONS WHERE THE FINAL HPC APPROVAL PLANS
AND APPROVED BUILDING PERMIT DIFFER, THE APPROVED BUILDING PERMIT SHALL RULE.
PROPOSED SAWCUT
PROPOSED FULL DEPTH ASPHALT
PROPOSED 2" ASPHALT OVERLAY
PROPOSED LEGEND
PROPOSED GRAVEL
PROPOSED PLANTING BED
PROPOSED LAWN AREA
REDUCED FOR
ATTACHMENT TO REPORT
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
>
>
>
>
>>>>>>>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
RIVERSIDE CONDO ASSOC
PARCEL #273718127801
1024 E COOPER AVE
(NOT PART OF PROJECT)
COOPER AVE VICTORIAN CONDO ASSOC
PARCEL #273718232802
1012 E COOPER AVE
(NOT PART OF PROJECT)
E. COOPER AVE.
7945
7943
7944
APPROXIMATE LIMITS
OF ROOF OVERHANG
PROPOSED AFFORDABLE HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT
TOTAL PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS
AREA: 3,720 SF
TOTAL SITE IMPERVIOUS: 85%
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF
WATER QUALITY DRYWELL.
NOTE: DRYWELL TO BE LOCATED
10' FROM PRIVATE PROPERTY LINE
AND STRUCTURES
PROPOSED BURIED STORMWATER
CONVEYANCE PIPE, TYP.
PROPOSED BURIED STORMWATER
CONVEYANCE PIPE, TYP.
PROPOSED BURIED STORMWATER
CONVEYANCE PIPE, TYP.
PROPOSED CONCRETE WALKWAY.
PROPOSED VALLEY INLET.
ADDITIONALLY SERVES AS
DRYWELL OVERFLOW POINT
PROPOSED CONCRETE DRAIN PAN.
PROPOSED TRENCH DRAIN
CONCRETE PATIO
PROPOSED AREA INLET
PROPOSED AREA INLET
PROPOSED AREA INLET
PROPOSED AREA INLET
PROPOSED AREA INLET
x
x
EXISTING SINGLE STORY RESIDENCE
TOTAL EXISTING SITE IMPERVIOUS
AREA: 1,945 SF ±
EXISTING SITE IMPERVIOUS: 45%
OS-1
OS-2
OS-3
RIVERSIDE CONDO ASSOCCOOPER AVE VICTORIAN
CONDO ASSOC CHATEAU EAU CLAIRE
OS-4
EXISTING INLET
AT LOW POINT
EXISTING INLET
AT LOW POINT
EAST COOPER STREET
OPRIS ES NGINEERING, LLC.
CIVIL CONSULTANTS
JOB NO.
DATE:
502 MAIN STREET
CARBONDALE, CO 81623
(970) 704-0311
FAX: (970)-704-0313
DESIGNED BY
DRAWN BY
CHECKED BY
DATE REVISION
C-3.0
DRAWING NO.
TITLE
G:
\
2
0
2
0
\
3
0
1
1
1
\
C
I
V
I
L
\
C
I
V
I
L
D
W
G
S
\
P
L
O
T
\
3
0
1
1
1
-
D
R
N
P
L
A
N
.
D
W
G
-
O
c
t
1
5
,
2
0
2
0
-
8
:
2
8
a
m
CONCEPTUAL
DRAINAGE
MITIGATION PLAN
MEMBER UTILITIES
FOR THE MARKING OF UNDERGROUND
BEFORE YOU DIG, GRADE, OR EXCAVATE
CALL 2-BUSINESS DAYS IN ADVANCE
Know what's below.
before you dig.Call
R
NO
R
T
H
1 inch = ft.
( IN FEET )
GRAPHIC SCALE
020 20 40
20
8010
30111.02
10-15-20
NEK 10/01/20
NEK 10/01/20
JKS 00/00/00
CO
N
C
E
P
T
U
A
L
D
E
S
I
G
N
10
2
0
E
.
C
O
O
P
E
R
A
V
E
N
U
E
AS
P
E
N
,
C
O
L
O
R
A
D
O
CO
N
C
E
P
T
U
A
L
H
P
C
A
P
P
R
O
V
A
L
NOTE:
THESE PLANS ARE CONCEPTUAL OR ILLUSTRATIVE IN NATURE. PRECISE INFORMATION SHALL BE PROVIDED AS
PART OF THE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION, AND IN SITUATIONS WHERE THE FINAL HPC APPROVAL PLANS
AND APPROVED BUILDING PERMIT DIFFER, THE APPROVED BUILDING PERMIT SHALL RULE.
NO
R
T
H
1 inch = ft.
( IN FEET )
GRAPHIC SCALE
05 5 10
5
202.5
EXISTING CONDITIONS
POST DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS
POST DEVELOPMENT DRAINAGE BASIN
LEGEND
EXISTING DRAINAGE BASIN
DRAINAGE FLOW ARROW
EXISTING CONTOUR
EXISTING CONTOUR INTERVAL7900
PROPOSED CONTOUR
PROPOSED CONTOUR INTERVAL7900
EXISTING GIS CONTOUR
Channel Report
Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc.Wednesday, Oct 14 2020
OS-1 4' PAN, 100yr
Triangular
Side Slopes (z:1) = 10.00, 10.00
Total Depth (ft) = 0.20
Invert Elev (ft) = 100.00
Slope (%) = 1.50
N-Value = 0.013
Calculations
Compute by: Known Q
Known Q (cfs) = 0.43
Highlighted
Depth (ft) = 0.14
Q (cfs) = 0.430
Area (sqft) = 0.20
Velocity (ft/s) = 2.19
Wetted Perim (ft) = 2.81
Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.17
Top Width (ft) = 2.80
EGL (ft) = 0.21
0 .5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Elev (ft)Depth (ft)Section
99.75 -0.25
100.00 0.00
100.25 0.25
100.50 0.50
100.75 0.75
101.00 1.00
Reach (ft)
Channel Report
Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc.Wednesday, Oct 14 2020
OS-1 4' PAN
Triangular
Side Slopes (z:1) = 10.00, 10.00
Total Depth (ft) = 0.20
Invert Elev (ft) = 100.00
Slope (%) = 1.50
N-Value = 0.013
Calculations
Compute by: Q vs Depth
No. Increments = 10
Highlighted
Depth (ft) = 0.02
Q (cfs) = 0.003
Area (sqft) = 0.00
Velocity (ft/s) = 0.65
Wetted Perim (ft) = 0.40
Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.03
Top Width (ft) = 0.40
EGL (ft) = 0.03
0 .5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Elev (ft)Depth (ft)Section
99.75 -0.25
100.00 0.00
100.25 0.25
100.50 0.50
100.75 0.75
101.00 1.00
Reach (ft)
Channel Report
Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc.Wednesday, Oct 14 2020
OS-3 5' SIDEWALK, 100yr
User-defined
Invert Elev (ft) = 100.00
Slope (%) = 1.50
N-Value = 0.013
Calculations
Compute by: Known Q
Known Q (cfs) = 0.06
(Sta, El, n)-(Sta, El, n)...
( 0.00, 100.10)-(5.00, 100.05, 0.013)
Highlighted
Depth (ft) = 0.04
Q (cfs) = 0.060
Area (sqft) = 0.08
Velocity (ft/s) = 0.75
Wetted Perim (ft) = 4.04
Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.04
Top Width (ft) = 4.00
EGL (ft) = 0.05
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Elev (ft)Depth (ft)Section
99.75 -0.25
100.00 0.00
100.25 0.25
100.50 0.50
100.75 0.75
101.00 1.00
Sta (ft)
Channel Report
Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc.Wednesday, Oct 14 2020
OS-3 5' SIDEWALK
User-defined
Invert Elev (ft) = 100.00
Slope (%) = 1.50
N-Value = Composite
Calculations
Compute by: Q vs Depth
No. Increments = 10
(Sta, El, n)-(Sta, El, n)...
( 0.00, 100.10)-(5.00, 100.05, 0.013)
Highlighted
Depth (ft) = 0.05
Q (cfs) = 0.149
Area (sqft) = 0.13
Velocity (ft/s) = 1.19
Wetted Perim (ft) = 5.05
Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.06
Top Width (ft) = 5.00
EGL (ft) = 0.07
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Elev (ft)Depth (ft)Section
99.75 -0.25
100.00 0.00
100.25 0.25
100.50 0.50
100.75 0.75
101.00 1.00
Sta (ft)
Channel Report
Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc.Wednesday, Oct 14 2020
OS-2 COOPER STREET NORTH, 100yr
User-defined
Invert Elev (ft) = 100.00
Slope (%) = 1.50
N-Value = 0.013
Calculations
Compute by: Known Q
Known Q (cfs) = 0.18
(Sta, El, n)-(Sta, El, n)...
( -20.00, 100.89)-(0.50, 100.38, 0.013)
Highlighted
Depth (ft) = 0.13
Q (cfs) = 0.180
Area (sqft) = 0.10
Velocity (ft/s) = 1.81
Wetted Perim (ft) = 1.66
Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.15
Top Width (ft) = 1.53
EGL (ft) = 0.18
-5 0 5 10
Elev (ft)Depth (ft)Section
99.75 -0.25
100.00 0.00
100.25 0.25
100.50 0.50
100.75 0.75
101.00 1.00
Sta (ft)
Channel Report
Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc.Wednesday, Oct 14 2020
OS-2 COOPER STREET NORTH, MAX
User-defined
Invert Elev (ft) = 100.00
Slope (%) = 1.50
N-Value = 0.013
Calculations
Compute by: Known Depth
Known Depth (ft) = 0.38
(Sta, El, n)-(Sta, El, n)...
( -20.00, 100.89)-(0.50, 100.38, 0.013)
Highlighted
Depth (ft) = 0.38
Q (cfs) = 4.320
Area (sqft) = 1.11
Velocity (ft/s) = 3.91
Wetted Perim (ft) = 7.51
Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.46
Top Width (ft) = 7.13
EGL (ft) = 0.61
-5 0 5 10
Elev (ft)Depth (ft)Section
99.75 -0.25
100.00 0.00
100.25 0.25
100.50 0.50
100.75 0.75
101.00 1.00
Sta (ft)
Channel Report
Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc.Wednesday, Oct 14 2020
OS-4 COOPER STREET SOUTH, MAX
User-defined
Invert Elev (ft) = 100.00
Slope (%) = 1.50
N-Value = 0.013
Calculations
Compute by: Known Q
Known Q (cfs) = 5.10
(Sta, El, n)-(Sta, El, n)...
( -0.50, 100.46)-(2.00, 100.17, 0.013)-(10.00, 100.53, 0.013)-(23.00, 100.79, 0.013)
Highlighted
Depth (ft) = 0.41
Q (cfs) = 5.100
Area (sqft) = 1.29
Velocity (ft/s) = 3.95
Wetted Perim (ft) = 7.76
Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.50
Top Width (ft) = 7.33
EGL (ft) = 0.65
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Elev (ft)Depth (ft)Section
99.75 -0.25
100.00 0.00
100.25 0.25
100.50 0.50
100.75 0.75
101.00 1.00
Sta (ft)
Channel Report
Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc.Wednesday, Oct 14 2020
OS-4 COOPER STREET SOUTH, MAX
User-defined
Invert Elev (ft) = 100.00
Slope (%) = 1.50
N-Value = 0.013
Calculations
Compute by: Known Depth
Known Depth (ft) = 0.46
(Sta, El, n)-(Sta, El, n)...
( -0.50, 100.46)-(2.00, 100.17, 0.013)-(10.00, 100.53, 0.013)-(23.00, 100.79, 0.013)
Highlighted
Depth (ft) = 0.46
Q (cfs) = 7.688
Area (sqft) = 1.67
Velocity (ft/s) = 4.60
Wetted Perim (ft) = 8.88
Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.58
Top Width (ft) = 8.41
EGL (ft) = 0.79
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Elev (ft)Depth (ft)Section
99.75 -0.25
100.00 0.00
100.25 0.25
100.50 0.50
100.75 0.75
101.00 1.00
Sta (ft)
1
1020 E. COOPER PROJECT | ASPEN CO
1020 E. COOPER PROJECT | ASPEN CO
DRAWING ISSUE
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:1907
CPF
HPC APPLICATION 1/4/2021
BI
M
c
l
o
u
d
:
BI
M
S
e
r
v
e
r
-
BI
M
c
l
o
u
d
B
a
s
i
c
f
o
r
A
R
C
H
I
C
A
D
24
/10
2
0
Co
o
p
e
r
_
Mo
n
d
a
y
,
Ja
n
u
a
r
y
4,
20
2
1
2:44
PM
|
AS
P
E
N
C
O
10
2
0
E.
CO
O
P
E
R
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
119 South Spring St. | Suite 203
Aspen, CO 81611
T 970-925-3444
www.djarchitects.com
Z1.01
FAR PROPOSED
All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
owned by and are the property of David
Johnston Architects, PC and developed for use
and in conjunction with the specified project.
None of the ideas, designs, arrangements or
plans shall be used by or disclosed for any
purpose whatsoever without the written
authorization of David Johnston Architects, PC.
Sheet No.
DN
30.01 sq ft
30.01 sq ft
25.51 sq ft
9'-6"9'-6"
8'-6"
10'-0"
9'
-
6
"
8'-6"
10'-0"
10
'
-
0
"
211.51 sq ft
253.10 sq ft
211.51 sq ft
85.02 sq ft
199.91 sq ft
170.72 sq ft
199.91 sq ft
295.27 sq ft
65.09 sq ft
39.67 sq ft
84.90 sq ft
170.60 sq ft
1987.21 SF TOTAL BELOW GRADE WALL AREA
-85.53 SF TOTAL EXPOSED BELOW GRADE WALL AREA
1901.68 SF TOTAL BURIED BELOW GRADE WALL AREA
95.7% BURIED
4.3% EXPOSED
CR
A
W
L
S
P
A
C
E
/
ME
C
H
.
CRAWLSPACE/MECH./WATER
CR
A
W
L
S
P
A
C
E
/
ME
C
H
.
EGRESS
49.17 sq ft
2 BED AH UNIT #103
527.06 sq ft
2 BED AH UNIT #102
551.75 sq ft
2 BED AH UNIT #101
542.70 sq ft
STORAGE
36.52 sq ft
STORAGE
36.52 sq ft
MECHANICAL
90.95 sq ft
DECK
41.82 sq ft
DN
3'-101/4"
3'-11/2"
CAR PORT
472.82 sq ft
STORAGE
13.05 sq ft
DECK
120.53 sq ft
UP
2 BED AH UNIT #102
572.12 sq ft
2 BED AH UNIT #101
558.18 sq ft
2 BED AH UNIT #103
572.50 sq ft
TRASH AREA
124.72 sq ft
STORAGE
18.20 sq ft
STORAGE
18.20 sq ft
UNIT #101 STORAGE
116.82 sq ft
UNIT #102 STORAGE
111.30 sq ft
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"-1 LOWER LEVEL AREA PLAN PROPOSED
0 4'8'12'
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"1 MAIN LEVEL AREA PLAN PROPOSED
0 4'8'12'
DRAWING ISSUE
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:1907
CPF
HPC APPLICATION 12/18/2020
BI
M
c
l
o
u
d
:
BI
M
S
e
r
v
e
r
-
BI
M
c
l
o
u
d
B
a
s
i
c
f
o
r
A
R
C
H
I
C
A
D
24
/10
2
0
Co
o
p
e
r
_
Fr
i
d
a
y
,
De
c
e
m
b
e
r
18
,
20
2
0
3:30
PM
|
AS
P
E
N
C
O
10
2
0
E.
CO
O
P
E
R
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
119 South Spring St. | Suite 203
Aspen, CO 81611
T 970-925-3444
www.djarchitects.com
Z1.02
FAR PROPOSED
All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
owned by and are the property of David
Johnston Architects, PC and developed for use
and in conjunction with the specified project.
None of the ideas, designs, arrangements or
plans shall be used by or disclosed for any
purpose whatsoever without the written
authorization of David Johnston Architects, PC.
Sheet No.
3 BED AH UNIT #201
1,086.19 sq ft
DECK
147.85 sq ft
STORAGE
22.86 sq ft
3 BED AH UNIT #301
1,086.19 sq ft
DECK
85.55 sq ft
CA:0.09 sq ft
STORAGE
22.86 sq ft
LEVEL USE TOTAL AREA FLOOR AREA
2 BED AH UNIT #101 542.7 0
2 BED AH UNIT #102 551.75 0
2 BED AH UNIT #103 527.06 0
EGRESS 49.17 0
MECHANICAL 90.95 0
STORAGE 73.04 0
TOTAL (4.3% exposed)1834.67 78.89
2 BED AH UNIT #101 675.00 675.00
2 BED AH UNIT #102 683.42 683.42
2 BED AH UNIT #103 572.5 572.5
STORAGE 49.45 49.45
3 BED AH UNIT #201 1086.19 1086.19
STORAGE 22.86 22.86
3 BED AH UNIT #301 1086.19 1086.19
STORAGE 22.86 22.86
DECK 12.53 0
DECK 41.82 0
DECK 120.53 0
DECK 147.85 0
DECK 85.55 0
TOTAL DECKS (821.06sf exempt)408.28 0
CAR PORT 472.82 0
6,798.31 sq ft 4,277.36
DECKS
CARPORT
F.A.R. SCHEDULE
LOWER LEVEL
MAIN LEVEL
SECOND LEVEL
THIRD LEVEL
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"2 SECOND LEVEL AREA PLAN PROPOSED
0 4'8'12'SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"3 THIRD LEVEL AREA PLAN PROPOSED
0 4'8'12'
DRAWING ISSUE
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:1907
CPF
HPC APPLICATION 12/17/2020
BI
M
c
l
o
u
d
:
BI
M
S
e
r
v
e
r
-
BI
M
c
l
o
u
d
Ba
s
i
c
fo
r
AR
C
H
I
C
A
D
24
/10
2
0
Co
o
p
e
r
_ Th
u
r
s
d
a
y
,
De
c
e
m
b
e
r
17
,
20
2
0
12
:02
PM
|
AS
P
E
N
CO
10
2
0
E.
CO
O
P
E
R
PR
O
J
E
C
T
119 South Spring St. | Suite 203
Aspen, CO 81611
T 970-925-3444
www.djarchitects.com
Z1.03
NLA PROPOSED
All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
owned by and are the property of David
Johnston Architects, PC and developed for use
and in conjunction with the specified project.
None of the ideas, designs, arrangements or
plans shall be used by or disclosed for any
purpose whatsoever without the written
authorization of David Johnston Architects, PC.
Sheet No.
DN
CR
A
W
L
S
P
A
C
E
/
ME
C
H
.
CRAWLSPACE/MECH./WATER
CR
A
W
L
S
P
A
C
E
STORAGE #301
27.95 sq ft
STORAGE #201
27.95 sq ft
2 BED AH UNIT #102
482.85 sq ft
2 BED AH UNIT #101
462.52 sq ft
2 BED AH UNIT #103
436.51 sq ft
DN
DW
DW
RG
RG
RG
STORAGE #101
12.41 sq ft
STORAGE #102
12.41 sq ft
STORAGE #103
7.53 sq ft
REF
REF
REF
DW
UP
2 BED AH UNIT #102
477.60 sq ft
2 BED AH UNIT #101
450.47 sq ft
2 BED AH UNIT #103
471.54 sq ft
UNIT #101 STORAGE
103.90 sq ft
UNIT #102 STORAGE
101.16 sq ft
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"-1 LOWER LEVEL NLA PLAN PROPOSED
0 4'8'12'SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"1 MAIN LEVEL NLA PLAN PROPOSED
0 4'8'12'
DRAWING ISSUE
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:1907
CPF
HPC APPLICATION 12/17/2020
BI
M
c
l
o
u
d
:
BI
M
S
e
r
v
e
r
-
BI
M
c
l
o
u
d
Ba
s
i
c
fo
r
AR
C
H
I
C
A
D
24
/10
2
0
Co
o
p
e
r
_ Th
u
r
s
d
a
y
,
De
c
e
m
b
e
r
17
,
20
2
0
12
:02
PM
|
AS
P
E
N
CO
10
2
0
E.
CO
O
P
E
R
PR
O
J
E
C
T
119 South Spring St. | Suite 203
Aspen, CO 81611
T 970-925-3444
www.djarchitects.com
Z1.04
NLA PROPOSED
All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
owned by and are the property of David
Johnston Architects, PC and developed for use
and in conjunction with the specified project.
None of the ideas, designs, arrangements or
plans shall be used by or disclosed for any
purpose whatsoever without the written
authorization of David Johnston Architects, PC.
Sheet No.
DW
RG
STORAGE #201
15.11 sq ft
REF
3 BED AH UNIT #201
1,011.79 sq ft
DW
RG
STORAGE #301
15.11 sq ft
REF
3 BED AH UNIT #301
1,013.04 sq ft
NET LIVABLE SCHEDULE
FLOOR
LOWER LEVEL
MAIN LEVEL
SECOND LEVEL
THIRD LEVEL
2 BED AH UNIT #101
2 BED AH UNIT #102
2 BED AH UNIT #103
STORAGE #201
STORAGE #301
2 BED AH UNIT #101
2 BED AH UNIT #102
2 BED AH UNIT #103
STORAGE #101
STORAGE #102
STORAGE #103
UNIT #101 STORAGE
UNIT #102 STORAGE
3 BED AH UNIT #201
STORAGE #201
3 BED AH UNIT #301
STORAGE #301
AREA
462.52
482.85
436.51
27.95
27.95
450.47
477.60
471.54
12.41
12.41
7.53
103.90
101.16
1,011.79
15.11
1,013.04
15.11
5,129.85 sq ft
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"2 SECOND LEVEL NLA PLAN PROPOSED
0 4'8'12'SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"3 THIRD LEVEL NLA PLAN PROPOSED
0 4'8'12'
DRAWING ISSUE
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:1907
CPF
HPC APPLICATION 10/28/2020
BI
M
c
l
o
u
d
:
BI
M
S
e
r
v
e
r
-
BI
M
c
l
o
u
d
B
a
s
i
c
f
o
r
A
R
C
H
I
C
A
D
24
/10
2
0
Co
o
p
e
r
_ We
d
n
e
s
d
a
y
,
Oc
t
o
b
e
r
28
,
20
2
0
12
:35
PM
|
AS
P
E
N
CO
10
2
0
E.
CO
O
P
E
R
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
119 South Spring St. | Suite 203
Aspen, CO 81611
T 970-925-3444
www.djarchitects.com
Z1.05
3D RENDERINGS
All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
owned by and are the property of David
Johnston Architects, PC and developed for use
and in conjunction with the specified project.
None of the ideas, designs, arrangements or
plans shall be used by or disclosed for any
purpose whatsoever without the written
authorization of David Johnston Architects, PC.
Sheet No.
SCALE: 1:1.85
1020 Front Context Rendering
SCALE: 1:2.40
1020 East Persepctive
SCALE: 1:2.40
1020 West Perspective
DRAWING ISSUE
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:1907
CPF
HPC APPLICATION 10/28/2020
BI
M
c
l
o
u
d
:
BI
M
S
e
r
v
e
r
-
BI
M
c
l
o
u
d
B
a
s
i
c
f
o
r
A
R
C
H
I
C
A
D
24
/10
2
0
Co
o
p
e
r
_ We
d
n
e
s
d
a
y
,
Oc
t
o
b
e
r
28
,
20
2
0
12
:35
PM
|
AS
P
E
N
CO
10
2
0
E.
CO
O
P
E
R
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
119 South Spring St. | Suite 203
Aspen, CO 81611
T 970-925-3444
www.djarchitects.com
Z1.06
3D RENDERINGS
All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
owned by and are the property of David
Johnston Architects, PC and developed for use
and in conjunction with the specified project.
None of the ideas, designs, arrangements or
plans shall be used by or disclosed for any
purpose whatsoever without the written
authorization of David Johnston Architects, PC.
Sheet No.
SCALE: 1:1.78
Side View
SCALE: 1:1.78
Courtyard
SCALE: 1:1.96
1020 Alley Context Rendering
DRAWING ISSUE
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:1907
CPF
HPC APPLICATION 10/28/2020
BI
M
c
l
o
u
d
:
BI
M
S
e
r
v
e
r
-
BI
M
c
l
o
u
d
B
a
s
i
c
f
o
r
A
R
C
H
I
C
A
D
24
/10
2
0
Co
o
p
e
r
_ We
d
n
e
s
d
a
y
,
Oc
t
o
b
e
r
28
,
20
2
0
12
:35
PM
|
AS
P
E
N
CO
10
2
0
E.
CO
O
P
E
R
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
119 South Spring St. | Suite 203
Aspen, CO 81611
T 970-925-3444
www.djarchitects.com
A1.01
SITE PLAN | EXISTING |
3/16"
All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
owned by and are the property of David
Johnston Architects, PC and developed for use
and in conjunction with the specified project.
None of the ideas, designs, arrangements or
plans shall be used by or disclosed for any
purpose whatsoever without the written
authorization of David Johnston Architects, PC.
Sheet No.
10
'
-
0
"
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
2'-51/16"
2'-07/8"3'
-
9
"
3'-73/16
"
EXISTING
TRANSFORMER
METAL STAIRS
RAIL ROAD TIE
RETAINING WALL
4 DECIDUOUS
TREES 2.8" X 6'
DECIDUOUS TREE
1.5"X3'
TOP BACK OF CURB
FLOWLINE OF CURB
ROCK RET.
WALL
ROCK RET.
WALL
2.5' WOOD
FENCE
FOUND #5 REBAR
.3' BELOW GRADE
FIN. FLR.
7944.8'+/-
FIN. FLR.
7944.8'+/-
FOUND #5 REBAR & RED PLASTIC CAP PLS 336380.2' ABOVE GRADEELEV=7946.3
SET #5 REBAR & ORANGE PLASTIC CAP PLS 28643FLUSH WITH GRADE
TELEPHONE PEDSTAL
ELECTRICMETER
FOUND #4 REBAR & YELLOW PLASTIC CAP PLS 259470.2' BELOW GRADEELEV=7942.5
TELEPHONECONNECTION
3.5'X8' ELECTRIC EASEMENT
(BOOK 126 PAGE 7)
GATE
MAILBOX
TELEPHONE
PEDESTAL
A L L E Y
(20' WIDTH)
EAST COOPER AVENUE
LOT O LOT P
LOT Q
CO
N
C
R
E
T
E
CONCRETE SIDEWALK
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
CONCRETE PORCHW/ ROOF OVERHANG
ASPHALT
CABLEBOX
BUSH
BUSH
BUSH
BUSH
LO
G
D
E
C
O
R
A
T
I
V
E
B
O
R
D
E
R
4'
WI
R
E
F
E
N
C
E
4'
WO
O
D
F
E
N
C
E
3' WOOD FENCE
2.5' METAL FENCE
1 STORY SINGLE FAMILYWOOD FRAME STRUCTURE1020 E. COOPER AVE.ASPEN, CO 81611
SHED(TO BE DEMOLISHED)
FIN. FLR.7943.3'±
FINISHED FLOOR 7943.2'±
CONCRETEPAD
CONIFEROUSTREE14.1" X 28'(TO BE REMOVED)
COOPER AVE. VICTORIANCONDO ASSOC.PARCEL #2737182328021012 E. COOPER AVE.ASPEN, CO 81611
RIVERSIDECONDO ASSOC.PARCEL #2737181278011024 E. COOPER AVE.ASPEN, CO 81611
CONCRETE PORCHW/ ROOF OVERHANG
RAISEDWOODENPLANTER
RAISEDWOODENPLANTER
7943
7944
7943
7945
794 5
SHED(TO BE DEMOLISHED)
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
HOUSE TO BE RELOCATED(SEE A1.02)
EXISTINGTRANSFORMER
4,379 SQ.FT.± OR 0.101 ACRES±
SUBJECT PROPERTYPARCEL #2737182320061020 E. COOPER AVE.ASPEN, CO 81611
8'
-
0
"
2'-23/8"
2'-0"
8'
-
0
"
3.5'X8' ELECTRIC EASEMENT
(BOOK 126 PAGE 7)
2'X8' ELECTRIC EASEMENT
(BOOK 126 PAGE 7)
SETBACK
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"1 SITE PLAN | EXISTING | 3/16"
0 4'8'12'
N
DRAWING ISSUE
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:1907
CPF
HPC APPLICATION 10/28/2020
BI
M
c
l
o
u
d
:
BI
M
S
e
r
v
e
r
-
BI
M
c
l
o
u
d
B
a
s
i
c
f
o
r
A
R
C
H
I
C
A
D
24
/10
2
0
Co
o
p
e
r
_ We
d
n
e
s
d
a
y
,
Oc
t
o
b
e
r
28
,
20
2
0
12
:35
PM
|
AS
P
E
N
CO
10
2
0
E.
CO
O
P
E
R
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
119 South Spring St. | Suite 203
Aspen, CO 81611
T 970-925-3444
www.djarchitects.com
A1.02
SITE PLAN | PROPOSED |
3/16"
All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
owned by and are the property of David
Johnston Architects, PC and developed for use
and in conjunction with the specified project.
None of the ideas, designs, arrangements or
plans shall be used by or disclosed for any
purpose whatsoever without the written
authorization of David Johnston Architects, PC.
Sheet No.
5'
-
0
"
5'-0"
5'
-
0
"
5'-01/2"
19
'
-
0
"
ENTRY
PORCH
ENTRY PORCH
EGRESS
EGRESS
EGRESS
EGRESS
BIKES
HISTORIC STRUCTURE/
ADDITION FOOTPRINT
PROPOSED NEW
APARTMENT FOOTPRINT
PROPOSED
TRASH
ENCLOSURE
FOOTPRINT
STORAGE
CL.
STORAGE
CL.
STORAGE
CL.
PLANTING BED
PL
A
N
T
I
N
G
B
E
D
PLANTING BED PLANTING BED
EXISTING
TRANSFORMER
LAWN
TOP BACK OF CURB
FLOWLINE OF CURB
FOUND #5 REBAR
.3' BELOW GRADE
FOUND #5 REBAR & RED PLASTIC CAP PLS 336380.2' ABOVE GRADEELEV=7946.3
SET #5 REBAR & ORANGE PLASTIC CAP PLS 28643FLUSH WITH GRADEFOUND #4 REBAR & YELLOW PLASTIC CAP PLS 259470.2' BELOW GRADEELEV=7942.5
3.5'X8' ELECTRIC EASEMENT
(BOOK 126 PAGE 7)
NEW FENCE
GATENEW FENCE
GATE
NEW WOOD FENCE
CRAWL
ACCESS
DN
UP
PL
A
N
T
I
N
G
B
E
D
DN
UTILITY METERS
LAWN
LAWN
PL
A
N
T
I
N
G
B
E
D
PLANTING BED
LILAC BUSHES
LILAC BUSHES
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
A L L E Y
(20' WIDTH)
SETBACK
SE
T
B
A
C
K
SE
T
B
A
C
K
E A S T C O O P E R A V E .
EAST COOPER AVENUE
CONCRETE SIDEWALK
ASPHALT
2.5' METAL FENCE
CONIFEROUSTREE10.8" X 21'
COOPER AVE. VICTORIANCONDO ASSOC.PARCEL #2737182328021012 E. COOPER AVE.ASPEN, CO 81611
RIVERSIDECONDO ASSOC.PARCEL #2737181278011024 E. COOPER AVE.ASPEN, CO 81611
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
4,379 SQ.FT.± OR 0.101 ACRES±
SUBJECT PROPERTYPARCEL #2737182320061020 E. COOPER AVE.ASPEN, CO 81611
UP
5'-0"
10
'
-
0
"
ENTRY PORCH
BBQ
NEW
TRANSFORMER
3.5'X8' ELECTRIC EASEMENT
(BOOK 126 PAGE 7)
2'X8' ELECTRIC EASEMENT
(BOOK 126 PAGE 7)
NEW BOLLARDS
NEW BOLLARDS
SETBACK
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"1 SITE PLAN | PROPOSED | 1/4"
0 4'8'12'
SITE 7945.6' = ARCH 100'-0"
N
DRAWING ISSUE
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:1907
CPF
HPC APPLICATION 10/28/2020
BI
M
c
l
o
u
d
:
BI
M
S
e
r
v
e
r
-
BI
M
c
l
o
u
d
B
a
s
i
c
f
o
r
A
R
C
H
I
C
A
D
24
/10
2
0
Co
o
p
e
r
_ We
d
n
e
s
d
a
y
,
Oc
t
o
b
e
r
28
,
20
2
0
12
:35
PM
|
AS
P
E
N
CO
10
2
0
E.
CO
O
P
E
R
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
119 South Spring St. | Suite 203
Aspen, CO 81611
T 970-925-3444
www.djarchitects.com
A1.03
SITE PLAN | TIA | 3/16"
All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
owned by and are the property of David
Johnston Architects, PC and developed for use
and in conjunction with the specified project.
None of the ideas, designs, arrangements or
plans shall be used by or disclosed for any
purpose whatsoever without the written
authorization of David Johnston Architects, PC.
Sheet No.
10
'
-
0
"
19
'
-
0
"
5'
-
0
"
5'-0"
5'
-
0
"
2'
-
2
"
4'-10
3/4"
EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN-
10' DRIPLINE
BIKE AREA
ACCESS
POINT
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
SETBACK
SE
T
B
A
C
K
SE
T
B
A
C
K
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
3 0 ' CROW
F
L
I
E
S
DIST
A
N
C
E
40' WALKING DISTANCE
UP
9'-0"8'-1115/16"9'-01/16"8'-0"8'-11/2"67/16"
5'-0"
SETBACK
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"1 TIA SITE PLAN
0 4'8'12'
N
DRAWING ISSUE
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:1907
CPF
HPC APPLICATION 10/28/2020
BI
M
c
l
o
u
d
:
BI
M
S
e
r
v
e
r
-
BI
M
c
l
o
u
d
B
a
s
i
c
f
o
r
A
R
C
H
I
C
A
D
24
/10
2
0
Co
o
p
e
r
_ We
d
n
e
s
d
a
y
,
Oc
t
o
b
e
r
28
,
20
2
0
12
:46
PM
|
AS
P
E
N
CO
10
2
0
E.
CO
O
P
E
R
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
119 South Spring St. | Suite 203
Aspen, CO 81611
T 970-925-3444
www.djarchitects.com
A1.04
SITE PLAN | LANSCAPE
PROPOSED | 3/16"
All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
owned by and are the property of David
Johnston Architects, PC and developed for use
and in conjunction with the specified project.
None of the ideas, designs, arrangements or
plans shall be used by or disclosed for any
purpose whatsoever without the written
authorization of David Johnston Architects, PC.
Sheet No.
10
'
-
0
"
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
5'-0"SETBACK5'-0"SETBACK
5'
-
0
"
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
5'
-
0
"
3'-0"
3'-0"
2'-07/8"3'
-
9
"
3'-73/16
"
7943'-33/8"
7944'-0"
7945'-93/8"
ENTRY
PORCH
ENTRY PORCH
EGRESS
EGRESS
EGRESS
EGRESS
BIKES
HISTORIC STRUCTURE/
ADDITION FOOTPRINT
PROPOSED NEW
APARTMENT FOOTPRINT
PROPOSED
TRASH
ENCLOSURE
FOOTPRINT
STORAGE
CL.
STORAGE
CL.
STORAGE
CL.
PLANTING BED
PL
A
N
T
I
N
G
B
E
D
PLANTING BED PLANTING BED
EXISTING
TRANSFORMER
LAWN
TOP BACK OF CURB
FLOWLINE OF CURB
FOUND #5 REBAR
.3' BELOW GRADE
FOUND #5 REBAR & RED PLASTIC CAP PLS 336380.2' ABOVE GRADEELEV=7946.3
SET #5 REBAR & ORANGE PLASTIC CAP PLS 28643FLUSH WITH GRADEFOUND #4 REBAR & YELLOW PLASTIC CAP PLS 259470.2' BELOW GRADEELEV=7942.5
3.5'X8' ELECTRIC EASEMENT
(BOOK 126 PAGE 7)
NEW FENCE
GATENEW FENCE
GATE
NEW WOOD FENCE
CRAWL
ACCESS
DN
UP
PL
A
N
T
I
N
G
B
E
D
DN
UTILITY METERS
LAWN
LAWN
PL
A
N
T
I
N
G
B
E
D
PLANTING BED
LILAC BUSHES
LILAC BUSHES
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
SETBACK
SE
T
B
A
C
K
SE
T
B
A
C
K
E A S T C O O P E R A V E .
EAST COOPER AVENUE
CONCRETE SIDEWALK
ASPHALT
2.5' METAL FENCE
CONIFEROUSTREE10.8" X 21'
COOPER AVE. VICTORIANCONDO ASSOC.PARCEL #2737182328021012 E. COOPER AVE.ASPEN, CO 81611
RIVERSIDECONDO ASSOC.PARCEL #2737181278011024 E. COOPER AVE.ASPEN, CO 81611
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
4,379 SQ.FT.± OR 0.101 ACRES±
SUBJECT PROPERTYPARCEL #2737182320061020 E. COOPER AVE.ASPEN, CO 81611
UP
9'-0"9'-0"9'-0"8'-0"8'-0"115/16"6"
10
'
-
0
"
19
'
-
0
"
5'
-
0
"
5'-0"
5'-0"
8'
-
0
"
2'-23/8"
2'-0"
8'
-
0
"
6"4'-6"
3'
-
0
"
5'
-
0
"
3'
-
0
"
3'-0"5'-0"3'-0"
5'-0"
ENTRY PORCH
BBQ
NEW
TRANSFORMER
3.5'X8' ELECTRIC EASEMENT
(BOOK 126 PAGE 7)
2'X8' ELECTRIC EASEMENT
(BOOK 126 PAGE 7)
NEW BOLLARDS
SETBACK
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"1 LANDSCAPE PLAN | PROPOSED | 3/16"
0 4'8'12'
N
DRAWING ISSUE
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:1907
CPF
HPC APPLICATION 10/28/2020
BI
M
c
l
o
u
d
:
BI
M
S
e
r
v
e
r
-
BI
M
c
l
o
u
d
B
a
s
i
c
f
o
r
A
R
C
H
I
C
A
D
24
/10
2
0
Co
o
p
e
r
_ We
d
n
e
s
d
a
y
,
Oc
t
o
b
e
r
28
,
20
2
0
12
:35
PM
|
AS
P
E
N
CO
10
2
0
E.
CO
O
P
E
R
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
119 South Spring St. | Suite 203
Aspen, CO 81611
T 970-925-3444
www.djarchitects.com
A1.06
EXISTING MAIN LEVEL
FLOOR PLAN |
DEMOLITION
All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
owned by and are the property of David
Johnston Architects, PC and developed for use
and in conjunction with the specified project.
None of the ideas, designs, arrangements or
plans shall be used by or disclosed for any
purpose whatsoever without the written
authorization of David Johnston Architects, PC.
Sheet No.
5'-01/2"
35
'
-
0
"
29'-61/4"
29'-61/4"
40
'-03/4"
4
A2.01
EXTERIOR WALL TO BE REMOVED
WALLS TO BE REMOVED
REAR PORCH TO BE REMOVED
1
A2.01
1
A2.022A2.02
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"1 MAIN LEVEL DEMOLITION
0 4'8'12'SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"2 ROOF EXISTING PLAN
0 4'8'12'
DRAWING ISSUE
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:1907
CPF
HPC APPLICATION 10/30/2020
BI
M
c
l
o
u
d
:
BI
M
S
e
r
v
e
r
-
BI
M
c
l
o
u
d
B
a
s
i
c
f
o
r
A
R
C
H
I
C
A
D
24
/10
2
0
Co
o
p
e
r
_
Fr
i
d
a
y
,
Oc
t
o
b
e
r
30
,
20
2
0
2:43
PM
|
AS
P
E
N
C
O
10
2
0
E.
CO
O
P
E
R
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
119 South Spring St. | Suite 203
Aspen, CO 81611
T 970-925-3444
www.djarchitects.com
A2.01
ELEVATIONS
All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
owned by and are the property of David
Johnston Architects, PC and developed for use
and in conjunction with the specified project.
None of the ideas, designs, arrangements or
plans shall be used by or disclosed for any
purpose whatsoever without the written
authorization of David Johnston Architects, PC.
Sheet No.
MAIN LEVEL
100'-0"
SECOND LEVEL
108'-0"
THIRD LEVEL
118'-6"
29
'-53/4"
ASPHALT SHINGLEEXISTING TREE TO REMAIN
METAL STANDING SEAM
SNOW FENCE
SHUTTER SYSTEM
GALV. GUTTER & DOWNSPOUT
RECLAIMED SIDING
W/ 3X BATTONS
GALV. W FLANGE BEAM
GALV. W FLANGE COLUMN
GALV. METAL SIDING
NEW BOLLARDS
NEW
TRANSFORMER
6' FENCE-
TRASH AREA
UTILITIES/
METERS
MAIN LEVEL
100'-0"
SECOND LEVEL
108'-0"
THIRD LEVEL
118'-6"
16
'-03/4"
SEE ELEVATION 3/A2.01
METAL ROOFING-
STANDING SEAM
NEW PROFILED WOOD COLUMNS
NEW WOOD PICKET FENCE
FRONT YARD ONLY
WOOD SOFFIT BOARDS @ PORCH
COMPOSITE SHAKE ROOFING
WOOD FASCIA BOARD
COLOR PENDING APPROVED
MOCK-UP BY HPC.
EXISTING ROOF STRUCTURE TO REMAIN
RESHINGLE WITH COMPOSITE SHAKE ROOF
EXISTING ROOF STRUCTURE TO REMAIN
REROOF WITH METAL-STANDING SEAM
EXISTING NON-HISTORIC WINDOWS AND
DOORS TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED
EXISTING STRUCTURE TO BE
RECLAD IN ORIGINAL 6"
HORIZONTAL CEDAR LAP SIDING
MAIN LEVEL
100'-0"
MAIN LEVEL
100'-0"
SECOND LEVEL
108'-0"
SECOND LEVEL
108'-0"
THIRD LEVEL
118'-6"
THIRD LEVEL
118'-6"
28
'-61/8"
28
'-41/16
"
SNOW FENCE
STANDING SEAM
SNOW FENCE
ASHPHALT SHINGLE
EXISTING TREE
TO REMAIN
GALV. GUARDRAIL
GALV. GUTTERS
& DOWNSPOUTS
GALV. METAL SIDNG
RECLAIMED SIDING
W/ 3X BATTONS
GALV. W FLANGE BEAM
6' FENCE-
TRASH AREA
GALV. W FLANGE COLUMN
BBQ
BIKE RACK
MAIN LEVEL
100'-0"
MAIN LEVEL
100'-0"
SECOND LEVEL
108'-0"
SECOND LEVEL
108'-0"
THIRD LEVEL
118'-6"
THIRD LEVEL
118'-6"
METAL ROOFING-
STANDING SEAM
COMPOSITE SHAKE ROOFING
WOOD FASCIA BOARD
COLOR PENDING APPROVED
MOCK-UP BY HPC.
EXISTING ROOF STRUCTURE TO REMAIN
RESHINGLE WITH COMPOSITE SHAKE ROOF
EXISTING ROOF STRUCTURE TO REMAIN
REROOF WITH METAL-STANDING SEAM
NEW WINDOWS
EXISTING STRUCTURE TO BE
RECLAD IN ORIGINAL 6"
HORIZONTAL CEDAR LAP SIDING
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 NORTH ELEVATION
0 2'4'8'
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 SOUTH ELEVATION
0 2'4'8'SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"3 AUX. SOUTH ELEVATION
0 2'4'8'
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"4 AUX. NORTH ELEVATION
0 2'4'8'
DRAWING ISSUE
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:1907
CPF
HPC APPLICATION 10/30/2020
BI
M
c
l
o
u
d
:
BI
M
S
e
r
v
e
r
-
BI
M
c
l
o
u
d
B
a
s
i
c
f
o
r
A
R
C
H
I
C
A
D
24
/10
2
0
Co
o
p
e
r
_
Fr
i
d
a
y
,
Oc
t
o
b
e
r
30
,
20
2
0
2:47
PM
|
AS
P
E
N
C
O
10
2
0
E.
CO
O
P
E
R
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
119 South Spring St. | Suite 203
Aspen, CO 81611
T 970-925-3444
www.djarchitects.com
A2.02
ELEVATIONS
All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
owned by and are the property of David
Johnston Architects, PC and developed for use
and in conjunction with the specified project.
None of the ideas, designs, arrangements or
plans shall be used by or disclosed for any
purpose whatsoever without the written
authorization of David Johnston Architects, PC.
Sheet No.
MAIN LEVEL
100'-0"
MAIN LEVEL
100'-0"
SECOND LEVEL
108'-0"
SECOND LEVEL
108'-0"
THIRD LEVEL
118'-6"
THIRD LEVEL
118'-6"
31
'-81/4"
28
'-81/2"
16
'-11/2"
SNOW FENCE
STANDING SEAM
NEW PROFILED WOOD COLUMNS
WOOD BOARD SIDING.
COLOR PENDING APPROVED
MOCK-UP BY HPC.
COMPOSITE SHAKE ROOFING
WOOD FASCIA BOARD
COLOR PENDING APPROVED
MOCK-UP BY HPC.
ASHPHALT SHINGLE
EXISTING TREE
TO REMAIN
GALV. GUARDRAIL
GALV. GUTTERS
& DOWNSPOUTS
GALV. METAL SIDNG
GALV. METAL SIDING
GALV. GUTTER & DOWNSPOUT
RECLAIMED SIDING
W/ 3X BATTONS
GALV. W FLANGE BEAM
NEW
TRANSFORMER6' FENCE-
TRASH AREA
GALV. W FLANGE COLUMN
0"
MAIN LEVEL
0"
MAIN LEVEL
8'-0"
SECOND LEVEL
8'-0"
SECOND LEVEL
18'-6"
THIRD LEVEL
18'-6"
THIRD LEVEL
28
'-87/16
"
28
'-911
/16
"
16
'-47/8"
10'-01/4"
NEW PROFILED WOOD COLUMNS
WOOD BOARD SIDING.
COLOR PENDING APPROVED
MOCK-UP BY HPC.
COMPOSITE SHAKE ROOFING
WOOD FASCIA BOARD
COLOR PENDING APPROVED
MOCK-UP BY HPC.
ASPHALT SHINGLE
METAL STANDING SEAM
SNOW FENCE
SHUTTER SYSTEM
GALV. GUTTER & DOWNSPOUT
RECLAIMED SIDING
W/ 3X BATTONS
GALV. W FLANGE BEAM
GALV. W FLANGE COLUMN
GALV. METAL SIDING
GALV. METAL SIDING
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 EAST ELEVATION
0 2'4'8'
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 WEST ELEVATION
0 2'4'8'
DRAWING ISSUE
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:1907
CPF
HPC APPLICATION 10/28/2020
BI
M
c
l
o
u
d
:
BI
M
S
e
r
v
e
r
-
BI
M
c
l
o
u
d
B
a
s
i
c
f
o
r
A
R
C
H
I
C
A
D
24
/10
2
0
Co
o
p
e
r
_ We
d
n
e
s
d
a
y
,
Oc
t
o
b
e
r
28
,
20
2
0
12
:36
PM
|
AS
P
E
N
CO
10
2
0
E.
CO
O
P
E
R
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
119 South Spring St. | Suite 203
Aspen, CO 81611
T 970-925-3444
www.djarchitects.com
A2.03
PROPOSED MATERIALS
All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
owned by and are the property of David
Johnston Architects, PC and developed for use
and in conjunction with the specified project.
None of the ideas, designs, arrangements or
plans shall be used by or disclosed for any
purpose whatsoever without the written
authorization of David Johnston Architects, PC.
Sheet No.
GALVANIZED METAL SIDING (VINTAGE COLOR)
RECLAIMED WOOD BATTONS W/ GALVANIZED BOLTS
RECLAIMED WOOD SIDING w/ BATTONS GALVANIZED SLIDER HARDWARE FOR SHUTTERS
GALVANIZED RAILINGS AND STRUCTURE FOR STAIRS
GALVANIZED METAL SIDING (RUNNING BOND LAYUP)
GALVANIZED METAL SIDING (CORNER DETAIL)
GALVANIZED METAL ROOFING (15" STANDING SEAM)
ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOFING (DARK GREY)
DRAWING ISSUE
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:1907
CPF
HPC APPLICATION 10/28/2020
BI
M
c
l
o
u
d
:
BI
M
S
e
r
v
e
r
-
BI
M
c
l
o
u
d
B
a
s
i
c
f
o
r
A
R
C
H
I
C
A
D
24
/10
2
0
Co
o
p
e
r
_ We
d
n
e
s
d
a
y
,
Oc
t
o
b
e
r
28
,
20
2
0
12
:36
PM
|
AS
P
E
N
CO
10
2
0
E.
CO
O
P
E
R
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
119 South Spring St. | Suite 203
Aspen, CO 81611
T 970-925-3444
www.djarchitects.com
HP-1
HISTORIC
PRESERVATION
ELEVATIONS
All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
owned by and are the property of David
Johnston Architects, PC and developed for use
and in conjunction with the specified project.
None of the ideas, designs, arrangements or
plans shall be used by or disclosed for any
purpose whatsoever without the written
authorization of David Johnston Architects, PC.
Sheet No.
MAIN LEVEL
100'-0"
SECOND LEVEL
108'-0"
THIRD LEVEL
118'-6"EXISTING ROOF STRUCTURE TO REMAIN
RESHINGLE WITH COMPOSITE SHAKE ROOF
EXISTING PORCH ROOF
STRUCTURE TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING STRUCTURE TO BE RECLAD
IN ORIGINAL 6" HORIZONTAL CEDAR
LAP SIDING
EXISTING NON-HISTORIC WINDOWS AND
DOORS TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING ROOF STRUCTURE TO REMAIN
RESHINGLE WITH COMPOSITE SHAKE ROOF
EXISTING ROOF STRUCTURE TO REMAIN
REROOF WITH METAL-STANDING SEAM
EXISTING NON-HISTORIC WINDOWS AND
DOORS TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED
EXISTING STRUCTURE TO BE
RECLAD IN ORIGINAL 6"
HORIZONTAL CEDAR LAP SIDING
EXISTING ROOF STRUCTURE TO REMAIN
RESHINGLE WITH COMPOSITE SHAKE ROOF
EXISTING STRUCTURE TO BE
RECLAD IN ORIGINAL 6"
HORIZONTAL CEDAR LAP
SIDING
EXISTING REAR PORCH TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING NON-HISTORIC WINDOWS TO BE
REMOVED
EXISTING ROOF STRUCTURE TO REMAIN
RESHINGLE WITH COMPOSITE SHAKE ROOF
EXISTING STRUCTURE TO BE
RECLAD IN ORIGINAL 6"
HORIZONTAL CEDAR LAP
SIDING
EXISTING REAR
PORCH TO BE
REMOVED
EXISTING NON-HISTORIC WINDOWS TO BE
REMOVED
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 NORTH ELEVATION: HP PLAN
0 2'4'8'
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 SOUTH ELEVATION: HP PLAN
0 2'4'8'SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 EAST ELEVATION: HP PLAN
0 2'4'8'
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 WEST ELEVATION: HP PLAN
0 2'4'8'
COOPER
N33°
3
2
'
0
3
"
W
6
8
7
.
1
2
'
T
I
E
EA
S
T
C
O
O
P
E
R
A
V
E
N
U
E
EA
S
T
H
Y
M
A
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
CLEVEL
A
N
D
S
T
R
E
E
T
ALLEY
(20.20')
13.79'
LO
T
K
LO
T
L
LO
T
M
LO
T
N
LO
T
O
LO
T
P
LO
T
Q
LO
T
R
LO
T
A
LO
T
B
LO
T
C
LO
T
D
LO
T
E
LO
T
F
LO
T
G
LO
T
H
COOPER
A
V
E
V
I
C
T
O
R
I
A
N
C
O
N
D
O
A
S
S
O
C
PARCEL
#
2
7
3
7
1
8
2
3
2
8
0
2
1012 E C
O
O
P
E
R
A
V
E
ASPEN,
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
STOVER
R
A
Y
M
O
N
D
J
H
J
R
&
M
A
R
Y
L
PARCEL
#
2
7
3
7
1
8
2
3
2
0
0
4
1006 E C
O
O
P
E
R
A
V
E
ASPEN,
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
MCDON
A
L
D
S
C
O
T
T
PARCEL
#
2
7
3
7
1
8
2
3
2
0
0
3
1000 E C
O
O
P
E
R
A
V
E
ASPEN,
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
RIVERSI
D
E
C
O
N
D
O
A
S
S
O
C
PARCEL
#
2
7
3
7
1
8
1
2
7
8
0
1
1024 E C
O
O
P
E
R
A
V
E
ASPEN,
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
SILVER
G
L
E
N
T
O
W
N
H
O
U
S
E
S
C
O
N
D
O
A
S
S
O
C
PARCEL
#
2
7
3
7
1
8
1
1
2
8
0
0
E HYMA
N
A
V
E
ASPEN,
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
VINCEN
T
I
C
O
N
D
O
A
S
S
O
C
PARCEL
#
2
7
3
7
1
8
1
1
2
8
0
0
E HYMA
N
A
V
E
ASPEN,
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
SUNRIS
E
C
O
N
D
O
A
S
S
O
C
PARCEL
#
2
7
3
7
1
8
2
3
2
8
0
1
1007 E
H
Y
M
A
N
A
V
E
ASPEN,
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
COOPER
T
A
C
H
E
C
H
R
I
S
T
E
N
PARCEL
#
2
7
3
7
1
8
2
3
2
0
0
1
1001 E
H
Y
M
A
N
A
V
E
ASPEN,
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
RIGHT-OF-WAY
(73.70')
SUBJECT
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
PARCEL
#
2
7
3
7
1
8
2
3
2
0
0
6
1020 E
C
O
O
P
E
R
A
V
E
ASPEN,
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
4,379 S
Q
.
F
T
.
±
O
R
0
.
1
0
1
A
C
R
E
S
±
S
7
3
°
2
1
'
0
3
"
W
6
1
7
.
2
6
'
T
I
E
FOUND #4 REBAR & YELLOW
PLASTIC CAP PLS 25947
0.2' BELOW GRADE
ELEV=7942.5
FOUND #5 REBAR &
RED PLASTIC CAP
PLS 33638
0.2' ABOVE GRADE
ELEV=7946.3
FOUND #5 REBAR
0.3' BELOW GRADE
FOUND #5 REBAR &
YELLOW PLASTIC CAP
PLS 19598
0.1' ABOVE GRADE
FOUND #5 REBAR &
YELLOW PLASTIC CAP
PLS 2376
0.2' BELOW GRADE
FOUND #5 REBAR &
YELLOW PLASTIC CAP
ILLEGIBLE
0.3' ABOVE GRADE
FOUND 1" IRON PIPE
FOUND #5 REBAR &
YELLOW PLASTIC CAP
ILLEGIBLE
0.1' BELOW GRADE
FOUND #5 REBAR &
YELLOW PLASTIC CAP
ILLEGIBLE
0.3 ABOVE GRADE
FOUND #5 REBAR
0.2' ABOVE GRADE
FOUND #5 REBAR &
YELLOW PLASTIC CAP
PLS 19598
FLUSH WITH GRADE
FOUND #4REBAR & RED
PLASTIC CAP PLS 24303
0.1' BELOW GRADE
SET #5 REBAR & ORANGE PLASTIC
CAP PLS 28643
FLUSH WITH GRADE
NE
A
R
E
S
T
I
N
T
E
R
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
O
F
CO
O
P
E
R
A
V
E
&
C
L
E
A
V
L
A
N
D
S
T
(1
7
7
.
9
'
)
N15° 46'
0
3
"
E
8
7
8
.
9
5
'
ASPEN
G
P
S
-
4
WEST E
N
D
&
HOPKIN
S
ASPEN
G
P
S
-
1
WEST E
N
D
&
DURAN
T
SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE
I, Mark S. Beckler, hereby certify to: 1020 Cooper LLC, a Colorado limited liability company and Land Title Guarantee
Company
That this is an "Improvement Survey Plat" as defined by C.R.S. § 38-51-102(9) and that it is a monumented Land Survey
showing the location of all setbacks, structures, visible utilities, fences, or walls situated on the described parcel and
within five feet of all boundaries of such parcel, any conflicting boundary evidence or visible encroachments, utilities
marked by client and all depicted easements described in Land Title Guarantee Company's, commitment for title
insurance file no. Q62010331.1, or other sources as specified on the improvement survey plat.
The error of closure for this plat is less than 1/15,000.
_____________________________________
Mark S. Beckler L.S. #28643 2020-08-07
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
The Easterly 13.79 feet of Lot O and all of Lot P, Block 34, East Aspen Addition to the City of Aspen
According to the Lot Line Adjustment/Subdivision Exemption Plat of 1020 E. Copper, recorded October
8, 2019 as reception no. 659373.
County of Pitkin
State of Colorado
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.
SOPRIS ENGINEERING - LLC
CIVIL CONSULTANTS
502 MAIN STREET, SUITE A3
CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623
(970) 704-0311 SOPRISENG@SOPRISENG.COM 8/7/2020 - 30111 - G:\2020\30111\SURVEY\Survey DWGs\Survey Plots and Exhibits\30111_ISP.dwg
VICINITY MAP
SCALE: 1" = 2000'
GENERAL UTILITY NOTES:
The locations of underground utilities have been plotted based on utility maps,
construction/design plans, other information provided by utility companies and actual
field locations in some instances. These utilities, as shown, may not represent actual
field conditions. It is the responsibility of the contractor to contact all utility
companies for field location of utilities prior to construction.
IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT
1020 E COOPER AVE
THE EASTERLY 13.79 FEET OF LOT 0 AND ALL OF LOT P, BLOCK 34, EAST ASPEN ADDITION TO THE CITY OF ASPEN
PITKIN COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO.
SHEET 1 OF 2
SOURCE DOCUMENTS:
·the Improvement Survey Map certified June 4, 2019 prepared by Tuttle Surveying Services, Job #19053 (not of the
Pitkin County, Colorado Records)
·the Plat of East Aspen Addition, recorded August 24, 1959 in Book 2 at Page 252
·Lot Line Adjustment/Subdivision Exemption Plat, recorded October 8, 2019 as Reception No. 659373.
·Historic Preservation Resolution #21, Series of 2019, recorded December 26, 2019 as Reception No. 661468
ALL OF THE PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO RECORDS-UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
NOTES
1)Date of Survey: July 2020.
2)Date of Preparation: July - August 2020.
3)Linear Units: The linear unit used in the preparation of this plat is the U.S. Survey Foot as defined by the United
States Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology.
4)Basis of Bearing: Bearings are based on the 2009 Marcin Engineering-City of Aspen Control Map, yielding a site
bearing of N 74°18'31" W from the SE Corner of Lot L, Block 34, East Aspen Addition, a found #5 rebar and yellow
plastic cap illegible, and the South East Corner of said BLock 34, a found #5 rebar and yellow plastic cap PLS 19598.
5)This survey does not constitute a title search by Sopris Engineering, LLC (SE) to determine ownership or easements of
record. For all information regarding easements, rights of way and/or title of record, SE relied upon a title
commitment prepared by Land Title Guarantee Company, Order Number Q62010331.1, Effective Date, July 2, 2020
and documents and plats of record as shown in the Source Documents, hereon.
6)Basis of elevation: The 1998 City of Aspen Drexel Barrel control datum, which is based on an elevation of 7720.88'
(NAVD 1988) on the NGS station "S-159". This established two site benchmarks, shown on page 1.
7)The FIRM flood map for this property is number 08097C0366E, effective on 08/15/2019, property is in area of
minimal flood hazard, zone X.
8)Slope - 0 - 10% per "Percent Slope within Aspen". City of Aspen - June 1, 2009 and per field work all natural slopes 0 -
10% this survey.
9)Geological Hazards - None per "Potential Geological Hazards Area". City of Aspen Master Drainage Plan. WRC
Engineering Inc. - 2001
10)Mud Flow
None per "Maximum Flow Depth, 100-Year Event". City of Aspen Master Drainage Plan. WRC Engineering Inc. - 2001
nor per "Aspen Mountain Mud Flow Zones". City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan Fig. 7.1 - 2010
11)Wetlands - None per "U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory Map"
12)Contour Interval: One (1) foot.
13)Tree measurements were performed to City of Aspen standards (Aspen Municipal Code Chapter 13 Sec. 13.20.020).
14)Address: 1020 E COOPER AVE
15)Pitkin County Parcel No.--273-718-23-2006
SITE
1 inch = ft.
( IN FEET )
GRAPHIC SCALE
020 20 40
20
8010
XGAS
X
G
A
S
X
G
A
S
XG
A
S
XG
A
S
XG
A
S
XG
A
S
XG
A
S
XG
A
S
XG
A
S
XG
A
S
XTV
XTV
XTV
XTVXTVXTVXTV
X
T
V
X
T
V
X
T
V
X
T
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XTV
XTV
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
X
T
V
X
T
V
X
T
V
X
T
V
XT
V
XT
V
XTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTV
XTV
XTV
XTV
XU
T
XU
T
XU
T
XU
T
XU
T
XU
T
XUT
XUT
XUT
XUT
XUTXUT
XUT
XU
T
XUTXUTXUTXUTXUT
X
U
T
XU
T
XU
T
XU
T
XU
T
XU
T
XU
T
XU
T
XU
T
XU
T
XU
T
XU
T
XU
T
XU
T
XU
T
XU
T
XU
T
XU
T
XUT
XU
T
XU
T
XU
T
XU
T
XU
T
XU
T
XUT
XUT
XUT
XUT
XUT
XUT
XUT
XUT
XUT
XU
T
XU
T
X
U
T
XUT XUT XUT XUT XUT
XW
L
XW
L
XW
L
XW
L
XW
L
XW
L
XW
L
XW
L
XW
L
XWL
XWL
XWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWL
X
W
L
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XE
L
X
E
L
X
E
L
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XE
L
X
E
L
X
E
L
XE
L
XE
L
XE
L
XE
L
XE
L
XE
L
XE
L
XE
L
XE
L
XE
L
XE
L
XE
L
XE
L
XE
L
XE
L
XE
L
XE
L
XE
L
XEL
XEL
XEL XEL
XELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXEL
XEL
x
xxxxxxxxxxxxx
x x x x x x x x x
XG
A
S
XG
A
S
XG
A
S
XG
A
S
XG
A
S
XG
A
S
XG
A
S
XG
A
S
XG
A
S
XG
A
S
XG
A
S
XG
A
S
XG
A
S
XG
A
S
XG
A
S
XG
A
S
XG
A
S
XG
A
S
XG
A
S
XG
A
S
XG
A
S
XGAS
XGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGAS
XGAS
XGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGAS
5'STBK 5'STBK 5'STBK 5'STBK 5'STBK 5'STBK 5'STBK 5'STBK 5'STBK 5'STBK 5'STBK 5'STBK 5'STBK 5'STBK 5'STBK 5'STBK 5'STBK
10
'
ST
B
K
10
'
ST
B
K
10
'
ST
B
K
10
'
ST
B
K
10
'
ST
B
K
10
'
ST
B
K
10
'
ST
B
K
15
'
ST
B
K
15
'
ST
B
K
15
'
ST
B
K
15
'
ST
B
K
15
'
ST
B
K
15
'
ST
B
K
15
'
ST
B
K
5'STBK5'STBK5'STBK5'STBK5'STBK5'STBK5'STBK5'STBK5'STBK5'STBK5'STBK5'STBK5'STBK5'STBK5'STBK5'STBK5'STBK
10
'
ST
B
K
10
'
ST
B
K
10
'
ST
B
K
10
'
ST
B
K
10
'
ST
B
K
10
'
ST
B
K
10
'
ST
B
K
5'
ST
B
K
5'
ST
B
K
5'
ST
B
K
5'
ST
B
K
5'
ST
B
K
5'
ST
B
K
5'
ST
B
K
XS
A
XS
A
XS
A
XS
A
XS
A
XS
A
XS
A
XS
A
XS
A
XS
A
XS
A
XS
A
XS
A
XS
A
XS
A
XS
A
XS
A
XS
A
XS
A
XS
A
XS
A
XS
A
XS
A
EA
S
T
C
O
O
P
E
R
A
V
E
N
U
E
ALLEY
(20.20')
LO
T
O
LO
T
E
LO
T
F
LO
T
G
RIGHT-OF-
W
A
Y
(73.70')
10'
SETBACK
10'
SETBACK
5'
SETBACK
5'
SETBACK
RAISED
WOODEN
PLANTER
RAISED
WOODEN
PLANTER
GATE
EX:7944.5'±EX:7944.5'±
E
X
:
7
9
4
4
.
6
'
±
E
X
:
7
9
4
4
.
5
'
±
E
X
:
7
9
4
4
.
5
'
±
E
X
:
7
9
4
4
.
5
'
±
E
X
:
7
9
4
4
.
5
'
±
E
X
:
7
9
4
4
.
0
'
±
E
X
:
7
9
4
4
.
2
'
±
E
X
:
7
9
4
4
.
1
'
±
E
X
:
7
9
4
3
.
9
'
±
E
X
:
7
9
4
3
.
9
'
±
E
X
:
7
9
4
4
.
1
'
±
E
X
:
7
9
4
4
.
0
'
±
E
X
:
7
9
4
4
.
1
'
±
E
X
:
7
9
4
3
.
6
'
±
E
X
:
7
9
4
3
.
3
'
±
E
X
:
7
9
4
2
.
9
'
±
E
X
:
7
9
4
2
.
8
'
±
E
X
:
7
9
4
2
.
9
'
±
E
X
:
7
9
4
2
.
9
'
±
E
X
:
7
9
4
2
.
9
'
±
EX:7942.9'±
E
X
:
7
9
4
3
.
0
'
±
E
X
:
7
9
4
2
.
9
'
±
E
X
:
7
9
4
3
.
0
'
±
E
X
:
7
9
4
2
.
9
'
±
E
X
:
7
9
4
2
.
9
'
±
E
X
:
7
9
4
3
.
5
'
±
E
X
:
7
9
4
3
.
5
'
±
E
X
:
7
9
4
3
.
4
'
±
E
X
:
7
9
4
3
.
4
'
±
E
X
:
7
9
4
3
.
0
'
±
EX:7943.1'±E
X
:
7
9
4
3
.
0
'
±
E
X
:
7
9
4
3
.
0
'
±
79
4
5
79
4
5
7944
7943
7944
7943
7943
7943
79
4
3
7943
794
3
7943 7943
7
9
4
4
7944
7
9
4
5
79
4
5
7
9
4
4
12
.
2
'
5.0'
17
.
5
'
35.0'
29
.
7
'
40.0'
7.3'
29
.
7
'
7.5'
14
.
1
'
10.3'
14
.
1
'
10.3'
20
.
2
'
12.1'
20
.
1
'
12.1'
MAILBOX
CONCRETE
CO
N
C
R
E
T
E
S
I
D
E
W
A
L
K
CONCRETE
GRAVEL
GRAVEL
GRAVEL
CONCRETE
P
O
R
C
H
WITH ROOF
O
V
E
R
H
A
N
G
AS
P
H
A
L
T
TOP BACK OF CURB
FLOWLINE OF CURB
CURB STOP
CABLE
BOX
BUSH BUSH
BUSH
BUSH
4 TREES
DECIDUOU
S
2.8"X6'
TREE
DECIDUOU
S
1.5"X3'
TREE
CONIFERO
U
S
14.1"X28'
FINISHED FLOOR 7944.8'±
FINISHED FLOOR 7943.3'±
FINISHED FLOOR 7943.2'±
FINISHED FLOOR 7944.8'±
BALLARD
CONCRETE
PAD
TRANSFORMER
& PAD
GAS METER
TELEPHONE PEDESTAL
TELEPHONE
CONNECTION
ELECTRIC METER
TELEPHONE
PEDESTAL
ROCK
RETAINING
WALL
ROCK
RETAINING
WALL
LOG DECORATIVE BORDER
4' WIRE FENCE
2.
5
'
W
O
O
D
F
E
N
C
E
4' WOOD FENCE
3'
W
O
O
D
F
E
N
C
E
2.
5
'
M
E
T
A
L
F
E
N
C
E
1 STORY S
I
N
G
L
E
F
A
M
I
L
Y
WOOD FRA
M
E
STRUCTUR
E
1020 E CO
O
P
E
R
A
V
E
,
ASPEN, CO
8
1
6
1
1
CONCRETE
PORCH
WITH ROOF
OVERHANG
SHED
SHED
RAIL ROAD TIE RETAINING WALL
E
X
:
7
9
4
5
.
3
'
±
E
X
:
7
9
4
4
.
8
'
±
E
X
:
7
9
4
4
.
5
'
±
E
X
:
7
9
4
4
.
5
'
±
E
X
:
7
9
4
4
.
3
'
±
E
X
:
7
9
4
4
.
3
'
±
E
X
:
7
9
4
4
.
1
'
±
E
X
:
7
9
4
4
.
0
'
±
E
X
:
7
9
4
4
.
3
'
±
E
X
:
7
9
4
4
.
5
'
±
E
X
:
7
9
4
4
.
7
'
±
E
X
:
7
9
4
4
.
8
'
±
E
X
:
7
9
4
4
.
8
'
±
E
X
:
7
9
4
4
.
9
'
±
S7
4
°
1
8
'
3
1
"
E
4
3
.
7
9
'
S15° 41' 29"W 100.00'
N7
4
°
1
8
'
3
1
"
W
4
3
.
7
9
'
N15° 41' 29"E 100.00'
TREE
CONIFERO
U
S
10.8"X21'
N7
4
°
1
8
'
3
1
"
W
2
3
9
.
9
4
'
(B
A
S
I
S
O
F
B
E
A
R
I
N
G
)
2.2'
4.4'
3.7'
0.9'
2.4'
22.7'
E
X
:
7
9
4
5
.
0
'
±
E
X
:
7
9
4
4
.
7
'
±
E
X
:
7
9
4
4
.
3
'
±
E
X
:
7
9
4
4
.
3
'
±
E
X
:
7
9
4
3
.
8
'
±
E
X
:
7
9
4
2
.
7
'
±
E
X
:
7
9
4
4
.
0
'
±
E
X
:
7
9
4
2
.
5
'
±
EX:7942.7'±
E
X
:
7
9
4
2
.
5
'
±
E
X
:
7
9
4
2
.
8
'
±
E
X
:
7
9
4
3
.
0
'
±
E
X
:
7
9
4
3
.
3
'
±
E
X
:
7
9
4
3
.
3
'
±
E
X
:
7
9
4
3
.
3
'
±
E
X
:
7
9
4
3
.
4
'
±
E
X
:
7
9
4
3
.
1
'
±
E
X
:
7
9
4
3
.
2
'
±
E
X
:
7
9
4
3
.
0
'
±
E
X
:
7
9
4
3
.
1
'
±
E
X
:
7
9
4
3
.
0
'
±
E
X
:
7
9
4
2
.
8
'
±
E
X
:
7
9
4
4
.
1
'
±
PR
I
N
C
I
P
L
E
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
AC
C
E
S
S
O
R
Y
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
15'
SETBACK
PR
I
N
C
I
P
L
E
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
AC
C
E
S
S
O
R
Y
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
5'
SETBACK
METAL STAIRS FREE STANDING
TRANSFORMER
& PAD
2.09'
8'
2'
2'X8' ELECTRIC EASEMENT
(BOOK 126 PAGE 7)
8'
3.5'
3.5'X8' ELECTRIC EASEMENT
(BOOK 126 PAGE 7)
X
S
A
TEE
XS
A
SAN SEWER
RIM = 7944.47
IN EAST 4" PVC = 7939.37
OUT WEST 4" PVC = 7938.45
SAN SEWER
RIM = 7938.68
IN EAST 8" PVC = 7931.98
OUT WEST 8" PVC = 7931.99
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.
SOPRIS ENGINEERING - LLC
CIVIL CONSULTANTS
502 MAIN STREET, SUITE A3
CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623
(970) 704-0311 SOPRISENG@SOPRISENG.COM 8/7/2020 - 30111 - G:\2020\30111\SURVEY\Survey DWGs\Survey Plots and Exhibits\30111_ISP.dwg
GENERAL UTILITY NOTES:
The locations of underground utilities have been plotted based on utility maps,
construction/design plans, other information provided by utility companies and actual
field locations in some instances. These utilities, as shown, may not represent actual
field conditions. It is the responsibility of the contractor to contact all utility
companies for field location of utilities prior to construction.
IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT
THE EASTERLY 13.79 FEET OF LOT 0 AND ALL OF LOT P, BLOCK 34, EAST ASPEN ADDITION TO THE CITY OF ASPEN
PITKIN COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO.
SHEET 2 OF 2
1 inch = ft.
( IN FEET )
GRAPHIC SCALE
04 4 8
4
162
EXISTING SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE
EXISTING CURB STOP
EXISTING GAS METER
EXISTING ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER
EXISTING ELECTRIC METER
EXISTING TELEPHONE PEDESTAL
EXISTING STORM SEWERXSDXSD
EXISTING 8" WATER MAINXWLXWL
EXISTING 8" SANITARY SEWER MAIN
EXISTING GAS
EXISTING TELEPHONE
XGAS XGAS XGAS
EXISTING UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC
EXISTING CABLE
XUT XUT XUT
XEL XEL XEL
XTV XTV XTV
XSA XSA
EXISTING LEGEND
1020 E COOPER AVE
52.0'
303.7'
Neighborhood Context
1 - 1000 East Cooper, single family home, AspenVictorian
2 - 1006 East Cooper, single family home, AspenVictorian
3 - 1012 East Cooper, 5 unit multifamily building “Cooper Ave Victorians”
4 - 1024 East Cooper, 10 unit multifamily building “Riverside Condos”
5 - 1034 East Cooper, ~25 unit multifamily building “Chateau Eau Claire”
6 - 1039 East Cooper, ~47 unit multifamily building “Chateau Roaring Fork”
7 - 1001 East Cooper, 8 unit multifamily building “Villager Townhouse”
8 - 949 East Cooper, 5 unit property “East Cooper Court”, AspenVictorian
1 2 3 4 5
6
7 8
1 2 3 44 5
6
78
6
Proposed 1020 East Cooper Project
exhibit 17
Exhibit 18
DRC Review Comment Response
January 4, 2021
1020 East Cooper Project
Exhibit 18
Response to DRC Review Comments
Building Department
Comment 1: Will be addressed at building permit.
Comment 2: The egress well has been removed from the revised plan.
Comment 3: Will be addressed at building permit.
Comment 4: Unit 103 has been redesigned to be Type B accessible unit.
Comment 5: The clear dimensions of the column work with the door/ramp access of a typical minivan.
Comment 6: Trash is on accessible route as confirmed by Building Department. Clearances will be
included in building permit.
Comments 7 – 14: Will be addressed at building permit.
Engineering Department
I reviewed the conceptual drainage report Jesse sent over last week and it addresses all of my comments
for DRC. I spoke to the Electric Department and it is acceptable to have the 2’x8’ easement in the proposed
parking space since it is to the side and not in front of the doors.
A few things to note for building permit submittal
1. Fire flow calcs will be required if a 4” service line is needed. Calcs that show a 2” service line
fails will also need to be provided.
2. The conceptual drainage report calls out that the alley will be re-designed to accommodate flows
to the curb and gutter, this design will need to be included with capacity calculations.
3. The transformer to the east has an existing easement that according to the conceptual drainage
report, is adequately sized for a future relocation. Show the dimensions of the easement (on 1020
E Cooper and the neighboring property) on the utility plan to confirm the easement meets COA
Electric standards for transformer easements. If the dimensions do not comply with COA
standards, the easement will need to be adjusted during building permit review.
Response – these items will be included in the building permit application. An electric easement drawing
demonstrating the proposed location for the upgraded vault/transformer was submitted to the City of Aspen
Engineering Department on December 21, 2020 for review.
Environmental Health Department
1020 E. Cooper Ave. – Space Allotment for Trash and Recycling Storage
Liz Chapman – Environmental Health and Sustainability
1. This space is subject to the requirements of a multi-family complex and is required to provide 120
square feet of space to the storage of trash and recycling. The current application exceeds these
standards by providing 124 SF.
a. Applicant indicates alley access will be facilitated by the use of the handicap parking access
to provide an unobstructed path to the trash area.
Exhibit 18
DRC Review Comment Response
January 4, 2021
1020 East Cooper Project
b. Applicant has indicated this space will be equipped with bear-proof technology to prevent
wildlife access.
2. These proposals meet with approval by Environmental Health.
Response: No comment necessary.
Parks Department
1. Maintain 10 foot dripline protection for shared tree – Any activity or excavation in this area will
require City Forester approval.
2. Planting trees back on this property should be explored and supported.
Response: The dripline will be maintained as noted. A complete landscape plan will be submitted as part of
the Final Design application for HPC review. Planting trees at the rear of the property will be explored when
the landscape plan is developed.